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

[Almanac]

No, I'm not. I'm looking for the most reasonable explanation. I'm sure if we trawled other cultures and beliefs we could find numerous examples of prophecies being fulfilled (often, actually, the prophecies are in "poetic" language and they are "interpreted" as having being fulfilled). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You are assuming that your explanation is the most reasonable.

Well no what makes Christ unique is that he was pre-announced. Unlike Buddha, Mohammad, Confucius or any other religious leaders. And the prophecies were pretty specific. Either it's a coincidence of astronomical proportions or else the prophets had foreknowledge.

So, God can make the sun wobble around, and he ensures that only a few thousand people on earth in a certain location see it, and he also ensures that after the event everything (planetary orbits, temp. of the earth, distance of the sun from the earth) is exactly as if the event didn't happen. Yeah, right. I'm really sorry that you believe this stuff, but it is arrant nonsense. There's nothing I can say to convince you that it isn't because you will find a way to justify it, such as the above sentence.

And what about the tens of thousands of people of all descriptions, including journalist and skeptics who witnessed this event? If the whole world witnessed the event then faith would no longer be necessary. Such interventions are always rare and are designed to support faith not replace it.

And then God can do all that, and can't perform the relatively simple task of growing a new limb for a faithful amputee (but will heal other sufferers, apparently). Either God has something against amputees or the whole thing is BS. I suspect the more reasonable answer.

Missing limbs have grown back.

[tmesis2008]

You are assuming that your explanation is the most reasonable.

I have friends who while they've been on drugs tell me that they've seen lightening men in the sky. I think the most reasonable explanation is that "lightening men" don't exist and that this was an hallucination. That is most reasonable explanation. When people say they've seen statues move, I assume that it is a trick of their mind. When people say that they get magical wounds on their hands and feet, I assume covert self-harm.

Well no what makes Christ unique is that he was pre-announced. Unlike Buddha, Mohammad, Confucius or any other religious leaders. And the prophecies were pretty specific. Either it's a coincidence of astronomical proportions or else the prophets had foreknowledge.

It's not unusual that someone is chosen to fit a prophecy, or that people do their best to fit a story to a prophecy. Come on, you know this.

And what about the tens of thousands of people of all descriptions, including journalist and skeptics who witnessed this event?

I doubt that the event that was witnessed was our nearest star wobbling about. The earth and its atmosphere can produce strange phenomena. Just look at the Northern Lights: how many people would have believed that these were an indication of God?

You should watch this. I might help explain what I'm on about:

Pharyngula: Something a few of our commenters ought to watch

If the whole world witnessed the event then faith would no longer be necessary.

Indeed. Also, we would notice that the earth and other planets changed orbit (as it would if the sun wobbled about) and there would be massive events on Earth because of it. Of course, you simply say "God suspended all side effects". Also, you have to wonder WHY God would choose to make the Sun wobble about? To what end...

Such interventions are always rare and are designed to support faith not replace it.

...because it's a non-sequitor. Even if the sun did wobble in the sky, why does that mean that God, and specifically Yahweh exists?

Missing limbs have grown back.

Really?! Please, don't leave it there. Go on. Go on. Let's see the evidence.

[diddleydoo]

You miss the entire point. It is not the object that causes people to live their life in a certain way.

I do not live my life in a certain way because my wife and kids exist. It is because of my love for them.

Equally, it is not the mere existence of God that causes people to live their life in a certain way. It is their faith in him.

The issue, therefore, is less the existence of the object, but more the prescence or absence of love/faith. That feeling or emotion is what drives people to do good and bad deeds. And that is why the atheistic position is, at least inconsistent, and probably hypocritical.

Oh dear, where to start?

Firstly: Nobody here is debating whether faith exists or whether Love exists (except yourself). Atheists and religious people alike both agree that "faith" exists. So please stop going on about that because nobody cares.

Secondly: It is true that is might be the "emotion" rather than the "object" which causes people to live their life in a certain way. Again, I don't think anyone is disputing this so stop going on about that too because nobody cares.

Thirdly: Do you agree that my belief that there's a celestial teapot orbiting jupiter, so small that no instruments can detect it is delusional? Why? Then apply the same logic to your own belief.

Finally: Irrespective of my "delusional" status, my faith may be real. Does this lend any strength to my claim that the celestial teapot will one day return and provide the poor with free tea for eternity? Would the strength of my claim change if we suddenly actually FOUND a teapot orbiting Jupiter?

Shane

[imokyrok]

An elderly friend of my mother-in-law recently went to Medjugorie. She came back telling everyone how she was staring at the sun when it started to dance. Now this lady is pretty dim but very sweet and caring so sensible people don't have the heart to point out that staring at the sun is (a) bad for your eyesight and (b) going to play havoc with your visual perception. But it is amazing how many not so sensible elderly people are convinced that she is especially "blessed" and want to shake her hand.

[diddleydoo]

Sun dancing around? Are you kidding me?

Like what would be observed if two different air currents of different temperatures were to cause turbulence between the observer and the sun?

Ockham's razor mustn't be as sharp as it used to be.

Shane.

[imokyrok]

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



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.

I understand that quote to mean that Marx believed that people sought solace in religion when suffering which keeps them from demanding a better life in the here and now. Just as people drown their sorrows in drink and drugs. I still see such religious opium all the time. People here and all over the world convince themselves that their suffering in this world can be offered up to ensure paradise in the next world. To be honest for some thats all they've got and I wouldn't necessarily seek to take it away from them - but that doesn't make it true.

[tmesis2008]

... People here and all over the world convince themselves that their suffering in this world can be offered up to ensure paradise in the next world. To be honest for some that's all they've got and I wouldn't necessarily seek to take it away from them...

Even if you did seek to take it away from them you probably can't, to an extent, until the person is ready.

You can't argue with some people:

A: God made the sun dance in the sky and thousands of people saw it, even those who didn't believe.
B: How come almost everyone on the sunny side of the planet didn't see it?
A: Well, God only wanted to affirm the faith of a few thousand people in one place, so he blocked the rest of the people from seeing it, somehow.
B: But if the Sun "danced around" it would have serious effects on the Earth and all the planets which we would easily be able to see and test.
A: No, God held everything else in place while he made the Sun dance.
B: Riiiighhht.

[imokyrok]

Even if you did seek to take it away from them you probably can't, to an extent, until the person is ready.

You can't argue with some people:

A: God made the sun dance in the sky and thousands of people saw it, even those who didn't believe.
B: How come almost everyone on the sunny side of the planet didn't see it?
A: Well, God only wanted to affirm the faith of a few thousand people in one place, so he blocked the rest of the people from seeing it, somehow.
B: But if the Sun "danced around" it would have serious effects on the Earth and all the planets which we would easily be able to see and test.
A: No, God held everything else in place while he made the Sun dance.
B: Riiiighhht.

Dawkins was on Minnesotta NPR recently and he distinguished between the religious who believe in virgin births, miracles, resurrection etc and those who are deists. He called the former "infantile" and said at least you can have an intelligent conversation with the latter.

BTW some elected Representatives of the "infantile" type sought to have Dawkin banned from giving a lecture at the Oklahoma university recently. They didn't succeed so now they are "investigating " the university.

[diddleydoo]

Dawkins was on Minnesotta NPR recently and he distinguished between the religious who believe in virgin births, miracles, resurrection etc and those who are deists. He called the former "infantile" and said at least you can have an intelligent conversation with the latter.

BTW some elected Representatives of the "infantile" type sought to have Dawkin banned from giving a lecture at the Oklahoma university recently. They didn't succeed so now they are "investigating " the university.

Hah! Intelligent conversation..... Further proof of the existence of god?

Shane.

[stringjack]

But faith is an emotion....

Well, yes, but that's not all it is, in general parlance, which is part of what's causing the confusion. Your argument would probably work better if it switched to a clearly ethical level. Atheists usually accept all kinds of moral claims ('Slavery is wrong', say) on the basis of their intuitions (or something similar). As it's hard to come up with 'evidence' that slavery is wrong, believing that slavery is wrong looks like it might be vulnerable to the kind of objections being made against theism.