Does Religion Have Any Good Side?

Zillah

deise go deo wrote: »

Whats your point? The examples you have given have an obvious reason to be concidered bad, You equate religion with this without showing that it has an obvious reason to be concidered bad. So what puts Religion in the same catagory as slavery or The mass slaughter of children?

Well, Catholics: Corrupt organisation that has raped thousands of children over the course of decades, the leadership actively tried to hide the abuse and still refuses to accept responsibility. The current Pope, as a Cardinal, was directly involved in the cover up. They are sexist, homophobic, emotionally crippling, sexually repressive, arrogant, self-obsessed, and possibly worst of all, are actively contributing to the deaths of millions at the hands of a pandemic that disproportionately targets the poor and ignorant, by way of lies and scaremongering, all because of a misconception about the sin of spilling semen and experiencing sex for pleasure. They're also sitting on billions of euro worth of property and treasure (literally precious metals, gems, works of art etc) while preaching humility and abstinence.

They're just awful. Awful awful awful get them off the planet.

robindch

Noreen1 wrote: »

I can understand why you're insulted, and I would suggest that Cardinal O'Connor might judiciously have inserted the word "militant" before atheism.

He didn't use the word "atheism". He said "the inability to believe in God and to live by faith is the greatest of evils".

Noreen1 wrote: »

He was addressing Catholics, so I presume he would have expected them to take the same meaning as I did from what he said - I'm pretty sure they did, too.

It's irrelevant whom he's addressing and there is no double-meaning here. He said, in very simple terms, that atheism is the worst possible thing in the world, and by implication, that atheists are the worst people in the world -- it really is that simple and straightforward.

Noreen1 wrote: »

With regard to your interpretation of "Primacy of Conscience" - I'm genuinely puzzled. [...] Not even remotely similar to moral relativism - though I can see how someone not very familiar with Catholic beliefs could interpret it as such.

Well, try reading the Vatican's text again:

The Vatican wrote:

A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.

The Vatican's belief, expressed in clear and simple English, is that people must do what their conscience tells them. It does not say that people should discuss their decisions with other people, nor follow the church, nor follow state law, nor -- crucially -- believe that there are certain things that are too awful to do (which is what a morality based upon certain moral absolutes requires). Quite the contrary: this "do it if you think it's right" approach is exactly the kind of "moral relativism" that the church continually says that all atheists stick to -- even though no atheist I know does this.

Are you really saying that the phrase "must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience" does not mean that people should do whatever they think is the right thing to do, regardless of what that thing is?

alex73

Of course the poll is biased in favour of Atheism & Agnosticism when its posted in this forum.

But the Global facts are obvious.. more people believe in God than those who don't. Gods existance can't be verified 100% either by believers or those who don't believe, but the again thats why we call belief in God.. Faith.

goingpostal

alex73 wrote: »

Of course the poll is biased in favour of Atheism & Agnosticism when its posted in this forum.

But the Global facts are obvious.. more people believe in God than those who don't. Gods existance can't be verified 100% either by believers or those who don't believe, but the again thats why we call belief in God.. Faith.

600 years ago most people on earth believed that the earth was flat, and that the sun rotated around the earth. Did that make those beliefs true or facts? Just because more people believe in God than don't, tells us nothing about the truth of that belief.

robindch

alex73 wrote: »

Of course the poll is biased in favour of Atheism & Agnosticism when its posted in this forum.

The poll was posted by a religious believer, so I'm not fully sure how you reached this conclusion

Daftendirekt

alex73 wrote: »

Of course the poll is biased in favour of Atheism & Agnosticism when its posted in this forum.

But the Global facts are obvious.. more people believe in God than those who don't. Gods existance can't be verified 100% either by believers or those who don't believe, but the again thats why we call belief in God.. Faith.

Did you just commit an argumentum ad populum?

Zombrex

Noreen1 wrote: »

Actually - you have demonstrated pretty clearly that the only thing you care about is achieving your goals, and that you perceive yourself as having some superior position.

Is that supposed to be a criticism? My goals are ensuring fairness and proper education for the children of Ireland, so yes that is what I care about.

Your goal seems to be to indoctrinate your children into the religion you picked for them, and to get the State to help you while you do it. So yes I think my position is vastly superior.

Noreen1 wrote: »

Therefore, I advocate the rights of all parents, equally, to enable them to be the moral guardians of their children.

And the State will not (or should not) participate in that if what you are trying to do is indoctrinate your children into a particular religion.

The State's responsibility is to your children's education, not to you. I seem to remember saying that again, if you are just going to continue to ignore that point there seems to be little point continuing.

Noreen1 wrote: »

I accept that this would place a heavier burden of taxation on people - because I regard tolerance and Human rights as being more important than economic considerations.

You do not have a "human right" to be supported by the State while you indoctrinate children into a religious belief system.

The State's responsibility to children is to provide them with an education, not a religion. Religion is a private choice for an individual that should be made when they have the ability to rationally and critically assess each religion, not something to be drummed into them as children.

alex73

goingpostal wrote: »

600 years ago most people on earth believed that the earth was flat, and that the sun rotated around the earth. Did that make those beliefs true or facts? Just because more people believe in God than don't, tells us nothing about the truth of that belief.

Jesus never spoke about the world being flat and sun going around the earth, so it never formed part of the Christian faith, The core truths of our faith do no change and that is why billions of people believe in them.

strobe

alex73 wrote: »

Jesus never spoke about the world being flat and sun going around the earth, so it never formed part of the Christian faith, The core truths of our faith do no change and that is why billions of people believe in them.

I think his point was, just because lots of people believe something, that doesn't make it true.

goingpostal

alex73 wrote: »

Jesus never spoke about the world being flat and sun going around the earth, so it never formed part of the Christian faith, The core truths of our faith do no change and that is why billions of people believe in them.

The Purportedly Magic Jew liked cursing fig trees who didn't provide him with food, even though it was not the season for figs (Mark 11:12-14). I wouldn't take anything that dude said about anything too seriously. If he ever even existed......:D

liamw

alex73 wrote: »

The core truths of our faith do no change and that is why billions of people believe in them.

What are the core truths of your faith?

alex73

liamw wrote: »

What are the core truths of your faith?

I suppose the very basic truth, that God exists and he loves us.

goingpostal

goingpostal wrote: »

The Purportedly Magic Jew liked cursing fig trees who didn't provide him with food, even though it was not the season for figs (Mark 11:12-14). I wouldn't take anything that dude said about anything too seriously. If he ever even existed......:D

Indeed, a childish tantrum isn't a quality I want to be worshiping

goingpostal

alex73 wrote: »

I suppose the very basic truth, that God exists and he loves us.

What about the very very basic truth that Pikkiwokki, the Papua New Guinea mud god, is going to give me a pig and all the coconuts I can carry, as long as I roll around in the muck every Sunday? Don't forget that one. I have it written down on a piece of bogroll, so it has to be true.

liamw

alex73 wrote: »

I suppose the very basic truth, that God exists and he loves us.

How do you know God exists and loves us? I'm asking because you've asserted this as truth.

Also, are you talking about Yahweh or a different god, or any deity? If it's the latter why do you assume that entity has human-like characteristics (anthropomorphism)?

Pygmalion

liamw wrote: »

How do you know God exists and loves us? I'm asking because you've asserted this as truth.

Also, are you talking about Yahweh or a different god, or any deity? If it's the latter why do you assume that entity has human-like characteristics (anthropomorphism)?

Everyone knows that Zeus has human-like characteristics, it's a basic universal truth that the father of the Gods exists and is in human form.
Anyone who thinks that the other Gods would take orders from a God in non-human form is insane, and in denial of certain basic universal truths.

Metalfan

well i don't know about that - the main hindu god doesn't have a human form

antiskeptic

ColmDawson wrote: »

Children of Catholic parents are not Catholic children. They do not and cannot understand the differences between, say, Catholicism and Lutheranism. Their brains are sponges, and if their school teaches Catholicism as truth and fact, they will accept that.

The child has not made a choice regarding the claims various religions make about the nature of the universe, because the child can not.

The same can be said of just about anything you teach a kid. The kid takes it on faith and will at some later point come to evaluate for themselves. I certainly didn't empirically test the notion that nine times nine equalled eighty-one when I was learning my 9x tables - indeed, had I expressed doubt I'd have gotten 6 of the best for my trouble

Are you suggesting that children should be taught nothing at all just because they aren't in a position to evaluate for themselves?

Metalfan

antiskeptic wrote: »

The same can be said of just about anything you teach a kid. The kid takes it on faith and will at some later point come to evaluate for themselves. I certainly didn't empirically test the notion that nine times nine equalled eighty-one when I was learning my 9x tables - indeed, had I expressed doubt I'd have gotten 6 of the best for my trouble

Are you suggesting that children should be taught nothing at all just because they aren't in a position to evaluate for themselves?

The bible should be taught in the same way myths and legends are taught - A class on Fionn and the Fianna followed by one on Jesus and the Apostles etc...

Pygmalion

antiskeptic wrote: »

I certainly didn't empirically test the notion that nine times nine equalled eighty-one when I was learning my 9x tables - indeed, had I expressed doubt I'd have gotten 6 of the best for my trouble

In our school it was very much taught in a way that DID teach us to empirically test, by the time we went on to nine times tables we were more than capable of adding them up repeatedly, and the table books we got were organised with the results neatly lined up in columns so that you could clearly see that each number is 9 more than the previous (and we were of course taught that multiplication is repeated addition).

Kind of off topic reply there, but even if you didn't ever empirically test the results as you say (and I don't doubt you for a second, I'm sure there are many ways to teach it), SOMEONE did.
It has not only been accepted by Mathematicians but it can be shown in many different ways without any doubt about it, whereas no-one has ever proven the existence of a God, or come close.

There's a massive difference between something that a lot of people believe to be true and something which has been repeatedly proven to be true.

antiskeptic

Pygmalion wrote: »

In our school it was very much taught in a way that DID teach us to empirically test, by the time we went on to nine times tables we were more than capable of adding them up repeatedly, and the table books we got were organised with the results neatly lined up in columns so that you could clearly see that each number is 9 more than the previous (and we were of course taught that multiplication is repeated addition).

Fair enough. Did you emprically test your being taught the world was round (more or less) or did you take that on faith until such time as you were old enough to become an astronaut and establish it for yourself?

Kind of off topic reply there, but even if you didn't ever empirically test the results as you say (and I don't doubt you for a second, I'm sure there are many ways to teach it), SOMEONE did.

It is indeed off the point. The point concerned a suggestion that kids shouldn't be taught eg: Roman Catholicism because they couldn't evaluate for themselves the truth or otherwise of it .. at such a young age. In which case they shouldn't be taught the world is more or less round?

There's a massive difference between something that a lot of people believe to be true and something which has been repeatedly proven to be true.

That would depend on which system you consider useful for truth-giving. If empiricism is the only way to truth then you would be right. If not, then not necessarily. Unfortunately for empiricists, their claims regarding empiricisms uber-status cannot be demonstrated, empirically or otherwise.

sonicthebadger*

antiskeptic wrote: »

Fair enough. Did you emprically test your being taught the world was round (more or less) or did you take that on faith until such time as you were old enough to become an astronaut and establish it for yourself?

You don't need to be an astronaut to establish the shape of Earth by experiment. The (approximate) roundness and a very good approximation of circumference was established by Eratosthenes over 2000 years ago.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It is indeed off the point. The point concerned a suggestion that kids shouldn't be taught eg: Roman Catholicism because they couldn't evaluate for themselves the truth or otherwise of it .. at such a young age. In which case they shouldn't be taught the world is more or less round?

The point is not that the children cannot evaluate it but that adults can't. So why teach it to children as true, indeed as more true than something like 9x9=81, when there is relatively little certainty of it having any truth at all?

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Unfortunately for empiricists, their claims regarding empiricisms uber-status cannot be demonstrated, empirically or otherwise.

Yes, for three reasons:

• You have to start somewhere and
• it is not unreasonable to assume that -- of all available inputs -- your senses provide you with the most reliable information.
• Empiricism is not a claim based upon knowledge, but a claim about knowledge.

Your belief that all forms of knowledge are equally worthless is undeniably useful if one wants to justify to oneself one's own belief concerning some invisible deity or other, but it's also a self-imposed philosophical headlock from which you will find it impossible to escape.

antiskeptic

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

You don't need to be an astronaut to establish the shape of Earth by experiment. The (approximate) roundness and a very good approximation of circumference was established by Eratosthenes over 2000 years ago.

Gratned. You do get the underlying point though don't you? Kid's can't evaluate lot's of things they're taught.

The point is not that the children cannot evaluate it but that adults can't.

Whilst you are in a postion to declare your own ability to evaluate, you aren't able to decide what others are able to evaluate. If, for example, you're an empiricist then you'll probably hold the view that unless you can touch, smell, taste, hear or see it then it can't exist. Not everyone is an empiricist.

So why teach it to children as true, indeed as more true than something like 9x9=81, when there is relatively little certainty of it having any truth at all?

I'm not aware of anyone teaching God's existance more true than 9 times tables.

As for certainty? There's plenty - it's just that the clinching evidence isn't empirical. Big deal...

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Yes, for three reasons:

You have to start somewhere and

I'm not sure how this addresses the fact that empiricism's uber-for-some status cannot be demonstrated.

Whilst you have to start somewher, the start needn't be confined to but one area considered useful for establishing knowledge.

it is not unreasonable to assume that -- of all available inputs -- your senses provide you with the most reliable information.

My senses are but detectors. Some other part of me evaluates their truth-giving and reliability. That other part of me, that which evaluates, can consider non-sense evidences/arguments.

Empiricism is not a claim based upon knowledge, but a claim about knowledge.

True. And it's a claim that cannot be demonstrated (in the uber-alles sense) either empirically .. or otherwise.

Your belief that all forms of knowledge are equally worthless is undeniably useful if one wants to justify to oneself one's own belief concerning some invisible deity or other, but it's also a self-imposed philosophical headlock from which you will find it impossible to escape.

My suggestion is that empiricism is fanastic with dealing in the empirical realm ... and useless for dealing with the non-empirical realm. I'm not sure how that puts me in any headlock?

sonicthebadger*

antiskeptic wrote: »

...

Big deal...

A very very big deal. Finally we agree on something.

AudreyHepburn

As a Catholic I do see the good side of religion while acknowledging that terrible things have been done in name of religion, using it as an excuse.

It brings people together and gives comfort to those who need it. Numerous charities exist worldwide set up by religious orders to help those in need. Faith gets people through tough times in their lives. To me it provides good morals and lessons on living life the best way possible. I just don't see why anyone would begrudge some-one that.

However there is little point in asking this question in an athiest forum because who profess not to hate religion will still, and I can see it in these posts, struggle to find anything really positive to say about it. Or if they do they will still say that although such-and-such is a good there doesn't need to be religion for it to be so.

robindch

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It brings people together and gives comfort to those who need it. Numerous charities exist worldwide set up by religious orders to help those in need. Faith gets people through tough times in their lives.

And so does heavy drinking, but that doesn't mean that it's a good thing.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

To me it provides good morals and lessons on living life the best way possible. I just don't see why anyone would begrudge some-one that.

For every decent thought in the bible, there are ten horrible ones and the degree of cherry-picking going on is truly frightful!

Surmonter

I don't really know what's going on in the thread right now, so I will just answer the question and leave.

Religion does have a good side. But personally I think the bad the results from it outweighs the good significantly.

I don't mean to offend anyone.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure how this addresses the fact that empiricism's uber-for-some status cannot be demonstrated.

That is easily demonstrated.

Get 10 people to stand on a hill and ask them the distance down to the cm to the top of the church tower in a near by town. Right down the results.

Now, get a laser pointer and using it measure the distance where the men are standing to the church tower. Write it down.

Now, using what ever methodology you are happy with systematically measure the distance from that point to the church tower until you have what you consider to be a highly confidence measurement.

Now compare this alpha measurement with the measurements of the men.

Then compare the alpha measurement with the measurement of the laser pointer.

Assess how accurate the men were and then how accurate the laser pointer was.


Pretty easy really.

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

Assess how accurate the men were and then how accurate the laser pointer was. Pretty easy really.

Yes, it's easy.

But antiskeptic's point is that you can't use empiricism itself to demonstrate that empiricism leads to accuracy. That is, you can't establish empirically that that "the process of trying out different ways of doing things and seeing which one matches best with reality" is the best way to find out if something matches reality. It's simply something that you've to accept as true. And accepting something as "true", means the application and use of "faith".

People win Templeton Prizes for this kind of gloriously muddled thinking

strobe

Can you see any good side to religion?

Some (possibly all) religions have certain aspects I like.

"Thou shalt not kill" in the case of Judaism/Chritianity. "When in another’s home, show them respect or else do not go there" in the case of Satanism etc. But the problem is that in any religion the idea is you must adhere to all aspects not just some. So while I see not killing people as a good thing that Chritianity teaches (some of the time), it also teaches an opposition to sex before marriage and homosexuality which I just find to be insanely stupid.

This is the reason I chose the first option out of the ones that were in the poll. While most have a thing or two I view as good, most also have a thing or two I view as damaging and because of the nature of religion the damaging things are tied to the good. If you are served a steak that is half rotten you dont look at it and say to yourself, "mmmm some of that steak looks tasty", you say "that steak is rotten".

ColmDawson

strobe wrote: »

Can you see any good side to religion?

Some (possibly all) religions have certain aspects I like.

"Thou shalt not kill" in the case of Judaism/Chritianity. "When in another’s home, show them respect or else do not go there" in the case of Satanism etc. But the problem is that in any religion the idea is you must adhere to all aspects not just some. So while I see not killing people as a good thing that Chritianity teaches (some of the time), it also teaches an opposition to sex before marriage and homosexuality which I just find to be insanely stupid.

This is the reason I chose the first option out of the ones that were in the poll. While most have a thing or two I view as good, most also have a thing or two I view as damaging and because of the nature of religion the damaging things are tied to the good. If you are served a steak that is half rotten you dont look at it and say to yourself, "mmmm some of that steak looks tasty", you say "that steak is rotten".

Religion didn't invent the notion that it was wrong to kill people though. I know what you're saying, but I feel like I'd be giving religion way too much credit if I said its appropriated morals were a good side.

Goduznt Xzst

Well, I know Orthodox Judaism has a good side. By choosing to abstain from Pig meat they are proportionally increasing the maximum amount of Bacon I can consume in my lifetime.

Any action that gives humanity more bacon is a good thing imo.

Zombrex

strobe wrote: »

Can you see any good side to religion?

Some (possibly all) religions have certain aspects I like.

"Thou shalt not kill" in the case of Judaism/Chritianity.

It is actually Thou shalt not murder

The distinction is important because soon after Moses gave these commandment the Israelites when on a genocidal killing spree. But it wasn't murder because it was sanctioned by God.

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

it wasn't murder because it was sanctioned by God.

Not quite.

The word "murder" accurately translates the original Hebrew and it refers, as the English word does, to the act of depriving somebody of their life without legal permission to do so. Killing people, as long as one has legal permission, is permitted according to the Ten Commandments.

At the time, and for a long time afterward, kings would pay their priesthoods to claim on their behalf that the kings were "divinely appointed" and "divinely guided", so anything that the king did, like make laws or rules instructing people to be murdered from time to time, was implicitly fine with the deity-du-jour too.

Hence, all of these biblical killings, murder sprees, invasions and mass death experiences are perfectly compatible with a rule that an uncareful reader might interpret as "Do not kill".

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

Not quite.

The word "murder" accurately translates the original Hebrew and it refers, as the English word does, to the act of depriving somebody of their life without legal permission to do so. Killing people, as long as one has legal permission, is permitted according to the Ten Commandments.

At the time, and for a long time afterward, kings would pay their priesthoods to claim on their behalf that the kings were "divinely appointed" and "divinely guided", so anything that the king did, like make laws or rules instructing people to be murdered from time to time, was implicitly fine with the deity-du-jour too.

Hence, all of these biblical killings, murder sprees, invasions and mass death experiences are perfectly compatible with a rule that an uncareful reader might interpret as "Do not kill".

Isn't that what I said?

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

Isn't that what I said?

Approximately

Fighting Irish

deise go deo wrote: »

Personally I believe it has its problems and its fair share of bad people but on the whole is a positive influence on the world.

lol no


Religion is a crutch for the weak minded

AudreyHepburn

Fighting Irish wrote: »

lol no


Religion is a crutch for the weak minded

Please explain your reasoning. Why do you think you are a stronger person than some-one with faith, like me?

You do realise how pompous and snobbish you sound?

Grawns

I run a guesthouse in Dublin and just had some incredibly rude and creepy guests stay. From what I deciphered it was an aunt and uncle bringing their young niece and two nephews to a concert in Dublin as a treat.

I wasn't surprised when they left to find left lots of extreme literature including anti-stem cell, the profit of sin is death etc. The two adolescent boys who were with the party threw a load of the stuff out their bedroom window. I'm fairly sure they were stoned when they did it. As they left their blue rizla

I voted NO and feel like we need an atheist exorcism to cleanse the house of their evil presence :rolleyes:

While I know they were a weird extreme example of religion at work I worry about people like these spewing their hate everywhere they go. Poor kids.

deise go deo

Grawns wrote: »

I run a guesthouse in Dublin and just had some incredibly rude and creepy guests stay. From what I deciphered it was an aunt and uncle bringing their young niece and two nephews to a concert in Dublin as a treat.

I wasn't surprised when they left to find left lots of extreme literature including anti-stem cell, the profit of sin is death etc. The two adolescent boys who were with the party threw a load of the stuff out their bedroom window. I'm fairly sure they were stoned when they did it. As they left their blue rizla

I voted NO and feel like we need an atheist exorcism to cleanse the house of their evil presence :rolleyes:

While I know they were a weird extreme example of religion at work I worry about people like these spewing their hate everywhere they go. Poor kids.

I can understand why you dislike people like these, I dislike religious extreamists aswell, Moast forms of extreamism is bad, but to tar all religious people with the same brush is unfair IMO, just because some religious people are rude and creapy is no reason to brand all religion as meritless. Rude extreamist people of any form are in the vast minority and have little relation to what they are extreamists of.

Fighting Irish

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Please explain your reasoning. Why do you think you are a stronger person than some-one with faith, like me?

You do realise how pompous and snobbish you sound?

I'd prefer to sound pompous and snobbish than be weak minded. Not implying that you are weak minded though

robindch

Fighting Irish, there is a very great deal more to religion than some banal appeal to a "weak mind". If you sincerely believe so, then you have missed almost all of what religion is and does, and certainly you've missed all of the interesting stuff.

Your last two posts in this thread are also bordering on violating the forum charter, so please up your game a bit lest the mods dust down the forum lightening rod for a dose of righteous correction.

thanks.

Fighting Irish

robindch wrote: »

Fighting Irish, there is a very great deal more to religion than some banal appeal to a "weak mind". If you sincerely believe so, then you have missed almost all of what religion is and does, and certainly you've missed all of the interesting stuff.

Your last two posts in this thread are also bordering on violating the forum charter, so please up your game a bit lest the mods dust down the forum lightening rod for a dose of righteous correction.

thanks.

Explain to me what i am missing out on by not believing in anything religious

AudreyHepburn

Fighting Irish wrote: »

I'd prefer to sound pompous and snobbish than be weak minded. Not implying that you are weak minded though

That's exactly what you are implying and you know it. I don't just mean me personally either, I mean those with faith in general.

I'll ask you again to explain your reasoning?

Dades

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I'll ask you again to explain your reasoning?

I'd imagine he means, in a provocative manner, that a lot of people believe in gods because they don't want to face their own mortality, or that their loved ones are gone forever, or that there's no big guy in the sky looking out for you.

Grawns

deise go deo wrote: »

I can understand why you dislike people like these, I dislike religious extreamists aswell, Moast forms of extreamism is bad, but to tar all religious people with the same brush is unfair IMO, just because some religious people are rude and creapy is no reason to brand all religion as meritless. Rude extreamist people of any form are in the vast minority and have little relation to what they are extreamists of.

I did say that they were an extreme example. I'm not tarring all religous people etc. I just think to whole thing is pointless and more often than not destructive.

AudreyHepburn

Dades wrote: »

I'd imagine he means, in a provocative manner, that a lot of people believe in gods because they don't want to face their own mortality, or that their loved ones are gone forever, or that there's no big guy in the sky looking out for you.

Ok, that's fine. But what is so wrong with that? Why does that make anyone weak minded?

Dades

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Ok, that's fine. But what is so wrong with that? Why does that make anyone weak minded?

I wouldn't use that term myself. Otherwise I'd have to apply it to my wife and most of my family.

What's wrong with believing in something because it makes you feel better? It's intellectually dishonest, no?