Shock, Horror - Iona Institute Finds Religious People are "Happier" & "Healthier"

[drkpower]

Originally Posted by tmesis2008

I don't think you understand. I accept that people "love" God. I accept that this "love" exists for them. They don't have to prove it to me, because it is utterly beside the point.

There is no evidence for their God. Their "love" might exist, but they are delusional, because their God, IMO, does not.

Now, IMO, my wife does exist. If you want to get into why we feel "love" and why we want to save people who are our kin, well we could get into talking about evolutionary reasons etc. but it would be pointless.

My "love" for my wife would only be as delusional as someone's "love" for God, if I have no evidence that my wife existed. Can you not see that you can substitute "love" for any other word and my argument still stands? Therefore I have to say nothing further about "love", "hate" or the existence of any other emotion. I am not a hypocrite for reasoning concluding that my wife exists, and that God does not.

Your argument only works if I am asking people to Prove that they love God. I am not. I am asking them to prove that God exists.

At this juncture I think I need someone else to gently let you know that you've lost this argument.

You have won the argument you are having....
You dont seem to understand the argument I am making.

[garlandgreen]

Originally Posted by drkpower

You have won the argument you are having....
You dont seem to understand the argument I am making.

Oh we do. The existence of faith. Thats what you're arguing isn't it? And keeping the oath to nurture it

[tmesis2008]

Originally Posted by drkpower

You have won the argument you are having....
You dont seem to understand the argument I am making.

Tell me that how I am wrong.

I am asking people to prove that there is a God. I don't give a f*ck whether they "love" it or "hate" it or want to mate with it. I'm not asking them to prove that emotion.

I am not asking someone to prove their emotions and you say because I can't prove mine I am hypocrite. That's absurd.

[drkpower]

Originally Posted by garlandgreen

Oh we do. The existence of faith. Thats what you're arguing isn't it? And keeping the oath to nurture it

Garland, this isnt even the thread on the "oath".......

[garlandgreen]

Originally Posted by drkpower

Garland, this isnt even the thread on the "oath".......

I didn't say it was. Same argument though which I notice you didn't address.

[drkpower]

Originally Posted by tmesis2008

Tell me that how I am wrong.

I am asking people to prove that there is a God. I don't give a f*ck whether they "love" it or "hate" it or want to mate with it. I'm not asking them to prove that emotion.

I am not asking someone to prove their emotions and you say because I can't prove mine I am hypocrite. That's absurd.

But faith is an emotion....

[tmesis2008]

Originally Posted by drkpower

But faith is an emotion....

And? So what?

Faith in something which doesn't appear to exist is hardly analogous to faith in something that clearly does.

If that were the case we'd have to respect a person who said that they had a wife who we found to be imaginary. Should we "respect" their "marriage"? No, of course not.

In the same way I don't respect someone's "faith" (or love or whatever) in something which doesn't appear to exist, just as I think that the person who says he has a wife but really doesn't might need some mental help.

Really, the only reason that belief in God is respected is that many people hold this delusion (you've even suggested that this is one of the reasons to respect it). If I told you that God spoke to me in my cornflakes bowl you would probably believe I was in need of help, however, if it was part of the Christian faith, according to you, I should be respected?! Can you not see the problem with that sort of thinking, or will I point it out?

[Almanac]

Originally Posted by imokyrok

Some religions require a tithe of a tenth of all income. Think of what that could do if it wasn't supporting pastors and churches. In truth though I guess few people would give over a tenth of their income for no personal return. ( ie. a place in "heaven"). My step dad gives a tenth to his baptist church. It drives my catholic mum nuts!

And what's wrong with supporting the Church?

[Almanac]

Originally Posted by imokyrok

I don't think too many would disagree with you here. In fact religion is the ultimate placebo. Marx might have well as substituted the word placebo for opium in his infamous quotation.

The context of his quotation is often misunderstood. This is what he said in full:

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

He believed that religion provided an important function but that ultimately it needed to be removed as an "illusory happiness" in favour of a "real happiness."

Of course, he assumed that religious belief, defined as belief in a reality that transcends this material world, is false.

[Ah Well]

Originally Posted by A_man_about_a_dog

BreakingNews.ie

Surprise, surprise.... the Iona Institute have released a report which claims that those with more religious views are generally happier, in terms of lower depression levels, than people who are not religious. The report also claims that people with strong religious views tend to recover from illness much quicker than non-religious patients.

The study concluded that religion is rarely a socially destructive force and is beneficial to both the individual & wider society.


Frankly, what else would one expect of the Iona Institute other than a report which promotes religion in a highly favourable light? What I want to know is how do they measure whether religious people have better recovery times than non-religious people? Is it a case of them simply asking patients how they 'feel' and then separating those patients who described themselves as 'religious' from the 'non-religious' and coming up with a set of figures?

I certainly don't buy into the notion that people with strong religious views are going to have shorter recovery times than those atheistic or agnostic views. Sounds like a load of old hobble thrown together in a manner which produces the results that the boys up in Iona HQ want to see. I often wonder why the likes of breaking news and rte.ie carry these stories on their main pages.... surely there has to be more important happenings going on in the world this morning than the Iona Institute releasing a highly biased report, no?

I saw that a few days back and instant bah humbug

First para on their Site says it all "The Iona Institute is a non-governmental organisation dedicated to the strengthening of civil society through making the case for marriage and religious practice."

If they didn't find that religious people were happier and healthier then they'd have been in rather a difficult position making the case for .... religious practice wouldn't they

I'll get my coat ..... need some fresh air anyway ... only so much religious stuff one can be exposed to daily

Slán