Atheist church has first schism

[Craig B]

I never said that those individuals would actually believe that "intelligent design" is accurate or true in any sense of the word. The only relevant thing is that they are atheists yet wish, for whatever reason, to have intelligent design taught in school.

But taught as science? Even though they think it isn't true in any sense of the word, they think it should be taught as science? Do they then believe it's a wrong theory, but that it nonetheless emerged as a result of proper application of the scientific method, like, say, phlogiston, or the luminiferous ether, or the electric fluid?

 

[tsig]

I don't really see how that's relevant. The thing i wanted to point out was that you apparently treated "atheism" as if it entailed secularism and opposition towards intelligent design which it does not.



I never said that those individuals would actually believe that "intelligent design" is accurate or true in any sense of the word. The only relevant thing is that they are atheists yet wish, for whatever reason, to have intelligent design taught in school.

Who are these atheists?

 

[Craig B]

Who are these atheists?

Raelians, seemingly. But they are clearly a religious group, albeit evidently insane, and probably led by charlatans rather than mere lunatics. Their beliefs about the "aliens" are in no way scientific.

 

[blutoski]

The view that skepticism is a method and not a set of beliefs is pretty much universal among skeptics. It is clearly the premise of say, the one million dollar challenge.

I disagree. There is an entire thread on 'what is skepticism' where this is discussed.

Secondly, even those who might agree that it's "a method" have no agreement on what method, exactly.

The "beliefs" that skepticism has are axiomatic ones, such that science is the best way for finding out about the world.

Sort of. Skeptics may mostly agree on that slogan. They don't agree at all on what it means.

The question that would follow would be: what is 'science' - there is no agreement on this within skepticism that I'm aware of, no way to translate the 'slogans' to a real decision-making process. If there was a process, we wouldn't have so many disagreements. We disagree, first and foremost, on the process.

You might be interested in Loxton's long essay Why Is There a Skeptical Movement? He writes:

The boldened parts, that's pretty much what skeptical organizations, podcasts, outlets and so on, do. I don't think that's particularly controversial.

No, he's actually making a bold claimthere, that probably the majority of new skeptics disagree with. He's fighting against a culture change, this paragraph describes his personal feelings about what skepticism is. He has received much criticism. I share his view, and receive similar criticism.

Notice he's excluding, say, economics, healthfraud, social justice advocacy, and politics. The point of that passage was that Loxton's pitching a reduced scope for skepticism (as a movement, not as a philosophy of life). He argues that whatever skeptics think as individuals, organized skepticism should restrict itself to fringe claims that are not already studied by experts in relevant fields. He also excludes activities such as supporting GLBT rights, as he thinks they're entirely unrelated to skepticism per se. In contrast, as an example, DJ Grothe has been very clear that he thinks GLBT is a 100% skeptical topic.

Basically: he's explicitly refuting the model of skepticism as critical thinking in action.

As I said: Daniel and I have mulled over this stuff for decades. I don't think you're quite understanding his work.

Personally, I think he's tilting at windmills. The damage has been done. Shermer's marketing of 'skepticism = critical thinking' is a meme that is not going away, and the impact is irreversible.

I assume you are aware that when people on this forum say "skepticism", it is shorthand for scientific skepticism.

Not really. Some do; some don't. Sometimes a person will use it differently in different contexts. Sometimes 'skepticism' refers to 'the skeptical community' - the people in it. Sometimes it means 'organized skepticism' - the societies like JREF or CFI or SS.

That's my point.

But those same skeptics would change their minds if evidence for the existence of Bigfoot was forthcoming.

Some would; some wouldn't. Most have not come by their disbelief through critical thinking either, and as the saying goes, you can't reason somebody out of something they didn't reason themselves into in the first place. Skeptics are like the rest of the world and absorbed it somehow. This is why one of the earlier definitions of skeptics was 'doubters'. This predates the idea of critical thinking and probably describes skeptical culture better.

As it happens, skeptics are not particularly good critical thinkers, and part of the culture is that we love to think critically until it threatens a belief, then we stop thinking critically and do whatever we have to to shore up our claim. 'the inner lawyer'

This relates to the research I did with BCSkeptics - skeptics appear to be slightly worse critical thinkers than the general public. I have no confidence we come across our collection of beliefs through a better process. I expect we have absorbed them culturally through trust in the sources, which is the normal way people accumulate beliefs.

 

[blutoski]

Raelians, seemingly. But they are clearly a religious group, albeit evidently insane, and probably led by charlatans rather than mere lunatics. Their beliefs about the "aliens" are in no way scientific.

Raelians and their knockoffs. General category is "UFO Cults" I think.

But the Raelians are the most financed and most clearly documented getting involved in intelligent design lobbying.

They're religious by law, but sort of not by definition, since they don't have supernatural beliefs. They are based on what I'd call cargo cult science.

 

[blutoski]

But taught as science? Even though they think it isn't true in any sense of the word, they think it should be taught as science? Do they then believe it's a wrong theory, but that it nonetheless emerged as a result of proper application of the scientific method, like, say, phlogiston, or the luminiferous ether, or the electric fluid?

Are you asking about Raelians and UFO Cults who claim life on Earth was designed by aliens?

I would say that their official doctrine is that they believe it's true. They believe ID supports their claim of alien intervention in the Earth biosphere's genetic development.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

About the raelians and other such... I don't see how made up technobabble is any different from made up magic, especially since neither is based on evidence, both must be taken on faith, and both work as some way to have some immensely powerful entities watch over you and give you an afterlife.

In fact, I'll even say I don't understand how someone can say something is science not magic, when it's not based on the scientific method at all. Making up aliens who can clone your DNA from afar, and remake you together with your memory from that DNA (though no evidence exists that memories are recorded in DNA; or that there'd be even enough space there when you have more neurons than base pairs), and give you eternal life, and judge you based on your sexual activities, etc... how's that different from making up magic? How's that even remotely related to science? Where is the evidence? Where are the predictions? When were those predictions tested? When was Occam's Razor involved in judging competing explanation for that evidence? (Oh, wait, it needs to exist first.) When was any of it peer reviewed by actual scientists?

"Cargo cult science" of that sort is just another way to get magical thinking back in by the back door. When someone tells you that some magical quantum chi crystal produces vibrations that cleanse your cells, they're really just peddling magic rewritten in more modern words. And ditto for those "Elohim" 'aliens'.

Plus, I'd point out that the distinction between magic and pseudo-science, cargo cult or otherwise, is a relatively new one and rather irrelevant for whether something is a religion or not. Most of the ancient civilizations that made up their religions, wouldn't even have the notion that there is a difference between knowing stuff like how to use mercury to separate gold from gold ore, or knowing how to make a magical stone that will grant you eternal life. Alchemy dealt with both until mere centuries ago. Or there was no real difference between knowing how to calculate star positions for navigation, and doing an astrology reading with those positions. Astrology literally dealt with both.

So while we today might look back and say that, yeah, but Hermes Trismegistus was clearly attributed magic stuff in his knowing alchemy, that distinction didn't really exist at the time. His domains, like writing and alchemy, were just part of the natural domain. It was cargo cult science, if you will. But nobody would say that therefore it wasn't a religion.

And their Gods were routinely dependent on gadgets and other stuff that would fit under technology nowaday. E.g., the Norse gods were only immortal because they munched regularly on Idun's apples. (Biotechnology, anyone?) E.g., Inanna was powerless without her specially crafted jewellery, and in her trip to the underworld, she actually becomes mortal and is killed, once she's tricked into handing over her gadgets. Etc.

Some would actually fit what we now call aliens too. E.g., the Norse gods were in their own separated world. Heck, the other creatures too, were supposed to each live in their own world out of the Nine Worlds connected by the world tree. So why is believing in mortal guys from another world who are powerful, but rely on gadgets and certain foods to prolong their life, and who can give you immortality if they like you enough, a religion, but throw in some more modern sounding technobabble in the same kinda story not a religion? Why is giving them a rocket somehow anything different than the modern equivalent of a magical horse?

It seems to me that being asked to have faith in something untestable and which works just like magic, IS the modern way of being asked to believe in magic. And if you have beings of immense power who created you, watch over you, judge you, and can give you eternal life... and, again, you have to take all that on just faith... guess what? That's gods by any other name. Giving them some modern technobable props ain't making it more scientific than when the Norse gave theirs extremely advanced spears and hammers.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The problem is, someone once coined it the 'atheist church' and that has stuck, regardless of the fact it is actually called the Sunday Assembly, and sometimes referred to by the members as the godless congregation.

Although, to be fair, it seems from the outside that you meet on the same day as Christians and with the singing and sermons, that what goes on apes religious services. And I've often seen them described by advocates as for people who aren't religious but who miss the social aspects of belonging to a church - in other words, I've seen them described as church substitutes.

 

[blutoski]

Although, to be fair, it seems from the outside that you meet on the same day as Christians and with the singing and sermons, that what goes on apes religious services. And I've often seen them described by advocates as for people who aren't religious but who miss the social aspects of belonging to a church - in other words, I've seen them described as church substitutes.

A few might be... hard to generalize the underlying motive.

There is another thread in JREF Forums here literally titled "what should replace religion" and this has been an important question for many atheists who were trying to build communities. In the West, over the last few generations, I'd say this describes Secular Humanism. Just at the local level here, the BC Humanists conduct weddings, funerals, transitions to adulthood, welcoming of a baby... they have a weekly meeting, daily meditation sessions, and support secular sobriety alternative to AA.

When I lived east of the Iron Curtain, I routinely observed the Communists had tackled this question decades earlier, and come up with interesting analogues. For example, my parents were married at a war memorial, which was the tradition at the time. For their wedding photo, they were sitting on a tank.

It's interesting, because I think it's a mirror image of Cargo Cult Science: atheists acquiring the trappings of a religion for a secular activity, whether it will work the same way or not.

I'm not personally interested, but don't think these are really a big problem.

Where atheists and skeptics tend to generate a lot of friction is with their outreach, and that's the main reason there is discussion about what constitutes skeptical beliefs, proceses, values, &c. It matters most when we are allocating resources to relatively expensive external projects that create public visibility.

 

[Humes fork]

Secondly, even those who might agree that it's "a method" have no agreement on what method, exactly.

It's empirical, based in science and the humanities. That's not really controversial. If it is controversial, then what's the controversy? And mentioning PZ Myers or FtB is pointless, because nobody but themselves bother with what they have to say.

Sort of. Skeptics may mostly agree on that slogan. They don't agree at all on what it means.

The question that would follow would be: what is 'science' - there is no agreement on this within skepticism that I'm aware of, no way to translate the 'slogans' to a real decision-making process. If there was a process, we wouldn't have so many disagreements. We disagree, first and foremost, on the process.

As it happens, there is a field called philosophy of science dedicated to establishing what exactly science is. But just because there are disagreements in there doesn't mean that scientists don't know what they are doing, or that "science" is meaningless as a concept.

No, he's actually making a bold claimthere, that probably the majority of new skeptics disagree with. He's fighting against a culture change, this paragraph describes his personal feelings about what skepticism is. He has received much criticism. I share his view, and receive similar criticism.

It's an uncontroversial claim within what you might call established skeptical groups, like JREF, SGU, Skeptics Society, and CSI.

Notice he's excluding, say, economics, healthfraud, social justice advocacy, and politics. The point of that passage was that Loxton's pitching a reduced scope for skepticism (as a movement, not as a philosophy of life). He argues that whatever skeptics think as individuals, organized skepticism should restrict itself to fringe claims that are not already studied by experts in relevant fields.

That he excludes healthfraud is incorrect. In the essay he explicitly argues that medical issues is not a new skeptical issue, but has been part of it for a long time.

He does exclude specific political advocacy (I'd sort social justice under there). However, he does not exclude political topics per se. Global warming, creationism, GMO, and alternative medicine are topics with political significance, and not him or anyone else is excluding these topics.

He is saying that skeptics per se are not qualified to resolve legitimate disputes within mainstream science or scholarship. You can read his What, If Anything, Can Skeptics Say About Science? where he elaborates on it. I think it lays out a very sensible approach.

He also excludes activities such as supporting GLBT rights, as he thinks they're entirely unrelated to skepticism per se. In contrast, as an example, DJ Grothe has been very clear that he thinks GLBT is a 100% skeptical topic.

I'd like to see the context in which Grothe said so. Even so, it seems like a pretty minor dispute.

Basically: he's explicitly refuting the model of skepticism as critical thinking in action.

Que?

As I said: Daniel and I have mulled over this stuff for decades. I don't think you're quite understanding his work.

Personally, I think he's tilting at windmills. The damage has been done. Shermer's marketing of 'skepticism = critical thinking' is a meme that is not going away, and the impact is irreversible.

If you think that Loxton and Shermer are on different sides in this, then I think you are the one not understanding. Basically, Myers and FtB want skeptical organizations to advocate for left-wing politics. Skeptical groups have resisted such attempts at being hijacked for political advocacy, because that's not their mission.

Steven Novella made a very good blogpost about this: Scientific Skepticism, Rationalism, and Secularism

Not really. Some do; some don't. Sometimes a person will use it differently in different contexts. Sometimes 'skepticism' refers to 'the skeptical community' - the people in it. Sometimes it means 'organized skepticism' - the societies like JREF or CFI or SS.

That's my point.

The societies you mention all practice or advocate scientific skepticism. That's what it means in this context. That "skeptic" means different things in different contexts doesn't change that.

Some would; some wouldn't. Most have not come by their disbelief through critical thinking either, and as the saying goes, you can't reason somebody out of something they didn't reason themselves into in the first place. Skeptics are like the rest of the world and absorbed it somehow. This is why one of the earlier definitions of skeptics was 'doubters'. This predates the idea of critical thinking and probably describes skeptical culture better.

As it happens, skeptics are not particularly good critical thinkers, and part of the culture is that we love to think critically until it threatens a belief, then we stop thinking critically and do whatever we have to to shore up our claim. 'the inner lawyer'

This relates to the research I did with BCSkeptics - skeptics appear to be slightly worse critical thinkers than the general public. I have no confidence we come across our collection of beliefs through a better process. I expect we have absorbed them culturally through trust in the sources, which is the normal way people accumulate beliefs.

I very much doubt that skeptics are worse critical thinkers than the general public, and I'd like to see that research. Not perfect sure, but worse? Hardly anyone in the general public knows about logical fallacies or biases. Your claim seems preposterous unless you suggest that taking an interest in critical thinking will make you worse at it.

 

[blutoski]

It's empirical, based in science and the humanities. That's not really controversial. If it is controversial, then what's the controversy? And mentioning PZ Myers or FtB is pointless, because nobody but themselves bother with what they have to say.

? I didn't understand this part. I was talking about what skeptics disagree about, not what scientists disagree about. Just because scientists agree on what science is does not mean skeptics accept it. Thus there is disagreement.

In fact, I would say that skeptics are very confused about how to evaluate scientific arguments. It is one of the maybe five major rifts within skepticism, and it's very important considering our alleged mandate to be science advocates.

As it happens, there is a field called philosophy of science dedicated to establishing what exactly science is. But just because there are disagreements in there doesn't mean that scientists don't know what they are doing, or that "science" is meaningless as a concept.

I am pretty confident that scientists know what science is, although I may no longer be a scientist technically speaking (I have not been in a lab in years).

Skeptics are not scientists, and they are not very clear on what science is, how it works, and - most importantly - how nonscientists can identify good versus bad science.

Again: a very high-profile problem.

It's an uncontroversial claim within what you might call established skeptical groups, like JREF, SGU, Skeptics Society, and CSI.

I'm not sure I can agree with that. I think the disagreements on scope are a major reason there are different groups. There used be just one. They others 'split off' because of scope and strategy disagreements, or disagreements about what, exactly, critical thinking is, how to apply it &c.

That he excludes healthfraud is incorrect. In the essay he explicitly argues that medical issues is not a new skeptical issue, but has been part of it for a long time.

He does exclude specific political advocacy (I'd sort social justice under there). However, he does not exclude political topics per se. Global warming, creationism, GMO, and alternative medicine are topics with political significance, and not him or anyone else is excluding these topics.

He is saying that skeptics per se are not qualified to resolve legitimate disputes within mainstream science or scholarship. You can read his What, If Anything, Can Skeptics Say About Science? where he elaborates on it. I think it lays out a very sensible approach.

Yeeeesss... I'm not sure why you are trying to lecture me on Loxton. He and I have collaborated, as I explained. Basically, he and I are aligned that skepticism has experienced irreversible mission creep, and that we do not agree on a single process for evaluating claims.

There's a distinction between his descriptive passages (what skepticism is, has been) versus his proscriptive passages (what skepticism should be).

I'd like to see the context in which Grothe said so. Even so, it seems like a pretty minor dispute.

He's said it many times, in many contexts. Mostly as a host for Point of Inquiry, sometimes on his blogs, also in articles in Skeptical Inquirer. And he's not alone, of course. Just one example.

Generally, CFI is more interested in social justice issues, as it was their original mandate to engage the public. Shermer split off CSICOP because they were taking the wrong side of the social issues, and he wants to engage the public to persuade them to do different things. Both organizations are convinced that they have acheived their facts through the One True Skeptical Method. Both think the other is blinded by bias.

It was largely due to this type of problem that Loxton believes skepticism should pull back from science advocacy - we say we are very interested in it, but seem to disagree on what it is. Until we get our house in order, we should take it down a notch. I agree.

Que?

Not sure how to explain that better... I was saying that Loxton was concerned that the rebranding of skepticism to be applied critical thinking was a step in the wrong direction. It changed from a community focussed on fringe claims of the paranormal to a community that was convinced they think better than everybody else on every concievable topic. The word he used was 'everythingology' - I was more critical, and said that Skepticism had become 'MENSA, but without the entrance exam.'

If you think that Loxton and Shermer are on different sides in this, then I think you are the one not understanding. Basically, Myers and FtB want skeptical organizations to advocate for left-wing politics. Skeptical groups have resisted such attempts at being hijacked for political advocacy, because that's not their mission.

I have no idea why you think this. Myers and FtB have fringe views, but all the majors advocate political interaction. The main hotbutton disagreements within organized skepticism in the last 20 years have probably been climate change and healthfraud.

Just as a specific example: are you unaware that CFI has a federal lobbyist in Washington? That political advocacy is an important part of their mandate? CFI is also deliberately allied (shared resources) with CSH, whose mandate is to spread the word about secular ethics. Most recently, they have created a joint charity called the Skeptics and Humanist Aid and Relief Effort.

And they're not alone. JREF has been hosting blood donor clinics for several TAMs running. These organizations do not hesitate to engage the community when they think it will create benefit.

Steven Novella made a very good blogpost about this: Scientific Skepticism, Rationalism, and Secularism

Novella has a lot of good posts, and I personally agree with most of his views. I've caught him making gaffes with his critical thinking, but that's pretty minor. Recall, though, that these are his opinions about skepticism, and often an opinion about what he would like skepticism to be (as opposed to a description of what it is). Don't confuse a wish list with a report.

Worth noting: many skeptics think he is dead wrong about a lot of things. A recent poll at my Skeptics in the Pub is about 50:50... about half the skeptics here think he's an idiot. Mostly, his critics think he 'injects too much politics' into his skeptical discussions, and the 2nd most common complaint I hear is that he asks people to defer to expertise.

The societies you mention all practice or advocate scientific skepticism. That's what it means in this context. That "skeptic" means different things in different contexts doesn't change that.

Except the question was what do people mean when they say skeptics are x.
That they say different things in different context is the answer.

I very much doubt that skeptics are worse critical thinkers than the general public, and I'd like to see that research. Not perfect sure, but worse? Hardly anyone in the general public knows about logical fallacies or biases. Your claim seems preposterous unless you suggest that taking an interest in critical thinking will make you worse at it.

So, this is part of the problem, right? Critical thinking isn't "logical fallacies and biases" - it's thinking critically, balancing arguments, evaluating evidence for credibility, giving your opponent the benefit of the doubt, &c. The classic example of critical thinking is a highschool English essay assignment. Another example is tuning a bicycle.

What I did for the surveys (I taught critical thinking and philosophy of science for several years) was leverage Skeptics in the Pub and SkeptiCamp attendees, asking them to fill out standard critical thinking inventories that I used to evaluate my classes. Then I compared the results against Canadian and US national averages. I also did some breakdowns for income, education, and number of years involved with organized skepticism and/or organized atheism, and lastly, whether they've ever taken a philosophy course in critical thinking. Only the last category was positively correlated with a score higher than average.

Skeptics run into trouble because they mostly learn from informal sources, in an ad hoc manner, and tend not to practise the concepts so do not incorporate the information. They learn about critical thinking but this is not learning how to think critically. Unfortunately, many of the critical thinking resources popular with skeptics are opinions of the posters, rather than actually good practice, which is sort of like the ironic Fox News problem... the degree of misinformation means that a person with less exposure may actually be more knowledgeable.

Dale Beyerstein (Barry's brother - he's a philosophy instructor at Langara U in Vancouver) and I developed an online course to help people practice critical thinking and evaluation of scientific claims skills. It has since come down, as we discontinued the service for personal reasons.

But this is part of the problem as well: skeptics do not necessarily have anything more than an 'interest' in critical thinking. They may have mislearned the names of a few fallacies, yet be unable to explain them well. They come to meetings because they are relieved to find that there's another group of people out there who think religion, bigfoot, UFOs, pyramid power, &c are for sheeple.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I was mostly coming from an attempt to draw Venn diagrams of overlap between what we'd call skeptical and atheist beliefs. There are many more atheists than skeptics, obviously, and the overlap is pretty small. For example, most atheists are big fans of Traditional Chinese Medicine. They don't like hearing criticism about it.

Do you have a citation for that?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No, I was describing the surprising fact that education does not appear to be protective against woo beliefs, all things being equal.

Given that critical thinking is not taught in schools or, generally, universities and colleges, I don't see why this is surprising.

 

[blutoski]

Given that critical thinking is not taught in schools or, generally, universities and colleges, I don't see why this is surprising.

Critical thinking is taught in schools. I mentioned the ubiquitous English essay earlier.

This is why I make a point that skepticism is not a synonym for critical thinking.

Skeptics have a very specific interpretation of critical thinking. They mostly seem interested in fallacies, which is about 10% of a critical thinking course's content. It's the first two weeks of a 24 week course.

ETA: One thing worth mentioning as well: we don't know if teaching critical thinking makes the student particularly good at it, either. One of the reasons I used the standard inventory on my class was to compare three periods: first day of class, last day of class, and 6 months after finishing course. I found that grade was a predictor of retention, but retention after 6mos was weak. Critical thinking is like calculus - if you don't keep doing exercises, your skills slide. If you don't do any exercises, you're not going to be good at it at all.

 

[blutoski]

Do you have a citation for that?

Probably not - I figured it was self evident. China.

 

[blutoski]

Probably not - I figured it was self evident. China.

ETA: an interesting anecdote about that... one of our most 'prominent' members at BCSkeptics was a city counsellor who was running for NDP seats several times. He was about as hardcore an atheist as you'd find anywhere.

He essentially issued us an ultimatum - if he was elected, he would not be able to be associated with or support us unless we dropped the alternative medicine stuff. It had helped him when he had medical problems, you see, and also it would be hard to explain to his TCM practicing peers at the Canadian Atheist meetings.

Huffington Post is another good example. Hardcore anti-religion and hardcore healthfraud all rolled up into one multimillion reader brand.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Probably not - I figured it was self evident. China.

Bu..bu..but Communists are True Atheists™.

 

[jerrywayne]

I really don't get the whole concept of an atheist church. Why not just keep it as a secular gathering rather than explicitly atheist gathering? Theists and atheists alike would both be welcome to attend.

And why call them churches, instead of something like community groups?

Those interested in attending this kind of thing could hold weekly gatherings in their local community center each Sunday.

Deliberately using terminology associated with religious institutions seems a little silly to me.

I once attended this group for a while, thinking the church part was a parody. Nope, they are real serious about the church concept and even claim freethought is a religion. That, and the fact the leadership is decidedly right-wing (it is Texas after all), caused me to move on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Texas_Church_of_Freethought

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Critical thinking is taught in schools. I mentioned the ubiquitous English essay earlier.

I was certainly never taught critical thinking in school. I'm confused by your English essay example. In what way is being assigned work in English being taught critical thinking skills?

This is why I make a point that skepticism is not a synonym for critical thinking.

Yes, you seem to equate skepticism to some kind of shared belief system. I'd question whether that's true. You may be describing how some, or even most people who self-describe as sceptics act, but that doesn't make that what scepticism actually is.

But that's besides the point. You said that it was surprising that education didn't make people less inclined to hold superstitious or otherwise illogical beliefs. I'm questioning why that should be surprising, given that the education that the vast majority of people will undergo doesn't provide the tools for assessing such beliefs.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Probably not - I figured it was self evident. China.

Well, firstly, I'd say that the question of religiosity in China is fairly complicated and that any figures about atheism from the country cannot be taken to be rock-solidly accurate. The same is also true, in the opposite direction, for countries such as Iran.

But, if we do take the latest Gallup poll as accurate, both for the number of atheists globally and the number of atheists in China, then China accounts for just over half of the world's atheists. This does not support your assertion that "...most atheists are big fans of Traditional Chinese Medicine. They don't like hearing criticism about it."

I think that if you wish to make that claim, that you will have to support it with evidence.