China Has Highest Percentage of Atheists in the World, Gallup Survey Says

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

The study, which explored religious tendencies of 66,000 people in 68 countries across the world in 2017, has found that 67 percent of Chinese citizens do not believe in religion; only 9 percent identify as religious, according to The Inquirer.

To read more:

https://www.christianpost.com/news/china-highest-percentage-atheists-world-gallup-survey.html

The study was conducted by Gallup.

So, in this country where a clear majority are atheists, how much better is life there than in the many countries where theists are in the majority?

Well, there are concentration camps, but the Government calls then reeducation camps. It sounds better.

And in the Uighur areas, many families are being forced to host a Han Chinese personal spy to search for signs of religion and other deviant thought.

And workers rights are nearly non-existent.

And the Government controls every attempt at religious expression, including appointing priests.


And at one time, there was a strict policy regarding how many children a family could have.

And there were the millions killed as Mao imposed his own version of a workers paradise free from theism.

Feel free to add to this list of accomplishments.

[msongs]

1. feel free to prove that disbelief of religion is responsible for any of those nt

[guillaumeb]

3. Just an attempt at dialogue.

[Voltaire2]

32. Gaslighting. An attempt at gaslighting.

You don’t do “dialog”.

By the way your excerpt has a glaring error. An atheist is not a person who doesn’t believe in religions. An atheist is a person with no belief in gods.

[guillaumeb]

44. Right.

[guillaumeb]

46. But religion is the problem.

Except when it is not.

[elleng]

2. Wasn't 'religion' forbidden?

'Old habits'

[guillaumeb]

4. Not at this point.

Officially the Chinese Constitution allows for freedom to practice religion.

[elleng]

5. 'New' constitution?

[guillaumeb]

6. Not as far as I know.

But even under Stalin Russians were free to believe.

And free to suffer the consequences if that belief.

[Lordquinton]

63. Since when did Stalin have power over China?

This is very confusing.

[guillaumeb]

67. I am certain that you understood what I was saying.

I have confidence.

[Lordquinton]

69. So what were you saying?

[Voltaire2]

71. I'm certain he has no idea.

He’s just acting out the argument clinic.

[Lordquinton]

73. If it wasn't about Stalin ruling China

Then it was something way off topic, which he has been chastising others for doing all throughout this thread.

[Eko]

7. How do

Non secular democratic governments stack up to us?

[guillaumeb]

8. Start another thread.

A good question.

But this thread is about how the non-theists who head the Government of China are behaving.

Interesting how some people in power can behave. With such intolerance.

Almost as if intolerance is one negative aspect of tribalism.

[Eko]

9. I guess you dont want to have dialogue.

And instead want to bash atheism. I hear ya.

[guillaumeb]

10. We are talking.

But following the lead of MM, I ask that you speak to the topic, or, start another thread about your own topic.

And I am not bashing the concept of atheism, just making a point about how some atheists behave.

[Eko]

11. Oh well,

one government,, that's cool. You could at least talk about two types of atheists. Are you a social scientist?

[guillaumeb]

12. Humans cannot be so easily divided.

While I know a few atheists, I would not classify all atheists as belonging to 2 groups.

[Eko]

15. How many do I need to know to do that?

I know hundreds of Christians, probably over a thousand. Exactly how many do I need to know before I can opine?

[guillaumeb]

16. You can obviously have an opinion,

and express it. But that says nothing about the validity of your observation.

And my post about China concerns the atheists in power. And how these powerful atheists behave in exactly the same manner as some theists in power.

Blame humans.

[Eko]

17. I guess that means that

your opinion says nothing about the validity of your observation also then.

[guillaumeb]

19. But if humans in power often behave as totalitarians,

one might make an observation that it is the behavior, and not the label, that is important.

[Eko]

21. Obviously humans in power

also behave in democratic ways, its odd that you leave that out. Just like there are nations that are democratic but secular and non secular there are also totalitarian nations that are secular and non secular. If you are talking about non secular then to leave out the democratic nations that are non secular is pretty odd.

[guillaumeb]

22. My focus was on the article.

And some observations about the behavior of the Chinese Government.

And as I said, it is the actions that we should judge, not the labels we attach.

[Eko]

23. Well there is this.

"those democratic nations today that are the most secular, such as Scandinavia, Japan, Australia, the Netherlands, etc., are faring much better on nearly every single indicator of well-being imaginable than the most religious nations on earth today, such as Colombia, Jamaica, El Salvador, Yemen, Malawi, Pakistan, the Philippines, etc." https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-secular-life/201410/secular-societies-fare-better-religious-societies
You can always pick the worst and complain about that, I probably am guilty of that from time to time to make a point but at least this gives us a big picture view.

[guillaumeb]

24. These secular nations are also much wealthier.

And I agree with your point here, but my point remains that we must judge the actions.

[Eko]

25. So are you now saying

that wealth is a bigger influence than religion or non religion on how a county acts? If so we should move out of the religion forum.

[Act_of_Reparation]

34. So you're saying anecdotal experience might not be statistically significant?

Fascinating. You might consider that when next citing your observations re: human nature and history.

[MineralMan]

36. Follow your own lead, Guy! Leave me out of it.

You wrote: "And I am not bashing the concept of atheism, just making a point about how some atheists behave."

That is exactly what Rug used to do in this group, and that's exactly why I stopped participating. As someone upthread said, what you're doing is gaslighting, combined with creating a strawman.

Nobody here praises China. Nobody here claims that China is a model that should be followed. Atheism is not a political philosophy. China is largely a country that does not support religious beliefs. It does not represent atheism.

[guillaumeb]

47. Read #34

And apply it.

[Voltaire2]

33. We have the highest incarceration rate on the planet.

But we love gods and hate commies so it is all good

[guillaumeb]

48. China has concentration camps for theists.

But they call them reeducation camps.

[Voltaire2]

49. We have concentration camps for African Americans

but we call them “prisons”.

[guillaumeb]

50. So what do we conclude?

Is it theism, or atheism, or human behavior?

[Voltaire2]

51. That communism is a shitty system

with respect to human rights, and that we aren’t doing much better.

[guillaumeb]

52. And who devised both systems?

Humans.

[Voltaire2]

53. I'm sure you think you have a point there someplace.

On the other hand it looks like you are engaged in reductionism into meaninglessness. Carry on.

[guillaumeb]

54. reductio ad absurdum?

Not even close.


Try again.

[safeinOhio]

13. I wonder about the terms used by the writer.

The 3 major philosophies/religions of China are Atheist, for the most part.

[guillaumeb]

14. I cannot speak for the author.

But if the choice is a binary, one will choose.

My point is that humans generally behave in similar ways. And humans with power do the same. So any talk about the evils of theism, or atheism, is merely an observation about human behavior.

[Major Nikon]

18. So religion can never be blamed for bad behavior

[guillaumeb]

20. Off topic,

and answered numerous times by me.

And rebutted by my ending here.

The reply that you replied to.

[Major Nikon]

28. ...

So any talk about the evils of theism, or atheism, is merely an observation about human behavior.

[NeoGreen]

35. Is it too soon for the train wreck gif?...

...inquiring minds want to know.

[Major Nikon]

38. Too late if anything

Then again, it's never too late.

[safeinOhio]

31. Perhaps a very bias view of human behavior from this source.

Known for their fluff articles about Franklin Graham Jr.

[guillaumeb]

43. A Gallup poll was referenced. eom

[True Dough]

26. Also the highest percentage

of Chinese food!

[demosincebirth]

27. Who would have known? Everyone!

[gtar100]

29. Tibet - the Chinese government went after the monestaries with a vengence.

They even declared the right to name the Dali Lhama. Insane. It will ultimately fail. Because they threaten people who assert their religious beliefs, of course most people are going to say they are non-believers. It's a matter of survival. Trying to uphold such a false narrative is destined to fail because people's spiritual practices - religions - are based on an organic human activity. That will not go away but the suppression of religion by the Chinese government can only last as long as they are able drag people off to "re-education" camps or haul them off to shoot them in the back of their heads. They are fighting against human nature.

[guillaumeb]

45. But these observations about a repressive Government led by atheists

conflict with the often repeated dialogue blaming religion for everything.

[gtar100]

57. That they do.

It seems the Chinese government wants to control the hearts and minds of people and they see religions as being in direct competition. They can't just turn religion "off", as much as they try. So they have to come up with something that will fill the void - being a good citizen, service and honorifics to the State, unselfish behavior for the good of the country...patriotism. All very unsatisfactory answers to existential and religious questions. It's a clash of cultural power structures - government and religion.

Far from being irrelevant, it's an interesting contrast to the highly religious societies in western states, particularly the US. Here in the US, atheists are very much a minority but are (thankfully) protected by laws in expressing their own beliefs/non-beliefs; yet they still find it very difficult to run for government positions openly as atheists in many parts of the US. In some places it's downright oppressive for atheists. It's easy to point the finger at religion rather than human nature expressed through a religious framework. But flip the coin and make atheism the state position on religion (a la, China), and suddenly they have the power to assert their own ideology onto the masses. What do they do? Attempt to suppress religious practices. What a surprise! Should we blame it on atheism? I wouldn't. It's people attempting to control other people through the structures at hand. Based on your replies to others here, I think that's what you are driving at - it's not religion, per se, but human nature. And that is a very significant distinction to make.

And here's why: when a culture arises, it comes with several features that manifest in unique styles that distinguish and define its uniqueness (I'm thinking of historical peoples, i.e., Sumerian, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Indian, Chinese, Mayan, etc.). Those features include:

1. Government (a set of societal rules to live by and a framework for applying and enforcing those rules)
2. Religion (the practices of an orthodox interpretation of the spiritual traditions and philosophical understandings of the people); and
3. Economy (the means for sustaining the people and culture with the essential requirements and other needs).

Government, religion and the economy - they appear to me to be the basic, essential elements of culture...frameworks. The nuance I think that's missing from most dialogues discussing religion with atheists is the recognition of religion as a natural expression of human nature. They see it as an aberration and miss the forest for the trees. But I wouldn't want to shut them down for that or attempt to "convert" them to a religion - that's disrespectful and stupid, coercive behavior - as if I had answers to their personal lives! Rather, I like to hear opinions and beliefs on origins of life and our relationship to nature, the cosmos, the universe, consciousness and all that jazz. So if there are no gods, what is the origin? How deep do they want to go? Can they dream of better gods by other names or express more meaningful interpretations of nature that can satisfy the longings we all have that lead us to question things and attempt to understand who and what we are as individuals and as communities of people? What models can they build for understanding? If "religion" is nothing more than the institutions of the Church, Synagogue, Temple, or Mosque, then yes, those theoretically can be gotten rid of and they could triumphantly proclaim that religion is kaput. But they can't get rid of what makes religion arise out of human nature.

Side note - I apologies for the long replies but I appreciate your questions; they get me thinking. Thankfully, they aren't required reading for anyone! 8)

[guillaumeb]

61. Please, no apologies for an excellent response.

And I agree that despotic rulers generally do not welcome alternatives to their own will.

Even in what we call the more enlightened countries, especially the Scandinavian countries, outbreaks of Islamophobia and other forms of intolerance arise. It is human nature to be tribal, and competing ideologies are often seen as a threat to the tribe.

All tribes define what it is to be a member of the tribe. In China, under the current system, a "good member" will be an atheist.

As to a natural expression of human nature, given that over 85% of humans define themselves as theists, it seems apparent that theism is the default condition.


I would suggest that you make your reply part of a separate post.

[gay texan]

30. Hardcore fundy Baptists saying communism leads to atheism

In 3, 2, 1.....

[edhopper]

37. And right behind China

are Japan, Estonia, Sweden and Norway, obviously all oppressive governments due to lack of religion.

And which are the most religious countries, which enjoy freedom and liberty?
Yemen, Ethiopia and Malawi and Niger.

Please show how the lack of religion correlates and is the CAUSE of these actions.

[MineralMan]

40. Don't hold your breath.

[Major Nikon]

39. ...

[MineralMan]

41. That poor trestle!

What a shame!

[edhopper]

42. China consumes more rice than any other country

how much better is life there than countries that consume pasta?

[applegrove]

55. The Chinese Government just announced that they were going to rate

every single person in their country on the basis of what they do. I would have claimed to be an atheist too to Gallup if my government was China, and I'm not an atheist.

[guillaumeb]

56. A good point.

Labels count.

[Voltaire2]

58. The statistics on atheism in China

go back long before the government’s announcement of its social credit rating system.

By the way Japan also has a very large atheist identification rate.

Chinese culture has non-theistic roots that go back thousands of years.

[MineralMan]

59. Chinese culture has long included Confucianism, which

can be seen as a theistic religion or simply a philosophy. It has been seen as both at one time or another, depending on who is seeing it. It's a complicated thing, with even the Chinese Communist party trying to deal with and incorporate that historical religion/philosophy. There are also many folk religions that have been part of the larger Chinese culture. China is not homogeneous in its cultural heritage by any means.

But, as you say, theism, as we think of it in Western civilization, has not really been a large part of Chinese history. East Asian religions, for the most part, are quite different from our Western equivalents.

It's very difficult for most people to understand the role of religion in the overall Chinese culture. That's because it's very dissimilar to what we understand as religion. If we see China as an atheistic culture, with some traditional analogs to religious practices and philosophy, we can get closer to an understanding, but it's still confusing.

In any case, Chinese society and ours are, and always have been, very different. Without being immersed in it from childhood, it's pretty difficult to sort it all out, I think. Do Chinese atheists have the same philosophy as I do? Nope. Atheism has no doctrine. It has no scripture. It has no common meaning, except the rejection of belief in supernatural entities such as deities. Beyond that, there is no consensus on what atheism is.

We make a huge mistake when we try to put all atheists in one philosophical basket. Atheism has no universal philosophy about anything but supernatural entities. We don't believe those exist. Everything else about atheism is an individual response, or a cultural imperative, as it is in China to some degree.

[Voltaire2]

60. Daoism also goes back thousands of years

and is found in various forms throughout South Asia and China. It too is non theistic.

But conflating communist totalitarianism and atheism is too bright a shiny object for assorted axe grinders to resist.

[MineralMan]

62. True on all counts

[Lordquinton]

64. Can you post a link to the survey?

I couldn't find it, just links to other articles about it.

[MineralMan]

65. I couldn't find either, and I'm pretty good at that.

Interesting that nobody links to the pool info...

[MineralMan]

66. Found it:

http://www.gallup-international.bg/en/Publications/2017/373-Religion-prevails-in-the-world

[guillaumeb]

68. Thank you. eom

[Lordquinton]

70. Interesting

Noting several things about it, like no methodology, and a super shady website. They ask several questions that are very similar, and are very judeo-christian centric. "Religious beliefs: God, Soul, heaven, hell and life after death" are all very specific to one religious group, with the exception of the life after death, which can vary depending on translation.

Also of note is the link between religion and education and poverty, funny how that conversation never happens.

[MineralMan]

72. It's interesting that none of the places that

used this information included a link. It wasn't all that difficult to find, but it's sketchy, as you say.

That's why I'm skeptical of religious websites that quote statistics without including links to their sources. There's too much opportunity in that for including only data that supports whatever position the website wants to promote. If I can't check the source, I discount the website's validity considerably.