Nomad

I have to hand it to you Michael, you have more staying power than the energizer bunny. Sadly, you have yet to read or understand my posts. So one more time, first from you, then from my previous post (if you look up you will be able to find it).

See your problem? Agnostics are simply NOT atheists. At least not if we use the dictionary definition of the words. What are you using?

From Webster's.com (again):

Main Entry: athe·ism
1 (archaic)
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Main Entry: ag·nos·tic

: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

What part of this are you not getting Michael? The reason some people are called agnostics, and not called atheists is because they have not committed themselves to the existence or nonexistence of God or a god. This is very simple English. I do not know how to make it any easier for you.

So, stop lumping them together and stick with the topic please. Layman has been talking about atheists. You have attempted to insert Buddhists, agnostics and those that have their doubts about God and an afterlife into this group. Yet, through it all, you have not shown us where you have come up with your idiosyncratic views. What is your source (besides your own brain) that shows that all agnostics are atheists, and all Buddhists are atheists?

Thus far you have trashed World Almanac and Encyclopedia Britannica, and studiously ignored Webster's. I do hope that you will at least now try to provide a source that shows that your broad definition of atheists is better than theirs. (Yes, I am an optimist.

Given that Layman is the only one offering evidence, even as you continue to search for new ways to define every group you can think of as being atheist. Your refusal to accept evidence and facts from reputable sources is making you look quite dogmatic Michael.

Hmm... why are you ignoring the clear evidence of higher levels of atheism in form Communist East Germany compared to democratic West Germany? This proves very nicely that atheistic indoctrination definitely increased the levels of atheism in East Germany. Russia also offers clear proof as the number of atheists rose after Communism took over, and declined once the Communists were overthrown. Try not to be so narrow in your demands for evidence Michael, especially given your blatant inflation of the definition of what constitutes an atheist.

BTW, have you asked the agnostics on these boards why they do not call themselves atheists? Perhaps you could learn something from them.

Umm... did you notice that you actually missed the point here. The Cultural Revolution (and Layman already gave you the dates Michael, perhaps you have forgotten that fact in your zeal to defend your faith) marked the low point in modern Chinese history, where many religions were persecuted far more brutally than at any other point in the history of Communist China.

Now, stop avoiding the questions and points please.

Already given to you. Go back and read again.

More irony. How many went underground Michael? And are you now saying that persecution does not increase the number of believers in a particular group? That was your point earlier in this thread. Perhaps you have forgotten that as well.

You mean atheists as you define them of course. I understand that special pleading plays well with the masses on the SecWeb Michael. But it hardly makes for sound argumentation.

I was right, you do think that persecution produces more theists. Did this happen in East Germany 1945-89? How about Russia 1917-91? North Korea perhaps 1950-today? Your credulity and naivite is really quite remarkable Michael.

Aside from your faith in this point, what do you have to back it up?

BTW, if you are simply going to dismiss evidence that you dislike on the grounds that the people were lying to the Communists, then what kind of evidence would you like Layman to produce? You have already dissed the World Almanac and Britannica and Websters. Perhaps you could recommend some good objective atheist sites that could prove Layman's point... or you could refer him to Adherants.com even.

I guess your demands for evidence are bogus (or is that bullshit), eh Michael? You have already poisoned the well sufficiently by now that you can dismiss anything you don't like.

More well poisoning. Covering all of your bases I see.

Here we can see that Michael's personal anecdotal evidence is to be taken as gospel. After all, he has been there for 12 years!

Did I ever mention that I love irony?

After you have poisoned the well so completely? What would be the point of trying to tell you anything from an authoritative source Michael? You have your beliefs, personal experiences and anecdotal evidence, and that is enough in your view.

A couple of things here. First, you did not mention the fact that the sample GROUP size was so small, vis. vie the total population of all scientists and engineers. This was dishonest on your part. After all, the SAMPLE was not 126,000 was it?

You really are naive aren't you Michael?

Second, since you have yet to grasp the difference between an agnostic and an atheist, your understanding of the report's findings are quite suspect. Until you can clear up this important distinction in your own mind, you really can't tell us much of anything about how many people are atheists.

Thank you for admitting at least this much. Atheists and agnostics were lumped together in your sample, probably because the actual number of pure atheists was so small (like less than .5%)

This is fun.

Your list says the same thing as his last statement Michael. What is your problem?

I knew you were stubborn Michael. How about just admitting you were over zealous, got caught up in the fight, and lost your head? Then you can apologize and we can all move on. Right now you are looking like a very dogmatic atheist on a crusade, and it isn't pretty.

Just a thought.

Nomad

Layman

More untruths from you. I withdrew my comment that the majority of atheists supported forced indoctrination when you called me on it. That was about 30 or 40 posts ago. You continue to pretend that such was the focus of my post. It was not. Instead, I have focused on the majority of atheists being produced by atheistic communist regimes like the Soviet Union and Communist China. Yes, I link that growth to the oppressive methods of those countries and their promotion of atheism. Just as I link the drastic decline in the number of atheists to the end of communism in the West and the relaxation of (still) oppressive measures in communist China.

And you have no numbers for atheists in "other Chinese states" (Taiwan excepted of course). You only have numbers for nonreligous or no religion. That is not the same thing, as has clearly been stated time and time again. You may argue that the number of agnostics is in doubt, or not linked to atheistic policies in communist China, but then you are measuring something entirely different than I am. Neither of us would be wrong per se, we would be talking about two different phenomenons that are somewhat related.

So when you have X numbers of "non religious" in Hong Kong or Singapore, you are measuring something different than the World Almanac, the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and Adherents.com are when they report the number of atheists.

Besides, even if there were more atheists in the "other Chinese states" that certainly doesn't mean that the atheists in communist China were somehow completely unaffected by a totalitarian government's persecution of religion and promotion of atheism. You are really stretching creduality here. You may have faith that there would be more atheists in China if the atheistic commies had not and were not promoting atheism and persecution religion, but you have nothing by wishful thinking.

The only thing "handed" to me in this thread has been your definitional games, methodoligical inconsistencies, and insult after insult after insult (and counting).

More later, time permitting.



[ July 19, 2001: Message edited by: Layman ]

Toto

Nomad - you snipped the quote from the Buddhist writer to obscure the point that he was making. It is not that Buddhists do not believe in a creator god, but do believe in some minor godlets or demons. Buddhist theology does not involve gods. What Buddhism shares with other religions is morality, spirituality, and a belief that the greatest happiness is not found in the material world. I repeat my challenge to you to find any Buddhist who claims to be a theist, even if they reject the word "atheist".

Atheists have spent almost as much time debating who is an atheist as Christians have spent debating who qualifies as a Christian. (That's why we use words like "secular" or "freethinker".) After much debate, it has been generally agreed that there is a large overlap between atheists and agnostics. Atheists are people without a "theism" - they lack a belief in god, even if they are not prepared to disprove the existence of god. Agnosticism is a word coined by Huxley, and refers to a methodology of only believing what can be proven. Many people (if not most atheists) consider themselves both.

Some atheists reject the word "agnostic" because it sounds too wimpy. Some agnostics reject the word "atheist" because it sounds harsh, as if it were "anti-god". Some atheists refuse to use any of these words, or call themselves "pantheists" or just say that they're "not religious." (And I am sure that there are some atheists who call themselves Protestant or Jewish on surveys. The Chinese are not the only people who lie to pollsters.) But you're talking about people who believe (or don't believe) the same things and act the same way.

Your dictionary might not reflect this - some dictionaries define "atheist" as "wicked".

The fact that you want to quibble about this is quite strange. I do not try to define who is a Christian, much less who is a real Christian.

Layman

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Toto:
[QB]

Toto,

I really don't care what you want to call yourself. I was clear that I was talking about what I guess you would call "hard" or "postive" or affirmative" atheists. Frankly, I don't care what you call it. What was being measure was those who deny the existence of God. That's how the World Alamanc defined it, Encyclopedia Brittanica, and Websters dictionary. Apparently the only people who are confused about this point are so-called atheists themselves.

You have a modern lexicon comparable to Websters that defines atheists as "wicked"? Which one?

Although much wickedness has been done by atheists, I certainly wouldn't define them as inherently being "wicked" in the comparative sense.

TollHouse

By equating atheism to someone who "denies the existence of God" you have proven to all of us here that it is you who are confused.
You should know by now the difference between denial and disbelief.

Anyway, taking this grand sideshow aside for a moment, what is your point?

Layman

Let me be exactingly clear: those who affirmatively deny the existence of a god, gods, and the supernatural. I don't think that pantheists are atheists. I don't think that polytheists are atheists. I don't that that those who worship the spirits of their ancestors are atheists.

Hope that clears up your confusion.

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Layman:
[QB]

More untruths from you. I withdrew my comment that the majority of atheists supported forced indoctrination when you called me on it. That was about 30 or 40 posts ago. You continue to pretend that such was the focus of my post. [/b]

Actually, I haven't mentioned it since your withdrawal, until you started whining about the tone of the post. Then I was forced to remind you who had started the mudslinging.

It was not. Instead, I have focused on the majority of atheists being produced by atheistic communist regimes like the Soviet Union and Communist China. Yes, I link that growth to the oppressive methods of those countries and their promotion of atheism. Just as I link the drastic decline in the number of atheists to the end of communism in the West and the relaxation of (still) oppressive measures in communist China.

I am aware that you link them. I am also aware that you have provided no context by which we can determine whether these assertions of yours are true. We both agree that the number of people professing theism fell after the Wall fell, and that the number of people professing theism rose in China when religious repression was relaxed after 1980. However, so far, you have not demonstrated that after 1980, many people who were committed atheists in their hearts in China suddenly saw the light.

To give another example, the number of capitalists rose after 1980 as well. I suppose you are going to argue with me that these petty capitalists were all "new" capitalists and that the common people had never been capitalist? Of course not. We know that the people practiced petty capitalism openly and covertly as State repression compelled. Petty capitalism has a long history in China, and AFAIK, nobody has argued that the Chinese people discovered capitalism since Deng came to power.

Similarly, I am not aware of any academic who has argued that the rise open theism since 1980 is anything other than a resumption of the normal pattern of belief rather than "new" theism in response to former "atheism."
The only "new" thing is the rise in Christians. It would be interesting to find out who the Christians are converting. The unchurched? Daoists? Buddhists?

Another problem with your absurd claim is that if all those people had really been atheists, then repression would have been unnecessary. But Layman, ongoing repression of an activity indicates that an activity is ongoing. That's simple historical method. If people in the 13 colonies pass laws against women running off to join the Indians, it is because women were doing so.

Thus, ongoing repression of theism in China indicates that it was not significantly eliminated, but simply went underground. This is a habitual behavior throughout Chinese history, and in all Chinese societies. I could give thousands of examples, from anti-Qing nationalist groups to the use of postdated checks in the informal loan system, of things that were outlawed and kept right on going, just going underground, or even ignoring the government openly. As the Chinese say, Beijing pretends to rule, and we pretend to be ruled.

Now, the burden of proof is on you, Layman, to support the causal chain you have laid out. So far I see no contextualized numbers, no cites from the anthropological literature on Chinese religion, no comments from personal experience, whereas I have cited all three. You have not sufficient expertise to argue on these matters, as witnessed by your latest gaffe involving the Cultural Revolution and repression of religion.

And you have no numbers for atheists in "other Chinese states" (Taiwan excepted of course). You only have numbers for nonreligous or no religion. That is not the same thing, as has clearly been stated time and time again.

You have stated that, true. What you have not done, as I HAVE, is offered either sociological knowledge, personal experience and relevant quotes from the literature to talk about that. I know, from personal experience of Asians who do not practice religion, that they are nearly all atheists (actually, we would both probably describe them more correctly as "unchurched," but those are atheists too). That is why you cannot participate meaningfully here, because you lack a perspective that would enable you to understand the utterly different cultural context of religious behavior.

In any case, if we read about Japan, and find that only 7% practice any religion, you would have to be totally ignorant of human nature and east asian history to assume that those people are all theists who don't practice. That position is absurd.

That is why "irreligion" and "atheism" in an Asian context are pretty much the same thing. We cannot be certain about the numbers, but they are extremely high. Much higher than China.

There are questions here that you have never answered. Are people who are superstitious atheists? If so, then there are basically no atheists in Taiwan or any Chinese society. What if I don't believe in any gods, but practice feng shui and revere my ancestors? Many Taiwanese women who practice austere forms of buddhism nevertheless follow all sorts of practices that are pre-civilized in nature, and further, subscribe to the potency of other religions that do have gods; for example, if Daoist rituals are being performed in their neighborhood when they are pregnant, they close their doors because it is well known that daoist rituals are potent and can hurt the unborn child. I mean, if I don't believe in gods, but believe in the potency of other gods (I reject), what am I?

You may argue that the number of agnostics is in doubt, or not linked to atheistic policies in communist China, but then you are measuring something entirely different than I am.

Layman, you are not measuring anything at all! So far I have not seen a contextualized number -- in fact, you have never expressed those numbers of yours as percentages, because you know perfectly well that if you did, your case would fall to the ground. Until we know how many atheists there were in China prior to 1949, we cannot claim that anything has happened. Your argument is akin to arguing that the US enjoys the highest rate of economic growth, because it has the largest economy. That's absurd. What we need to know is the historical trends, and you have resolutely failed to give them to us.

The trends, Layman. Do you have any?

The burden of proof is on you, Layman, to provide the link between government policy and the "growth" of atheism -- which, as we have seen, is actually a fall -- in China. YOU did the asserting, it falls on you to research the relevant literature and prove that those zillions of atheists, however many there are (and we don't know), were all due to government policy, and not due to the widespread E. Asian practice of not practicing religion.

And yes, Layman, the numbers are in doubt. I don't have this fetishistic belief in a number I find from an almanac. I want to know where it comes from.

Neither of us would be wrong per se, we would be talking about two different phenomenons that are somewhat related.

Squirming again. Your claims are as of yet unproven. Can you at least get us some figures on religious belief in pre-1949 China, so we can start thinking about how China ended up with so many theists, when Hong Kong, Macao, Singapore, and Taiwan are all less religious?

So when you have X numbers of "non religious" in Hong Kong or Singapore, you are measuring something different than the World Almanac, the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and Adherents.com are when they report the number of atheists.

Hmm....neat-o. So in fact, the Almanac sent people out in the field, and asked the Chinese: "Are you a philosophically committed atheist and skeptic? And if you are an agnostic, please check here...."

If you believe than, I have this bridge in Brooklyn....

The fact is that the numbers at Britannica are bullshit until proven otherwise. China's own government says less than 10% of its people are atheists. And as we have seen, there are no really good numbers coming out of China. So where does Britannica get these numbers? Do you know? Does anybody?

Besides, even if there were more atheists in the "other Chinese states" that certainly doesn't mean that the atheists in communist China were somehow completely unaffected by a totalitarian government's persecution of religion and promotion of atheism. You are really stretching creduality here. You may have faith that there would be more atheists in China if the atheistic commies had not and were not promoting atheism and persecution religion, but you have nothing by wishful thinking.

My dear Layman, as Nomad would say, it is incumbent on you to prove a substantial effect from persecution. I am sure there are some people who conceive themselves to be atheists based on government indoctrination -- but frankly I doubt there are many, because I suspect most of them still practice some religion that you would regard as making them theists.

And my belief that there would be substantial numbers of atheists in China is not based on "wishful thinking, but intead based on:

1) actual study under academic specialists
2) actual living in a Chinese society
3) actual research conducted in a Chinese society
4) actual 00s of books on my shelf and in boxes about Chinese society
5) actually speaking two Chinese languages
6) actual ongoing participation in research, converstation and exchange with scholars on China

etc. etc. There is one person in this conversation that has no expertise on China. It isn't me.

So when I say that I would expect large numbers of atheists regardless of the type of government, I say that

• noting that colonial Hong Kong and Macau, right-wing Leninist Taiwan, and authoritarian Singapore, all much freer than China, have produced more atheists & irreligious than China;
  
• my knowledge of Chinese history, which has a whole section of the population being more or less skeptical atheists throughout history;
  
• my personal experience of life in a Chinese society, where I have noticed that many people do not practice religion, and consider themselves non-believers.

And against this, you want to put up simpleminded repetition of big numbers. Oh boy. That's devastating. Numbers mean nothing, Layman, unless you can talk about ratios and rates, about trends and history.

And you can't, because every time you open your mouth about history and China, you stick your foot in it. BTW, when did China begin repressing theists? In May of 1966, when the Cultural Revolution began? I don't think so.

The only thing "handed" to me in this thread has been your definitional games, methodoligical inconsistencies, and insult after insult after insult (and counting).

I hope you've noticed the ideological corner into which you've painted yourself. You've defined atheism so that it doesn't include agnostics. I hope you have some way of showing that none of those Chinese atheists is really what we would call an agnostic. Otherwise, you have no numbers at all.

But I'll be kind to you, and let you lump agnostics and atheists together, as nearly all polling organizations, humanist and atheist organizations do.

I am still waiting for contextualized, historically-cognizant evidence on the development of atheism in China. Otherwise, Layman, yes, everyone will notice that your head has been handed to you.

So, show me a context, or retract.

Michael

TollHouse

Layman, why are you inventing a particular restricting meaning of the word "atheist"? By your narrow standards, most of us here are not atheist (myself included).

Is this so you can feel justified in claiming so few atheists in North America (which you must know by now to be a pipe-dream)?

If you can not play the game with the same deck of cards as the rest of us then I find very little value in your input.

You charge turtonm with fiddling with numbers and percentages but it's okay for you to mangle definitions?

Layman

It also happens to be Webster's definintion. And the World Almanac and Encyclopedia Brittanica also distinguish atheism and agnosticism. So I'm not "mangling" a definintion.

I'm not making the claim. The World Almanac is reporting statistics. I also posted the numbers of Nonreigious, which includes agnostics. It's not my fault so few people consider themselves atheists. So far NOONE has given any numbers to the contrary and I'll continue with my reasonable reliance on an established, respected source of information.

A skeptic who has little value for my input? I hardly find that surprising. Or, particularly troubling. I come here because I disagree with you guys. Remember?

I'm using the same definitions as Websters is apparently. And relying on respected, established sources that make the distinction between atheists and agnostics. You may disagree with me and my sources, but it's hardly fair to characterize it as "mangling."

Toto

How do you know that? What was the survey methodology?

Certainly much wickedness has been done by Christians. I have to work hard not to think of them as inherently "wicked".