LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksAll religions have prayer. Perhaps the repetition of prayer, or incantation helps a person to relax (much like any meditation).Originally Posted by Catalpa
All religions have prayer. Perhaps the repetition of prayer, or incantation helps a person to relax (much like any meditation).
And, there we go. I hate to say "I told you so", but right after "my religion makes me happy" comes "my religion just might need to be taken seriously"
It seems as if religion is the last taboo - The Irish Times - Sat, Apr 04, 2009However, he goes on to say that “if the fact of one’s faith did, just as an example, make one more relaxed, or happy, or courageous, or whatever, it might suggest that the truth claims of Christianity are not trivial, and are worth investigating”. In other words, one would not look again at Christianity because it confers benefits, but because those benefits point to the possibility that the claims made by Christianity are substantial and real. Of course, religion is wider than Christianity, but Christianity in Ireland remains by far the largest religion. The majority of immigrants are Christians of some kind, and often far more devout than the natives.
Breda O Brien, Patron of the Iona Institute
I.e. "religious people are happier", "maybe Christianity is true" (because, of course all religions can't be true, so I'll pick my own!).
The only time to take religion seriously is when evidence is presented to show that it is true. Then we can actually stop calling it "religion" and call it "history" or "science" or whatever. People can be happy for all sorts of reasons, it doesn't mean that one thing that they think is true.
And, just to illustrate the double standard, here is what some bishops in the US are saying about Reiki:
AFP: US Catholic bishops warn of Reiki therapy dangers"Reiki therapy finds no support either in the findings of natural science or in Christian belief," said the USCCB doctrine committee in a document issued Thursday.
If I could find evidence that Reiki makes people happier, would the bishops relent and say that "there might be something too it"? Of course not. Not in the slightest. Surely we should hold Christianity's claims to the same standard?
My family used to tithe 10% of after-tax income. We're going to hell.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
¦
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Actually Breda, the Catholic Church (and religion) 'took an unmerciful hammering' at the exact same time it was delivering unmerciful hammerings to the innocent. You imply that it's the revelations of abuse per se that have damaged the Catholic Church (and religion) rather than the appalling abuses themselves!Breda O'Brien writes:
Voices suggesting religion had an important role to play in prosperous times were difficult to find during the Celtic Tiger era. Perhaps that is because the credibility of the Catholic Church in particular took an unmerciful hammering due to revelations of clerical sexual abuse of children, and the failure of the church to deal with them either in a timely or transparent fashion.[my emphasis] It seems as if religion is the last taboo
I watched with glee, while your kings and queens, fought for ten decades for the gods they made.
It's an uninteresting question when trying to settle a questions of fact as to how happy those facts make you. Probably one of the happiest looking men I've ever seen is Charles Manson. Either they're right or they're wrong. You can be as happy as a pig in sh1te spouting nonsense. The Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland was always smiling wasn't he?
If the agenda of the Ionainstitute is to show that the religious are really nothing more than Lotus Eaters then I doubt they'll find much opposition from any except the cause they are claiming to represent.
So, the illogicality or delusionality of belief is not an issue for you?
Then save your ire for those who seek to impose their beliefs on others, not on those who merely wish to believe and live and let live (which is at least a significant minority, if not a majority of "believers"). That would be an honorable course. But instead you paint all with the same brush and declare all who believe to be less than intellectually sound.
Of course it is: whether I love my wife or not does not really have an impact on your life (or "love"), unless I was making claims about that love (imagine I claimed that my "love" was the real "love" and yours was a delusion, and therefore you shouldn't be able to marry).
Honourable? The report is by the Iona Institute, and there position is not "live and let live". I am responding to that. Feel free to post some more strawmen if you wish.Then save your ire for those who seek to impose their beliefs on others, not on those who merely wish to believe and live and let live (which is at least a significant minority, if not a majority of "believers"). That would be an honorable course. But instead you paint all with the same brush and declare all who believe to be less than intellectually sound.
And if others believe in God and have a live and let live attitude, they do not affect you; but you still demean them. Why? When you live your life based on a similarly unprovable belief?
You do not only have a difficulty with the Iona Institute. You have a difficulty with all believers. Do you only engage on this topic within the strict confines of the thread title?
By saying that their belief is ludicrous? IS that demeaning or a simple fact? COnsider that there are people on this planet who believe that it is flat. Would we be wrong in pointing out that this belief has no evidence and is, in fact, ludicrous? Some people really believe that Elvis is alive: should they be taken seriously? What if a government minister made a big government decision based on his horoscope: any problem with that?
Religion has to live in the marketplace of ideas. It's not my fault that it falls short in rational debate, is it?
My life is certainly not based on the fact that I don't believe in Christianity, in the same way that my life (and yours) is not based on the fact that their are no fairies at the bottom of the garden. My point is simply that these things are not true, and I'm not going to act as such. Otherwise I try to get on with my life.Why? When you live your life based on a similarly unprovable belief?
I know and love many believers. I have a difficulty with their belief, yes. I think that when we take irrationality for granted we make ourselves, as a people, weaker. For example, if we didn't separate children in schools according to their parents' superstitions we would be able to better able to spread the resources we had, and wouldn't have to build small, under-resourced schools on new land for a growing population (we could, to an extent, simply expand the schools that we have).You do not only have a difficulty with the Iona Institute. You have a difficulty with all believers. Do you only engage on this topic within the strict confines of the thread title?
Last edited by tmesis2008; 4th April 2009 at 06:02 PM.
But you, I and everyone else bases their lives on unprovable feelings; love, instinct...... We cannot prove how these feelings are created. There is no scientific paper that tells me why I love someone. But I get married, have children and would lay my lfe down for these people I love. Should I abandon this belief because I cannot show you how it occurred and cannot independently verify its existence?
So your certainty as to the non-existence of God or on the fact that others base their lives on such a belief is hypocritical.
If they do not affect you, you shouldnt feel the need to demean them. If they do affect you, you have every right to criticise and even demean. But you choose to demean them all.
We can do that tomorrow. Most people would send their kids to non-religous schools if they were available and local. Just leave a few religous schools for those who really want to educate their children in that way.
Reply With Quote