Scores? Is that all?

Typo. Should be Crores.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crore

Somewhere in between "scores" and "crores"; my best SWAG ("scientific wild-ass guess") is around 10,000 cumulatively since 1904, with the large majority of Thelemites who have ever lived currently alive.  Probably the cumulative total was in the low thousands until 1980 or so.

The basis of my SWAG is that Wikipedia says US (c)OTO has about 1,500 members, times whatever multiplier for the non-(c)OTO Thelemites for current number of Thelemites, plus PFA ("pulled from air") estimates of numbers of historical Thelemites. This is a perfectly respectable scientific procedure in the absence of data, sometimes called "establishing Bayesian priors" for those of you following at home.

I welcome any better-informed opinions, relevant data, or competing SWAGs, and expect the usual torrent of unsupported claims, inane personal attacks, OT posts, and general trollery that has become the norm around here lately.

Although certainly not "better informed," I see no reason to discount your estimated statistics. They (it) seem(s) to be about correct, more or less, and should be adopted as the official census of July 2015 e.v. 😀

As a fellow Officially-Recognized Official (as i too have an office, in fact two of them), and fellow member of the Old Guard of "Gullible Thelema" (as opposed to that "skeptical" kind), i am glad to hear you support my estimate, which makes it no longer a SWAG, and, as you say, Official.

Yes, ignant666, I also agree your estimate (guesstimate? swagestimate?) seems 'reasonable'!

Interesting to reflect that that number as an attendance figure wouldn’t even fill out some sports arenas for one performance these days...

I don’t think there’s any differentiation made in this statistic between lapsed members, "associate" members and members who took Minerval (O[sup:1zneuobg]o[/sup:1zneuobg]) but never fully committed themselves to take the plunge all the way with a proper I[sup:1zneuobg]o[/sup:1zneuobg].  (This completely leaves aside the whole other argument that one cannot really be a member of the O.T.O. unless and until one enters the "Sovereign Sanctuary of the Gnosis", or VII[sup:1zneuobg]o[/sup:1zneuobg] at least.  That'd leave about two dozen, then. ;D)

Norma N Joy Conquest

This Official Census figure of 10,000 Thelemites ever may be typical for numbers of adherents to new Logoi.

There were probably about 7,500 or so Christians by 100 EV, and about 10,500 a decade later, according to a sociologist of religion cited at
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=95 [see table]
so Thelema appears to be spreading at about the same rate as did Christianity, as it is a mere 111 years since the world was destroyed by fire in 1904 EV (one hundred years plus a decade).

At this rate, we should expect about there to be 41,000 Thelemites by 2054 EV, and 33 million by the middle of the third century of the Aeon of Horus.

But there were a lot less people on the earth and a lot fewer ways to spread a message in the first century. Even if it's true that there are 10,000 Thelemites (a number that seems rather optimistic), it would mean that Thelema is only spreading as quickly as a religion spread by word of mouth 2,000 years ago. That's not exactly impressive.

Ah, right on cue.

Of course there were fewer people, and fewer means of promulgation, in 100 EV.

There were also far fewer competing messages. In fact, there were no other competing messages- the source i cite mentions that Christianity was unique in seeking converts, as no other religion did so at the time. The same can hardly be said today; the twin religions of "Free Market Capitalism" and "Consumer Lifestyle" monopolize almost all means of mass communication today, with the Christian and Muslim death-cults also commanding significant resources in this area.

Thelema is spread primarily via the internet, but must compete with far more messages than was the case with earlier ideologies.

Still, it is impressive that a religion that says its adherents will be "few and secret" is spreading as fast as one which aggressively sought conversion and has become such a dominant force in world civilization. A modern comparison (mentioned by the source i cited) is that Thelema is spreading as fast as Mormonism, another religion characterized by very aggressive missionary activities. A 40% increase per decade over centuries tends to rather run up the numbers.

To anyone who disputes the Official Census (for example, if someone were to say it "seems rather optimistic"): 1) This is an Official Census, and thus Beyond Dispute; 2) Any would-be heretic who did not Show His (or Her) Work by providing the methodology and data upon which he/she relied in making this claim would of course get The Big Razzoo (as the kids say, "data talk, and bullshit walk"- even SWAG/PFA Bayesian priors beat bare unsupported assertions every day of the week), and will also not be invited to any of the "Gullible Thelema" picnics (our softball team, the "Abject Superstitionists", is kicking butt this summer BTW!).

Glad that no more time will be wasted on these forums with ludicrous disputes as to whether or not Thelema is a religion.

The meds do seem to be helping you a little, ignant666.

No. That's not true. I have taken him off all meds and prescribed a diet of Tuna fish and Mushrooms 8)

Preliminary tests indicate that it's the fish that is helping. Pay no attention to those mushrooms behind the curtain!

Well, whatever it was, it's working. He actually made a cogent point, and he only frothed at the mouth a little bit. A definite improvement.

A wise retreat, although ungracious, hackneyed, and not very witty as usual.

Anyway, the grown-ups were talking.

It wasn't a "retreat" -- it was an honest observation that your post was a marked improvement over your contributions in the past. As I noted above, you actually managed to make a cogent point: Thelema faces much more competition than early Christianity did. That might help explain why Thelema is growing only as quickly as a religion spread by word of mouth.

However, I'm pretty sure that a number of "new religions" are growing faster than Thelema, even given the increased competition in the "marketplace." The last I heard, "None" was the fastest growing segment of the population in the United States (as in, no religious affiliation). I guess one might argue that the extra competition has helped to drive up the "None" category, as it's easier than ever for people to see that there are lots of competing religions, each making mutually exclusive claims, none of which with any compelling reason to think that its claims are true.

Anyway, the grown-ups were talking.

Sure they were, big guy.

As Jamie B is 55, I am 56, and Shiva is about 75, i think we qualify as "grown-ups", chronologically at least.

As to "retreat", i suppose folks can judge for themselves; as my fencing master used to say "Bettair a live shicken zan a dead duck!"

Does anyone know the membership numbers of Scientology? Took a quick look online and the numbers appear to be all over the place. I suppose it depends on who and where you're asking? I found the O.T.O. numbers interesting as I wouldn't think there would be that many?

The American Religious Identification Survey for 2008 records 25,000 Scientologists in the US, with membership declining sharply in the last decade:

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0075.xls

Thelemites aren't counted (because we are "few and secret"); there are about 340,000 Pagans, and 340,000 Wiccans; both have more than doubled number of adherants from 2001-8.

As usual, the person who posts the "Los" material is ill-informed, mistaken, or trolling: far from being "the fastest growing segment of the population in the United States",  the numbers of those with no religious affiliation barely budged from 2001-8, after doubling from 1990 to 2001. There are about as many "Nones" as there are Baptists: 35 million.

Given what I've gleaned about you lot, I think we can safely assume that 100% (+/- 3% MOE) of those who would refuse to answer such a question must be at least nominal Thelemites and that we can therefore count your numbers approaching the 12million range (this, of course, only accounts for the Amerikan dispensation).

As this is being typed from my office, I will finally accept Shiva's nomination and submit it as an official estimate, superseding all previous submissions.

Well, according to this article from Pew Research Center, "Between 2007 and 2014, the Christian share of the population fell...The unaffiliated experienced the most growth."

I recall reading and hearing a number of stories over the past decade commenting on the continued growth of Nones.

And meanwhile, Thelema doesn't even register on polls like these because the number of self-professed "Thelemites" who both think of Thelema as their "religion" and would be willing to admit this in public is ridiculously small.

Personally, I tend to think that advancements in communication have been very negative for religions of all kinds. If I were a betting man, I would wager that the Nones are only going to increase over time.

However even these figures appear to be a large reduction from Allen H. Greenfield’s survey of Worldwide ©.O.T.O. Membership Numbers for the First Quarter of 2005 (as he in fact predicted), which gave the total then as slightly over 3,000 of which 1,027 (34%) were Minerval, 688 (23%) were First degrees, 463 (15%) Second, 350 (11%) Third, and 312 (10%) were Fourth.  Outside of this man of Earth series, which accounted for approx. 93% of the total, the numbers tailed off dramatically: 122 (4%) were Fifth, 52 (2%) were Sixth, whilst VII[sup:ghttxz5v]o[/sup:ghttxz5v] and above counted for barely 1% of the overall figure, with 15 Sevenths, 3 Eighths, and 21 Ninths and 2 Tenths.

(Source: from “Inquisition in 21st Century America”  http://b-oto.org/greenfield/inquisition.pdf - page 10 refers)

I’m not aware of any further more recent statistics and although there doesn’t seem to be a date relating to the statistics given by Wikipedia (which are also just for the U.S.A.), it does appear evident they follow a surprisingly sharp downward trend in the decade afterwards.  (Greenfield offers the amusing but not inaccurate verdict on page 50: “Bill [Breeze has] led it [the Ordo] back to the brink” …) Perhaps their recent ex-following didn’t appreciate the policies inbetween then & now such as the fill/kill change and spending $37,000 of dues money on three old books, in addition to their quite normal vexatious litigation and nonappearance of promised or out-of-print items, &c, &c, &c.

N Joy

Popular science reporting may not be a very good source of information on most topics.

Without getting into dueling methodologies, the American Religious Identification Survey is a better source than Pew; note that the source i cited is the US Census Bureau, which uses ARIS to measure religious affiliations.  Pew data are based on a considerably smaller sample than ARIS (35,071 for Pew v. 53,461 for ARIS), and much more rapid data collection (4 months for Pew v. 10 months for ARIS), and weighting methods more reminiscent of political polls than academic surveys. A very big methodological difference is that Pew includes a list of possible answers in the "what religion are you?" question, ARIS just asks without prompts.

The Pew data are more recent and of course may be capturing recent shifts. Note that 44% of the "nones" in Pew said that religion is "very important" to them, suggesting that what is being captured is a decline in formal religious affiliation, rather than in religious belief.

Actual atheism remains rare: .7% of the population in ARIS 2008, 3.1%  in Pew 2014 (the apparent large difference may be an artifact of small sample size: for example, Pew MOE on groups constituting 3% of the sample (like atheists) is 4%).

Obviously, these surveys are unlikely to capture any of the few thousand US Thelemites in their samples; this may be further complicated by tendentious folk who do not consider an entity centered around a revealed "Holy Book" consisting of speeches by three "Gods" to be a "religion", or people who actively "troll" the survey.

One more "research methods" note: any idiot who imagines that participation in either ARIS or Pew telephone surveys involves "admitting" anything "in public" should consider not pontificating about topics about which he/she is entirely ignorant.

Personally I have never viewed Thelema as a religion but more as a method. For sixteen years I wore army dog tags around my neck which stated "no preference". Not that I didn't try having Thelema placed there, the clerk wouldn't stamp that way as it wasn't listed among the approved choices. Just as well I suppose as it really matters not.
My knowledge of scientology is woefully lacking, that I admit. I only brought it up as I don't think it takes a very vivid imagination to see the fountain head from which it sprang, a failure or not? Jamie, perhaps the O.T.O. head is leading that order in the right direction, “Bill [Breeze has] led it [the Ordo] back to the brink” …)? It is after all hung on the carcass of the past aeon? Paging through Equinox Vol. III No. I and reading Liber LII & Liber CI I see what I have always considered A.C.s F. It brings to mind for me what C.C. de Menezes asked me many years ago, "or is it in the O.T.O. you want it?", which easily morphed in my mind to, or would you rather bend over and take it in the ol' oto?!
Anyway, I found this thread taking an interesting turn, in the "rise and fall of religions". I suppose we'll know mankind has finally begun to take the next step once he lets the need for it (religion) to finally slip away.
 

Agreed. Journalism, in general, is in a horrid state of affairs, and *science* reporting is particularly execrable.

the American Religious Identification Survey is a better source than Pew

Perhaps, and I'm sure the particulars of the methodology can be quibbled about plenty, but Pew actually did research that showed that the Nones are growing the fastest. I think it's therefore fair for someone to say that there is data that suggests that the Nones are the fastest growing category, and this remains the case whether some others find that data flawed for various reasons. To be clear: I think research methodology is important, and it's worthwhile to have a conversation about it and try to better understand what the data is saying. But that's awfully far afield of the conversation going on here: I simply remarked -- in a rather offhand way -- that "Last I heard," the Nones were the fastest growing group, and there is in fact data that suggests this.

But since our contentious, mouth-foaming friend ignant666 is intent on proving to himself his belief that I am "ill-informed, mistaken, or trolling," he can now never admit that it might be fair for someone to make such an offhand remark.

Note that 44% of the "nones" in Pew said that religion is "very important" to them, suggesting that what is being captured is a decline in formal religious affiliation, rather than in religious belief.

Yes, that's what "None" means: no religious affiliation. I think a good chunk of the Nones believe in superstitions or would describe themselves as "spiritual." I didn't invoke the Nones as an example of atheism -- I invoked them as an example of a group (one of many) apparently growing much faster than Thelemites.

Yes. As I alluded to earlier, it might be that only a small number of self-described Thelemites would say that Thelema is their "religion."

The old "Is Thelema a religion or not" debate comes down to definitions: by some definitions it is, by some it isn't. If we consider religion to be a set of ideas and practices that a group of people hold, then Thelema might be a religion. If we consider religion to be a set of doctrines about a supreme being, an afterlife, and moral standards, then no, Thelema isn't a religion.

Personally, I think it's most convenient to think of Thelema as a concept or philosophy that is incorporated into a number of religions (such as the religion of the OTO) and that informs a number of methods or practices. That is, I wouldn't consider it, in and of itself, to be a religion or method. But as I said above, this is a matter of definition.

Anyway, I found this thread taking an interesting turn, in the "rise and fall of religions". I suppose we'll know mankind has finally begun to take the next step once he lets the need for it (religion) to finally slip away.

Indeed. In all likelihood, religion will never entirely go away, but we'll hopefully one day get to a point where religious types are regarded as strangely as we now regard flat-earth believers.

Is it "frothing at the mouth" to say there is a considerable difference between the original, and revised, versions, of your claim in your "offhand" remarks?

Original categorical assertion:

v. the back-pedaled

Honest interlocuters, when called on shooting their mouths off based on some article they once read by someone who actually bothers to look at the evidence, respond by admitting they might have to revise their initial claims, not by equivocating and saying "So what if there is good evidence I am dead wrong?"

What can we conclude about someone who, when challenged, says the quality and weight of the evidence doesn't matter, and his statement is so true even if there is good evidence it is false? Sounds pretty "contentious" to me!

More dishonesty:

Really? You originally said (in addition to saying that "nones" are growing faster than Thelemites)

Silly me, i read this as a claim about "nones" lacking religious belief, rather than formal religious affiliation! It mentions folks becoming cynical about the "claims" of competing religions (which sure sounds like a claim about declining belief to my naive ears), and fails to mention people not attending services, going to Sunday School or getting bar-mitzvahed (markers of affiliation, as opposed to belief).

As for the most recent "Los" posting, who on earth has ever asserted Thelema involves "a set of doctrines about a supreme being, an afterlife, and moral standards" and is thus a religion? What a ludicrous straw-man!

Hello there, obscuruspaintus – that sounds kinda ‘ruff’? (sorry)

I don’t think anything’s happened with their technology since Hubbard’s death in the Eighties.  Except, they have managed to grow considerably richer than the ©.O.T.O. – and Miscavige has succeeded in extracting far more gold from Hubbard than Breeze has from Crowley.  What a prospect!  What a prophit!  Far from punching above their weight though, I think Scientology® will be one outfit the ©.O.T.O. are astute enough not to want to pick a fight with in the law courts – most entertaining as that engagement would probably be.

Yes, a battered, butchered, bloody mess.  (And the carcass has seen better days, too! ;D)

”A.C.s F” – his what?  Folly?  Fantasy?  Fetish?  Fond but futile hope for immortality?

Ah, Claudia Canuto, “the O.H.O. who never was”!?  And is she (still alive, I wonder?)  And does she (regret not “following through” with Marcelo Motta’s ‘Society’ legacy?)  And did you (want it, and take it in – or up? – the ol’ oto, as kindly offered?)

With my Eye winkin atcha! (8))
N Joy

F Jamie, as in the most dreaded of all F words, Failure!
I cannot answer as to Claudia Canuto de Menezes status. The last letter I received ended balled up and thrown out the window somewhere on east bound I-40. My interest was not in the S.O.T.O. but the other branch. It is far to long and painful a tale to go into.
Ed. And it definitely altered my trajectory.

Winkin right back at ya!

That's not "back-pedal[ling]." The second quote is an explanation for why it's completely fair to say the first quote.

I was pointing out that there exists data to support the claim.

[Los was] equivocating and saying "So what if there is good evidence I am dead wrong?"

You didn't post "good evidence I am dead wrong." You called the data from Pew into question, which is a valid question that may warrant further discussion, but doesn't change the fact that data exists and that it was fair for me to make the statement that I did.

More dishonesty

You continue to use that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Silly me, i read this as a claim about "nones" lacking religious belief, rather than formal religious affiliation!

It is awfully silly of you, especially since if you scroll up slightly you'll see that you quoted me first introducing the term "Nones" and defining it parenthetically as "no religious affiliation." Pay attention.

As I've been trying to teach you, definitions matter. If I'm using one definition of "claims" or "religious beliefs" and you're using a different one, we're not able to communicate effectively.

This is a great example of you jumping to conclusions based on definitions in your head.

who on earth has ever asserted Thelema involves "a set of doctrines about a supreme being, an afterlife, and moral standards" and is thus a religion?

Here's another example of you jumping to conclusions. In the passage you mention, I wasn't rebutting an argument. I was illustrating the point that I had just made: that whether Thelema can be considered a religion depends on the definition used. If we use X definition, then it's a religion. If we use Y definition, it's not a religion. For "Y," I picked a set of criteria which I hoped everyone would agree Thelema does not fit.

You're like a textbook example of someone who reads everything through the lens of your fevered imagination. I've been trying to teach you that you would be better off to take some deep breaths and read what I'm actually saying, not what you imagine I'm saying. The fact that you steadfastly refuse to learn anything is no bother -- I'm glad to use your posts as illustrative examples and opportunities for instructing others.

What a smug, pretentious little fellow is depicted in the "Los" posts. My "day job" in science depends somewhat on reading comprehension ability, as did my former work in the law- how strange that the abilities that enable me to comprehend scientific and legal prose desert me when I encounter your titanic intellect!

As they say, "Go teach your grandmother to suck eggs".

If you honestly want to claim that "X is true", and "there is some evidence that X is true" are the same statement, no further "conversation" is possible. The first is categorical, the second is a far more modest statement: any evidence at all, however weak, makes it correct.

Since most of your postings here are devoted to pointing out that it is bad reasoning to assert "X is true, because there is some evidence that X is true" (provided X is some "ookey-spookey" thing that pushes your "skeptical" buttons), pardon me while I scoff, and chalk yet another mark up in the "the Los postings are a troll" column.

As to whether the "Los" postings represent honest argument:

Well, yes actually i did "post 'good evidence [you are] dead wrong'"; I cited the American Religious Identification Survey, which says just that, and explained in some detail why it is a more credible source:

As to your two concluding points:

1) Impressive indeed to say "definitions matter" while equivocating;

2) Fair enough, my response was to your oft-repeated claim that anyone who considers Thelema a religion is confused, which you have not made here- is this another position you will be retreating from?

Off to breathe deeply, and wipe the froth off my mouth.

Mine say NO PREF too 🙂
I couldn't find a better option.
I had Liber AL printed secretly in my 'journal' to read. lol. Otherwise it would have gotten confiscated in boot camp haha.

I just read this whole thread and I will let the 'adults' play.  It is extremely boring to me. I would rather focus on my asana after dinner in a few minutes.  But have fun guys! 
My data is better than yours
No I didnt say my data was in question  I said my data was different than yours
Oh I think that you are quoting the wrong source, if you look at this I can say whats true for me
Oh hey i can say whats true for me too
are we ever going to get anywhere?
I dont think so!
Sorry?
No I'm not sorry, I like talking about nothing!
Hey I win!
Let's keep running around in circles its a great way to spend time; and i love to type a lot of words!
I have longer posts than you.
No I have a bigger intellect!
etc etc

have fun 🙂
I think whenever this kind of grossly off topic nonsense happens about what the thread is NOT about it should go to the sandbox. but thats just me.

My science is better than your science.

I’ll just highlight that although I seem to have been co-opted in as an adult/’grown-up’ along with Shiva, my own playful involvement in this particular thread has been fairly minimal compared with ignant666 and Los, and far from getting engaged in the standard brouhaha have largely confined myself here to having a pleasant little exchange of repartee & badinage with my kindred spirit obscuruspaintus.  But if it’s been estimated (as it has been) that there are 10,000 Thelemites worldwide - and the current membership of Lashtal is 9,484 - then if we were to take a leap of faith and assume (whilst taking on board what the act of assumption does to you and me according to that well-known boring platitude) that each member is a Thelemite, then it ‘figures’ there would only be 516 of these left on the planet yet to sign up. 

Obviously there are some members who are “agnostic” about it and unwilling to commit, and apart from my playful & whimsical supposition I am sure that the numbers of the Society will eventually exceed 10,000 any day soon.  But I wonder - perhaps some old timer might know – if it has it ever been determined as a percentage by a survey or a poll or whatever exactly what proportion of Lashtalians consider themselves to be ‘Thelemites’ (by whatever definition) rather than just anyone happening to have a friendly or even unfriendly 😮 interest in Aleister Crowley?

Teach on, teach on, Teacher! (= ideally to be sung to the same melody as ‘♫ Sail On, Sailor ♫’ by the Beach Boys). 

I wonder if Los has ever come across Alf Garnett, of vintage British tv comedy series Till Death Us Do Part fame?  (In the U.S., I believe he reincarnated as Archie Bunker?)  One of his favourite sayings (usually to the long haired scouse git of a son-in-law of his before coming out with one of his pet prejudices) was: “Look, if you’ll just shurrup for a minute you might learn something…”

Also having fun,
N Joy

Back on the original "are there scores or crores of Thelemites?" topic: the OTO membership figures and number of lashtalians cited by jamie barter offer interesting, if ambiguous, data points. The problem with a poll is that a great many lashtalians are disinclined to post or participate. Of course, there are non-English speaking thelemites who would be unlikely to read lashtal or participate in such a poll.

As to polls, dog-tags and other government-issue things, and how one might identify myself, if the question "what is your religion?" were about recording data about me personally, i might reply "Thelemite".

When dealing with mass entities such as the US military or a national poll of Americans, that might currently be a meaningless answer, due to tiny numbers (as is typical of new religions, as discussed above). In such situations, I would probably say "Pagan", since i would consider Thelema under that umbrella.

Since 2007, this is apparently a possible answer in the US military (ie, is on their list of religions), and leads to a pentagram on your gravestone (this is among the main reasons they ask about religion). There were as of 2012, 72 such headstones, including some at Arlington (where my very atheist dad has a cross on his), according to this article:
http://religionandpolitics.org/2012/06/20/the-plight-of-pagans-in-the-military/

Boy, your job seems really important to your self-image. You bring it up an inordinate amount.

If I had to guess -- which I don't have to, but I will -- I would speculate that one of the reasons my rather straightforward posts push your buttons so badly is that your continued failures in conversations with me on the subject of Thelema really rock the foundation of your self-image. If I had to offer you advice -- which I don't have to, but I will -- you should take a good, long hard look at your attachment to this idea of "self."

If you honestly want to claim that "X is true", and "there is some evidence that X is true" are the same statement

Which I didn't claim, Mr. "Reading Comprehension."

I said, "The second quote is an explanation for why it's completely fair to say the first quote." And that's leaving aside the fact that I didn't say "X is true" -- I qualified it by saying, "Last I heard," which implies to most reasonable readers that I'm recalling something that I'm not totally confident in.

You need to calm down and read the words that are in front of your face.

Since most of your postings here are devoted to pointing out that it is bad reasoning to assert "X is true, because there is some evidence that X is true" (provided X is some "ookey-spookey" thing that pushes your "skeptical" buttons)

No. Again you display a problem with your reading comprehension. Many of my postings often point out that the things people think of as evidence -- including day dreams -- aren't actually evidence for the particular claim that they are making.

In contrast, the evidence I cited on this thread -- in support of a claim about statistics -- was a poll conducted by a well-known and respected research center. It's fine for you or for anyone else to raise a question about exactly how accurate the data I cited is, but I think just about any fair-minded person would agree that the data I cited is sufficient grounds for saying, as part of a casual conversation, "Last I heard, X was happening...."

Well, yes actually i did "post 'good evidence [you are] dead wrong'"; I cited the American Religious Identification Survey

Which didn't contain data for the last seven years or so. You didn't cite evidence that I'm wrong: at best, you showed that the number of Nones was static for a while. This does not directly address the claim that the Nones are currently the most rapidly increasing group.

At the most, you've introduced a set of data that might qualify or call into question the results of another set of data. And as I said above, it's fine to have that discussion -- but it's not "evidence I'm dead wrong" nor does it show that I have insufficient grounds for saying casually, "Last I heard, X was happening...."

Impressive indeed to say "definitions matter" while equivocating

I'll tell you what. If you can quote one example of me employing an equivocation fallacy in an argument -- and explain how it's an equivocation fallacy -- then I will retract the argument.

Thelemites?

Exactly Ten Thousand![/font:efspmtd1][/align:efspmtd1]

By the way - "LAShTAL registered members undoubtedly include Christian spooks, Jesuit spies, Anti-witchcraft dildos, Satanic exposers, Icke infantiles, Illuminati revealers, and other curious customers who can hardly be classified as Thelemites.

Also, take a look at the member list sometime, and note how many folks have never posted. It seems like they were just window shopping. How many were/are lurkers of Thelemic bent?

Note that AL specifically defines "Thelemites" as being of three grades. From that I'll define a Thelemite as anyone who has received the first degree ... in OTO, A.'.A.'., or any other org that accepts AL (with or without inclusion of other "holy" texts) or anyone who has (solo or with others) attained to the central vision of Malkuth (that is, Kether in Malkuth), because that's what constitutes the individuality of a Horus-child. Oh heck!  We might even have to include some of those Tibetan guys ... or even an Amazonia shaman or two 😀

If anyone has taken the first degree in any Thelemic org, and then quit or otherwise run home to mommy or the Roman Catholic Church, then they can't be counted ... except in the rosters of the Black Brothers (Oh ... them! ) or the "fallen" (see The Pit called Because).

How many have fallen in here?[/align:efspmtd1]

Probably a lot, but it's difficult to tell how many of those people would call themselves Thelemites or still think of themselves as Thelemites. Maybe some of them have a silly definition of "Thelemite," like "Someone who's taken a degree in an order that calls itself 'Thelemic,'" and wouldn't consider themselves Thelemites because they haven't taken a formal degree. Maybe some of them only had a passing interest in Thelema when they signed up and would no longer call themselves Thelemites (maybe they're no longer even interested in Thelema). Maybe some of them signed up because they were primarily interested in related but distinct subjects, like the life of Aleister Crowley, magick, or the writings of Kenneth Grant.

Note that AL specifically defines "Thelemites" as being of three grades. From that I'll define a Thelemite as anyone who has received the first degree ... in OTO, A.'.A.'., or any other org that accepts AL

I think for it to be possible to actually study this question, we have to take "Thelemite" to mean anyone who calls themselves that in some context or another.

I guess one could start a poll on the forums, but good luck getting all of the members to participate. My suspicion would be that the number of people calling themselves Thelemites would be quite high in such a poll.

"Los": As to the degree to which my work is integral to my self-image, probably so. Doing something every day for 20 years will do that to a person, although my non-work identity as a musician is probably more integral there, something i don't think I've brought up here much, because it hasn't been relevant. I believe i have mostly mentioned my work in connection with claims by you and your former sidekick david that I disagree with something you have said because i lack reasoning or reading comprehension abilities. Of course, it couldn't be that I (and so many others) disagree because you are not a particularly persuasive writer or clear thinker, could it?

As to whether my "continued failures in conversations with ["Los"] on the subject of Thelema really rock the foundations of [my] self-image", well, I suppose that would depend on whether or not i considered myself to have "failed"!

So far as i can recall, i have pretty decisively routed you in every such "conversation" (certainly including this one). So have most other regulars (and a few "drive-bys", like Yeheshua) who have bothered to challenge your silly nonsense posts.

To the extent our little talks affect my self-image, it probably would not be in the direction you suggest. It's interesting that you keep referring to these imagined triumphs, and certainly suggests much about your well-defended ego and limited sources of self-esteem (since we're psychoanalyzing each other today).

As to your sad efforts to salvage your dignity here, let's apply your proposed methods:

"It's completely fair to say X is true, because there is some evidence that X is true."

thus

"It's completely fair to say that it is true that praeternatural beings exist, because there is some evidence they exist (among many other things, AC (and lots of others) says so)."

I won't be continuing this discussion with you further; you may feel free to imagine you have triumphed again by posting more about this. If you really aren't trolling, do look up Dunning-Kruger syndrome as has so often been suggested by more than one poster here.

*****

As to the OT: by Shiva's proposed criterion, i am no Thelemite, as the last occult organization I joined was the Boy Scouts of America (I was expelled for insolence).

You mean to say you've never seen that internal star? I bet you have. If so, then you could qualify as a Man of Earth ... if you wanted.

If not, well, you could always go back to the Boy Scouts.

Unfortunately, I have "aged out" of the B.[sup:ehqhrkbp].[/sup:ehqhrkbp].S.[sup:ehqhrkbp].[/sup:ehqhrkbp].A.[sup:ehqhrkbp].[/sup:ehqhrkbp]., and remain insolent, so I don't think they'd have me.

If i don't have to join anything and it's just down to gnosis/visions, I guess I might "make the grade" after all. All that LSD must have done something (well, it changed my life, there is that); the tuna and mushroom diet has been working wonders, though I keep having this peculiar foam around my mouth.

I said I would reply no more to the "Los" entity, but could not help myself:

That's "Dr. Reading Comprehension" to you, son. Off to wipe away the foam yet again.

Once again, you miss the point by a mile. It is fair to make a claim when the evidence offered is of a kind that supports that particular claim, and it's not fair to make a claim when the evidence offered does not support that particular claim.

When there exists data gathered by a reputable organization that implies that the Nones are the fastest growing group, it is definitely fair to conclude tentatively that that is the case because that's the sort of evidence that would support such a claim. And it's certainly fair to remark in an offhand way, "Last I heard, the Nones were the fastest growing group."

When there exist day dreams and anecdotes that contain post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies offered in support of the existence of preternatural intelligences, it is not fair to conclude tentatively that preternatural intelligences exist.

And -- hold onto your mouth-frothing pills, because this next statement might not compute in your brain --  the question of whether it's fair or not to make those claims (that is, the question of whether believing those claims is justified) is separate from whether the claim is actually true or not. Even if there are preternatural intelligences, then the evidence that's been presented so far on their behalf does not justify anyone tentatively concluding that they exist. In the same way, radio waves existed before humans had the ability to detect them, but someone a thousand years ago who believed in radio waves on the basis of dream revelation wouldn't have been justified in tentatively concluding that they exist.

The thing is, these are all interesting subjects to discuss, but you don't want to have a real discussion. You want to stamp your little feet and froth and foam and tell yourself that it's just impossible for you to have a problem with reading comprehension because you have an advanced degree, damnit! That self-image of yours is holding you back, and you really need to reassess your attachment to it.

This is probably the friendliest, most sincere advice you've ever been given, I'd wager.

I won't be continuing this discussion with you further

Or not, evidently.

I said I would reply no more to the "Los" entity, but could not help myself

I know. Lack of self-control is one of the symptoms of an excessive attachment to self-image.

Snap!!

Who’d have thought it, ignant666, what are the chances eh, what are the chances?! 😮

I too was expelled from a similar youth organization for “insolence” – maybe even “gross” insolence – only instead of the Boy Scouts of America it was the Cub Scouts of Croydon. 🙁

The insolence was swearing away – properly (and I mean properly) f’ing and blinding in the 20 odd seconds while it lasted! - about Baden Powell, Akela & Baloo (members of the Kipling Jungle Book menagerie and also the sobriquets the adult scoutleaders went under) as my impromptu, ad-lib additions to a “radio play” our little “six pack” group were supposed to be putting on hidden from view behind a stage curtain.  Well, it all seemed a great hoot & most entertaining to me at the time (- still does in fact! ::))

For some unknown reason whose logic is now lost to me, I thought being “invisible” also meant “unaccountable” for my actions in that I was somehow quite safe and immune from detection by putting on a ridiculous accent to try and disguise my voice.  My parents were more upset afterwards than I was, I think >:( I was grounded for a while or some such crap.  (And no, I was too young – about 9 – to have been imbibing any intoxicants at the time. :-X)

I just thought maybe you might liked to have known that. 🙂 That’s all! 

(Please carry on.)

Dib dib,
N Joy

Back on the OT of "scores or crores" [edited after posting to fix a minor arithmetic error and to state an implicit assumption]: Estimating numbers of members of hidden populations is a notoriously difficult business, especially where, as here, there is no social-network basis for population membership (that is, one can be a Thelemite without having contact with any other Thelemites). For purposes of this discussion, the most useful definition is that anyone who considers himself a Thelemite is one (somewhat less often than a stopped clock, "Los" is sometimes right), as the more technically correct definition offered by Shiva is difficult to operationalize.

The most knowable number here is (c)OTO membership. It is the largest and most visible Thelemic organization, and has a strong appearance at legitimacy with owning the AC copyrights (albeit purchased in bankruptcy); it is probably the organization those who join organizations are most likely to join. The thing we most want to know to estimate numbers of Thelemites is what percentage of Thelemites are members of the (c)OTO.

It seems likely that most English speaking Thelemites are ACS members, since it is free and gives access to various downloads etc. So we could just do a poll and ask- unfortunately, polls here seem to have a very low response rate:

http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9 n=2 (!)
http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1 n=32
http://www.lashtal.com/forum/index.php?topic=6113 n=44 (on the "kill/fill" debate)
http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5 n=22
http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5 n=53
http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9 n=75

However we have an interesting if limited data point: in 2008, a Lashtalian did a survey that got 99 responses that gets us closer to what we'd like to know:

http://www.lashtal.com/forum/index.php?topic=3284

Of the 99, 89, or 90%, identified as Thelemites; 56, or 57%, were members of Thelemic organizations.

While obviously this is not necessarily a representative sample of  Thelemites (though one could respond to the survey regardless of lashtal membership) due to self-selection bias and the likelihood of confounding (in that persons likely to respond to surveys are probably also more likely to join organizations than others), it is the best we've got, and has a larger sample than any lashtal poll i could find. The rate of joining is much much higher than i would have expected- i would have guessed (in fact I did, see above) that there were several times as many Thelemites as OTO members, but these are actual data (however weak) as opposed to mere speculation.

Unfortunately, it does not ask the exact question we would like: what percentage of Thelemites join the (c)OTO? If we make the assumptions that no non-Thelemites join any Thelemic organizations and that most who join an organization probably join the largest and most visible organization, we can get closer to an estimator. Let's say an arbitrary estimate of three quarters of joiners join the (c)OTO (the real rate is probably higher)- then 47 of every hundred Thelemites are (c)OTO members. If there were 3,003 members worldwide in 2005, per

http://b-oto.org/greenfield/inquisition.pdf

cited by jamie above, with 1,508 in the US in 2013 according to Wikipedia (citing a US Grand Lodge annual report, the most recent issued publicly), then we can estimate there were 6,389 Thelemites worldwide in 2008. This is the Revised Official Estimate and is to be accepted as Official by all persons whatever, on penalty of having to come up with a better estimate in case of heresy.

If we take AC's 85 A.[sup:nnr385yy].[/sup:nnr385yy].A.[sup:nnr385yy].[/sup:nnr385yy]. students in 1912 (Perdurabo, p. 258) as being 47% of Thelemites in 1912 (since i can't find any OTO membership numbers), that means the number of Thelemites has increased by a factor of 35 (181 to 6,389) in roughly a century, or about 40% per decade- about equal to the early Christians or contemporary Mormons, though certainly not as well as the Wiccans with 340,000 for a religion invented 60 or so years ago.

****

My expulsion from the B.[sup:nnr385yy].[/sup:nnr385yy].S.[sup:nnr385yy].[/sup:nnr385yy].A.[sup:nnr385yy].[/sup:nnr385yy]. was less colorful than Jamie's from the C.[sup:nnr385yy].[/sup:nnr385yy].S.[sup:nnr385yy].[/sup:nnr385yy].C.[sup:nnr385yy].[/sup:nnr385yy].: I showed up for troop uniform inspection in jeans (with full scout regalia from the waist up). When they asked "Where are your pants?", I replied "I thought i was wearing them!" (since i was a good Pyrrhonic skeptic even then, inclined to doubt all, including the evidence of my senses telling me i was entrousered). As I was 12 or so, i had not got much beyond Circuit 4 at the time, though that changed soon after.

Holy Bovine!  What [s:woms8kgb]Nazis[/s:woms8kgb], er, Nasties!  When I was in BSA, they allowed "jeans" - at least in the San fernando Valley of 1950, or so.

If that's the way (your tale) they operate now, they're expelling members faster than Crowley expelled initiates. Just think about it, when we read the history of the AA/OTO (early 20th century), it seems like 60% of anyone who got anywhere also got expelled. Today, it's probably hard to get expelled frm OTO - unless one stops paying dues. I recently spoke to a first-degree member in California, who also runs his own Thelemic org. OTO told him he had to give this up, but he persisted. They did not throw him out, and he continues to pay his dues. But he knows that he'll never get that 2nd degree.

[/align:woms8kgb]

Re my expulsion from an occult "teaching order": Well, this was back around 1971 or so, so not very current events. It was small-town hippie-hating at work, as my hair was getting longish in addition to the non-standard trousers. It wasn't the jean-wearing per se, so much as the "smart-aleck" answer.

Jamie, do you think it possible that those "516" have been forbidden participation under threat of no upward mobility? And could that very number reflect an accurate membership number for the incorporated O.T.O.?

And christibrany, don't let those dog tags jingle while you're crawling thru the bushes! 😉

Paintus Obscurus; we had little rubber cases for ours to stop the noise.  Did they have those for yours? Like little sleeves.

I was in the boy scouts too; I actually got my Eagle.  I am glad I did it I learnt a lot of very useful things.  But it is true when I was on my Board of Review in the 90s they asked me what my stance was on homosexuality. I said something along the lines of (after being extremely taken aback at the randomness of it ; it had never ever come up before!) 'Honestly if some people want to do that I am not for or against it, I rather have no opinion on it because it doesn't pertain to me and I don't care enough about it either way.'  I guess that satisfied them. 

I didn't joint the scouts.  I couldn't believe that all my friends did.  I later regretted it.