Re: Also, Placebo

posted by [identity profile] wickedthought.livejournal.com at 12:50am on 30/07/2008
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.
[parent entry] [link] [parent] [reply]
 

Re: Also, Placebo

posted by [identity profile] kitsuchan.livejournal.com at 11:48am on 30/07/2008
Isn't that up to them to decide?
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

Re: Also, Placebo

posted by [identity profile] tigerbunny-db.livejournal.com at 03:44pm on 30/07/2008
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.
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

Re: Also, Placebo

posted by [identity profile] wickedthought.livejournal.com at 03:58pm on 30/07/2008
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.
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

Re: Also, Placebo

posted by [identity profile] tigerbunny-db.livejournal.com at 04:40pm on 30/07/2008
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.
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

Re: Also, Placebo

posted by [identity profile] wickedthought.livejournal.com at 04:42pm on 30/07/2008
The fact that you call Buddhism a religion says a lot.

And using the "nothing is true" argument is bad form.
[link] [parent] [reply]

May

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
  1
 
 2
 
 3
 
 4
 
 5
 
 6
 
7
 
 8
 
 9
 
 10
 
 11
 
 12
 
 13
 
14
1
 15
 
 16
 
 17
 
 18
 
 19
 
 20
 
21
 
 22
 
 23
 
 24
 
 25
 
 26
 
 27
 
28
 
 29
 
 30
 
 31