In Reply to: Re: Is Faith Good for Us? posted by moonshiner on July 31, 2006 at 13:59:23:
MS:
I would, first, note that the "predominant atheism" in Japan is in revolt against progenitor worship (they lost their asses in WWI BECAUSE of military decisions by the Emperor they were literally worshipping at the time), Bhuddhism (Zen, Nichiren Shoshu and Shinto), and so forth.
Christian missionaries came in great numbers after WWI, and had great success, but never managed to penetrate the government, which basically carried on as before the war within the same infrastructure.
The Japanese government bailed out and subsidized all of its major corporations continuously after that, and the "religious loss of face" psychology there has led to massive amounts of especially teen suicide--all of that has little or NOTHING to do with the idea form "dogmatic atheism" about the "evils of all religions as equally superstitious--that's WAY too simplistic an answer. Consult some less rabid "dogmatic atheism" sources for a plainer and more reliable source of data; please.
So much for the claim that “…in sum, countries with high rates of organic atheism are among the most societally healthy on earth…” that you quoted.
Also, government bailout philosophy has finally come home to roost, and Japan's temporary and slight economic "hegemony" in the region is fading fast, and definitely does NOT prove any weak hypotheses regarding so-called "organic atheism" and its so-called “benefits”. You don’t have a model of what really has occurred, here, you have a losse grouping of weak hypotheses looking unsuccessfully for substantiation.
Futhermore, upon reading the sources you cut 'n' pasted from (again!--"sigh"--), it is quite easy to scan the body of text for its boringly predictable content, and then to peruse the sources at the end.
They are the likes of "Sceptic" magazine and its ilk, extremely liberal American universities NOT reflecting public opinion, and still insisting on touting Sociology as a SCIENCE; for crying out loud(which I and several others here have also HAD to study as a part of current curriculae in order to get a degree)!
The major theorists for Sociology (which I cannot honestly cateogorize as even a so-called "discipline") are Karl Marx (yes--the same!), Herbert Spencer, Max Weber, George Simmel, Emile Durkheim, & George Herbert Mead. Please re-read my earlier posts about communism and socialism—the REAL problem is that so many unworthy-of-the-name “professors with tenure” are lodged in place in the industry of the American university system, and cannot publish contrary to the universities’ anti-God “party line” without “perishing”, and losing their acclaim and position. Hence, they still put out drivel for the false hope of European-style socialism, whose belief paradigm is dogmatic atheism—it’s pretty simple; actually. But it doesn’t reflect the opinion of most Americans, nor does it support the false hypothesis of so-called “organic atheism”.
Ergo, the same things I listed as problematic for the article quoted in your original copy-out non-argument would still hold here. As I said, “both communism and socialism are to one extent or another quite parasitic, and socialism is not only basically “communism for pussies” (no actual killing is claimed as “necessary”, although they have done, and DO, plenty of that), it makes nations very poor, as they cannot compete with democracies—do you see any of those so-called “organically atheistic” countries among the G8?”
Finally, it should probably also be pointed out that the big new “Atheism” article you quoted at least admitted that “Assessing rates of belief or disbelief among large populations is extremely difficult. Determining what percentage of a given society believes in God – or doesn’t -- is fraught with methodological difficulties, most importantly: 1) low response rates, 2) non-random samples, 3) adverse political or cultural climates, and 4) problematic cross-cultural terminology.”.
If you hold true to form, here, Moonshiner, I expect you to avoid answering anything I’ve fairly pointed out here, and merely continue to post more typical “dogmatic atheism” (“Organic” or not! ;-) ) “cut ‘n’ pastes”.
Surprise me?!
In good humor, but in all honesty,
OT2 (OldtimerToo)