benlehman | My conversation starter for Atheists

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?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I think I have to contest your definition of "religion" here, and I suspect the difference in definition is why you think Ben's question is pointless.

There's an awful lot of Christians and Jews out there* who regularly attend services and participate in any number of other religious rituals (Bat Mitzvah, etc), and would consider themselves members of that relgion, but have no actual faith whatsoever. Rather, they do it because it is a cultural thing or socially What You Do or because they were brought up in the religion and it's just What They've Always Done. I would say those people have religion but not faith, and those people do generally identify as being those religions when asked for censuses and such. Sure, *someone* having faith is necessary to a religion *existing*, but there are a lot of people *in* those existing religions who don't.

* I'm sure this happens in other religions too, especially in areas where they are particularly common, but I've seen it most frequently in these two. Christianity because it's socially dominant here in the US; Judaism because it's simultaneously a religion and an ethnicity.

Would you consider such a person "religious?"

Well, in so far as we say someone who always does something does it "religiously", I suppose I'd kinda have to. But I'd probably pick "observant" if I were actually going to pick a word for it. *shakes fist at dictionary.* curse you, confusing English words!

Dictionaries don't define words, they provide common usage.

They aren't religious. They don't believe. You can be a part of a religion and not be religious, but you can't be religious without faith.

Isn't that up to them to decide?

Actual trained Religion Expert (tm) here. Faith is a concept that has almost nothing whatsoever to do with actually existing religions for most of human history. It is really, really important to *theology* (for certain values thereof, mostly having to do with the Christian religious traditions), but religion, for most people, in most societies, for most of history, has been all about praxis and not belief.

Faith has got zero to do with this conversation.

Being a "religion expert" is kind of like being an expert in unicorns, isn't it?

Can you demonstrate a religion that doesn't require belief in something that can't be demonstrated to be true.

Really, really not going to get into it with you here in Ben's space. I'll answer one post worth of direct questions, but that's it.

Gods, I make no representations about. Kind of impossible by definition. Religions? They're real. People have them and do them. And therefore they can be studied and facts known about them. That's the kind of "expert" I am.

Arguable that most Buddhism is at worst no less "rational and empirical" than psychology or political science. Majority of traditional religious practices are more "folk science" than statements about abstract, unprovable concepts - they're often *wrong* factually, but they're not falsifiable within the arsenal of techniques their practitioners have/had available.

Nothing can be demonstrated to be true. Basic principle of scientific method: things are falsifiable, not provable.

The fact that you call Buddhism a religion says a lot.

And using the "nothing is true" argument is bad form.

My conversation starter for Atheists

Re: Also, Placebo

Re: Also, Placebo

Re: Also, Placebo

Re: Also, Placebo

Re: Also, Placebo

Re: Also, Placebo

Re: Also, Placebo

Re: Also, Placebo

Re: Also, Placebo