My conversation starter for Atheists

[benlehman]

It goes like this.

1) Consider a hypothetical world in which there is a study that conclusively proves that certain aspects of religious practice, or the practice of particular religion, has an immediate benefit to your health. (I'm aware that such studies exist in the real world, but they're flawed. I'm asking you to consider one that, to your eyes, is conclusive.)

a) Okay -> Go to 2.
b) I would never find such studies conclusive, regardless of the methodology or repeated results -> Go to END.
c) I cannot imagine such a world -> Go to END.

2) Now you've imagined this world. Would you take up that religious practice?

a) No, it's a bunch of superstition -> Go to END.
b) No, I barely even eat right anyway -> Go to 3.
c) Yes, of course -> Go to 3.

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

a) No, duh -> Go to 4
b) Yes, duh -> Go to 4
c) Maybe, it's complicated -> Go to 4

4) Do you consider them more or less rational?

a) Yes, they're helping their health -> Go to End
b) No, they're practicing a superstition -> Go to End
c) Huh. -> Go to End

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

Comments

Re: Also, Placebo

[wickedthought.livejournal.com]

If it is a practice observed by both religious and non-religious people, then it is not exclusive to the religion and not an exclusively religious practice.

Ben, what's the point?

Re: Also, Placebo

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

Well, presume that, pre-research, this practice was limited to members of a particular religion, whether faithful or not. (Just as plenty of non-faithful Muslims pray to Mecca, plenty of non-faithful Catholics take Mass.)

The point? The point is to make you think, and to make me think. So far, all you have done is react.

yrs--
--Ben

Re: Also, Placebo

[wickedthought.livejournal.com]

I've thought about your questionaire, and that's why I've replied in the way I have.

If I didn't think about it, I'd just follow it through to the conclusion you already had for it.

You still haven't answered the "is it moral?" question: something you've completely missed in your initial line of questioning, and as I've said, the only question that's really important.

Re: Also, Placebo

[evilmagnus]

Shellfish!

The edict against delicious, moist shellfish was originally a religious practice, but it arose out of purely secular necessity: your local priest was most likely the most educated person around, you saw him often, and he probably saw lots of people die after eating shellfish that had been left in the sun.

That's an example of a 'religious practice' that actually has nothing to do with religion. It's a smart thing to do in a hot country, whether or not God tells you so.