benlehman

The informal fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, or bifurcation) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking. Strictly speaking, the prefix "di" in "dilemma" means "two". When a list of more than two choices are offered, but there are other choices not mentioned, then the fallacy is called the fallacy of false choice.

A placebo is a substance or procedure which a patient accepts as a medicine or therapy but which has no specific therapeutic activity for the condition. Any effect is thought to be based on the power of suggestion.

A placebo effect or placebo response is a therapeutic and healing effect of an inert medicine or ineffective therapy,[1] or more generally is the psychosocial aspect of every medical treatment.[2] Sometimes known as a non-specific effect or subject-expectancy effect, a placebo effect (or its counterpart, the nocebo effect), occurs when a patient's symptoms are altered in some way (i.e., alleviated or exacerbated) by a treatment, due to the individual expecting or believing that it will work. The placebo effect occurs when a patient is treated in conjunction with the suggestion from an authority figure or from acquired information that the treatment will aid in healing and the patient’s condition improves. This effect has been known since the early 20th century.

1) A (see: accountability w/o democracy)

2)C

3)B/C (probably? By some definitions of atheist, anyway)

4)A

End)Well, we've had this conversation before, so...

ACCC here, more or less. And I've got some actual experience with this scenario, too. I have been - at various points, on and off - a praxis-only Buddhist, a magician, and a neopagan ritualist. I don't believe in (in the theological sense) any of these things. Nonetheless, I find them useful to do. And "atheism" makes no sense to me as a concept - it depends on a concept of religion that makes no sense either.

I refer to ritual praxis as DIY brain-hacking/social engineering, and I think of most religious practices over human history as fundamentally instrumental - aimed at producing some beneficial result for *somebody*. Some are more well-aimed than others.

The complicating factor for me has always been the social one: "bad faith" isn't exactly a nice thing to bring into other people's community of practice (or at least I feel that way), so I tend not to fully participate. Which means I probably lose out on some proportion of the benefits available to a more genuine practitioner.

Interesting? Not really. Too "open", as a question, to say anything at all.

Three examples::

A) A world very much like our own, where in many parts of the world practicing the local religion has the immediate benefit of avoiding a lot of trouble, get the better work, eat better, not be shunned by the neighborhood or beaten by the police.

So...
Would you take up that religious practice?
c) Yes, of course, I am a coward.

Consider yourself/someone else who purported to be an atheist, but took up this practice. Are they still an atheist?
b) Yes, duh

Do you consider them more or less rational?
c) Huh. It's matter of courage and integrity, not rationality

Isn't that ... interesting?
No, not really.

Example B
A world very much like our own, where everybody worship money and always try to screw everybody else. (If you worship money and consider this description offensive, I can change it to Satanism, it's not so important for the example)

So...
Would you take up that religious practice?
b) No, I barely even eat right anyway

Consider yourself/someone else who purported to be an atheist, but took up this practice. Are they still an atheist?
b) Yes, duh

Do you consider them more or less rational?
c) Huh. It's matter of honesty, not rationality

(you can use this same example for every religious practice that push you to screw other people, so you can use it for almost any religion, really. Money and Satanism were only two example that I hope will not cause a backlash)

Example C:
This world. An orgiastic cult that practice as the only religious practice safe sex very often. Some scientific study demonstrate that it's good for stress relief and lessen depression.

Would you take up that religious practice?
a) No, I can't. My girlfriend would murder me, nullifying any health benefit.

Consider yourself/someone else who purported to be an atheist, but took up this practice. Are they still an atheist?

c) Maybe, it's complicated. For my neighbors I would even be more atheist than before, but my friends cultist would see me celebrate the cult with great fervor.

4) Do you consider them more or less rational?
I would tend to lose rationality every time I practiced...

End) Huh. Isn't that ... interesting?

No, not really. These questions are grounded in air, the only answer can only be "it depends". Maybe you should consider a simpler way of communication. Telling us what you want to say, for example...

Moreno R.