No sex

[Shaker]

If religion makes him happy it seems a rational argument to suggest other people try it too to see if they also experience feelings of happiness.

There's a well-known George Bernard Shaw quote that fits perfectly here.

Religion persists so it probably serves some purpose.

Doesn't necessarily follow. It could equally be the case that it may have served a purpose at some point but that purpose no longer exists, leaving religion hanging around for no reason like non-coding DNA.

[trippymonkey]

G Salaam
Good points but aren't people doing it more from an ego POV, as if to say, 'Lookee here, it's great for me so it MUST be good for you. Almost as if THEIR ideals are all YOU need to?

[Shaker]

G Salaam
Good points but aren't people doing it more from an ego POV, as if to say, 'Lookee here, it's great for me so it MUST be good for you. Almost as if THEIR ideals are all YOU need to?

That's the hallmark of missionary, proselytising religions - we believe it and so should you, because it'll be better for you if you do or else, sunshine.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

There's a well-known George Bernard Shaw quote that fits perfectly here.

Which one?

Doesn't necessarily follow. It could equally be the case that it may have served a purpose at some point but that purpose no longer exists, leaving religion hanging around for no reason like non-coding DNA.

Do we know everything there is to know about non-coding DNA in order to make the statement that it serves no purpose?

[Shaker]

Which one?

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality of happiness, and by no means a necessity of life."

Do we know everything there is to know about non-coding DNA in order to make the statement that it serves no purpose?

We know enough.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality of happiness, and by no means a necessity of life."

Impossible to say whether any believer is happier than any skeptic - happiness being so subjective. All AB's experience can tell him is that he is happier as a believer than he would be as a skeptic.

We know enough.

No we don't. Our current understanding is based on our current knowledge and it will be revised as new information is discovered.

[Shaker]

Impossible to say whether any believer is happier than any skeptic - happiness being so subjective. All AB's experience can tell him is that he is happier as a believer than he would be as a skeptic.

... just like the drunkard is happier than the sober man, even though the source of his happiness is ultimately a toxic and noxious source, all the more so in quantity. Bernard Shaw's point stands unchallenged never mind undefeated.

Moreover, the egregious Burns has never been a sceptic - how would even know in which state he'd be happiest?

Our current understanding is based on our current knowledge and it will be revised as new information is discovered.

If it's discovered. Well done for knowing how science works, but we know enough to know that there's a small percentage of DNA which doesn't code for proteins and has no known regulatory function. That's where we are, without inventing fantasy scenarios of the future that might be the case some day, one day, maybe, might be.

That's science fiction rather than science.

[Rhiannon]

There are a few believers here who genuinely do seem content in their beliefs - Gabriella's one, as is Gonners and also Sriram - but I'm not sure that belief brings happiness, nor that the most strident posters here exude the kind of contentment and happiness that makes one want to give their stuff a go.

I also don't believe in the happy drunk. It's an illusory happiness at best but can very easily tip over into maudlin self reproach, self loathing and outright aggression. It's not pleasant.

[Shaker]

I also don't believe in the happy drunk.

That's only because you haven't seen me Oliver Twist 

[Rhiannon]

That's only because you haven't seen me Oliver Twist 

Probably just as well.

I go from the mildly tipsy drunk to the fast asleep drunk in about two glasses. So I think that makes me a boring drunk.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

... just like the drunkard is happier than the sober man, even though the source of his happiness is ultimately a toxic and noxious source, all the more so in quantity. Bernard Shaw's point stands unchallenged never mind undefeated.

Who says the drunkard is happier than the sober man? That's just your belief. You sound like AB - lots of assertions but no evidence. 

Moreover, the egregious Burns has never been a sceptic - how would even know in which state he'd be happiest?

Imagination - it's a human ability - you might have come across it.

If it's discovered. Well done for knowing how science works, but we know enough to know that there's a small percentage of DNA which doesn't code for proteins and has no known regulatory function. That's where we are, without inventing fantasy scenarios of the future that might be the case some day, one day, maybe, might be.

That's science fiction rather than science.

Actually no it isn't. It's just pointing out the obvious in the face of your assertions. As you said "no known regulatory function". Research still ongoing so bit premature on your part to just write it off.   

[Shaker]

Who says the drunkard is happier than the sober man?

Anybody who's ever been pissed.

That's just your belief.

That's my experience. Mine and a whole lot of people besides - alcohol being a popular thing for a few thousand years or so. You may not have noticed.

Imagination - it's a human ability - you might have come across it.

I said 'know', not 'imagine'.

Actually no it isn't. It's just pointing out the obvious in the face of your assertions. As you said "no known regulatory function". Research still ongoing so bit premature on your part to just write it off.

I'm going with what's known, not what might be ... some day. Or not. The idea of research is to find out what actually is the case, not imagine what might be. That would be to get the scientific endeavour arse about face.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

G Salaam
Good points but aren't people doing it more from an ego POV, as if to say, 'Lookee here, it's great for me so it MUST be good for you. Almost as if THEIR ideals are all YOU need to?

I don't know if relating personal experiences is an ego POV, and if it is, then I'm not sure that is a bad thing to share those experiences. The UN put together a World Happiness Report based on surveys in individual countries that identified certain measures of happiness. Apparently Norway is top of the list in 2017.

http://worldhappiness.report/ed/2017/

[Shaker]

One of the least religious nations on the planet.

Nice.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Anybody who's ever been pissed.

Obviously not true but well done for channelling AB again.

I've been pissed. I found I got more happiness from driving a nice car than I did from being pissed. Oh and also from being able to leave somewhere boring and going somewhere more fun rather than staying and having to get pissed to relieve the boredom.

That's my experience. Mine and a whole lot of people besides - alcohol being a popular thing for a few thousand years or so. You may not have noticed.

Popularity does not necessarily equate with happiness. Once you rule out all the people addicted to it, and various functioning alcoholics, the people who have health problems from consuming more than they should or cause other people health problems - how many happy people does that leave exactly?

I'm going with what's known, not what might be ... some day. Or not. The idea of research is to find out what actually is the case, not imagine what might be.

The point of the research is to find out what the non-coding DNA does. After discovering that some of the non-coding DNA does actually serve a purpose, scientists seem interested to find out if it the rest of it does anything useful.

[Shaker]

Obviously not true but well done for channelling AB again.

I've been pissed. I found I got more happiness from driving a nice car than I did from being pissed. Oh and also from being able to leave somewhere boring and going somewhere more fun rather than staying and having to get pissed to relieve the boredom.

Sounds very much to me as though you applied yourself with insufficient rigour and persistence. In addition, those who complain of boredom are themselves frequently boring.

Popularity does not necessarily equate with happiness.

With mood-altering (which in practice actually means mood-raising) substances it pretty much does.

Once you rule out all the people addicted to it, and various functioning alcoholics, the people who have health problems from consuming more than they should or cause other people health problems - how many happy people does that leave exactly?

Over the course of history? Billions, I should think.

The point of the research is to find out what the non-coding DNA does.

... if anything at all.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

One of the least religious nations on the planet.

Nice.

Sriram was exploring the idea that having a family unit and companionship was important to happiness. Social support was one of the measures of happiness which Norway scored highly on - both in terms of its welfare state and its family-friendly policies and work-life balance.

[Shaker]

Sriram was exploring the idea that having a family unit and companionship was important to happiness.

No, Sriram laid down that life is primarily about marriage and children and that people (I quote) should* have a family unit of their own (post #9 for these fatuities), not the more minimal and non-idiotic claim that having a family is important to the happiness of some people and possibly a majority of people but not all people.

* My emphasis but his word.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Sounds very much to me as though you applied yourself with insufficient rigour and persistence. In addition, those who complain of boredom are themselves frequently boring.

I was in OTC at uni and then worked for an investment bank. I applied myself - did the whole drinking neat shots of whisky, climbing out of windows many floors up and running around on ledges in a cocktail dress, riding around a train station on a bike I borrowed from a complete stranger, being moved on by the police etc etc.

Still prefer driving - if it's a nice car.

And after a couple of hours it's boring being sober when everyone else is pissed and talking rubbish. It's time to move on.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

No, Sriram laid down that life is primarily about marriage and children and that people (I quote) should have children (post #9 for these fatuities), not the more minimal and non-idiotic claim that having a family is important to the happiness of some people and possibly a majority of people but not all people.

Sriram said marriage and family or raising a family. Raising a family involves a lot more than having children - raising a family implies endeavour, service and sacrifice - I think he thought that was a difficult but worthwhile activity that would lead to shared happiness.

[Shaker]

Sriram said marriage and family or raising a family. Raising a family involves a lot more than having children - raising a family implies endeavour, service and sacrifice - I think he thought that was a difficult but worthwhile activity that would lead to shared happiness.

... which all people "should" do - according to him (#9) - and if they don't it is "very sad and worrying" (#3), "a pity" (#18) and "unfortunate" (#20).

[Sriram]

Sriram said marriage and family or raising a family. Raising a family involves a lot more than having children - raising a family implies endeavour, service and sacrifice - I think he thought that was a difficult but worthwhile activity that would lead to shared happiness.

Hi Gabriella,

This is probably a problem with idealism and identifying life goals.  I think I'll start a separate thread on that.

Thanks & Cheers

Sriram