We’d get along just fine. 
The fight against ignorance? Not that the struggle necessarily applies in this case, but I might not idly stand by when I hear someone say something inaccurate, even if it makes them happy to believe that.
Is religion in the realm of ignorance?
In the realm? Are you kidding? It’s practically the definition…
Oh boy, here we go. I feel like I’ve kicked over a wasp nest.
Suffice it to say that I strongly disagree, Rider.
Well, if you know of another institution that tends to be more closed-minded to differing views, I’d be interested to hear about it.
Who said anything about institutions? Or closemindedness? Your bias is showing.
Why does one need a “retort” against any false statement? If it’s wrong, then people will point it out. That’s how discussions and communication works.
The institution of (organized) religion. And ignorance amounts to closed-mindedness…(Ignore…).
If by “religion” you mean “belief in God”, then no. If by “religion” you mean “belief in the total inerrancy of the Bible” (for example the Earth is 4000 years old) then yes.
Also, if a person’s happiness is dependent upon not hearing the truth, then the burden of avoiding the truth is completely on their shoulders, not on the rest of the world staying silent to keep them happy.
Ah, Ok. I thought I had opened Pandora’s Box. Organized religion and fundamentalist religions are what was meant, not religion overall.
What if the person believing has made no statement at all? Would you still then have a problem with the person who believes out of happiness? The OP said nothing about people who spout “false statements”.
This statement would make sense if:
A. Truth was absolute.
B. You knew that absolute truth.
Are you prepared to make such a claim?
back to the beginning. A drunk man is only happy when he has his alcohol, whereas, a believer tends to use faith to medicate their troubles.
So what’s the problem?
The problem is that faith is no more reliable or healthy than alcohol. Resorting to faith is really just trying to make yourself feel better through fantasy and self-delusion. Mark Twain said that “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.” Your subconscious knows that religious faith is not really true, and this dissonance between the conscious and subconscious mind creates anxiety. Competing faiths are seen as threatening. Atheism is seen as an even bigger threat. The conscious mind tries to relieve its anxiety by forcing everyone else to believe the same thing that it does. However this effort is ineffective and futile so you end up with fanaticism and zealotry. Religious faith creates psychosis in the same way that drugs and alcohol do.
This is not to say that all people, or even most people turn into zealots. Most people relieve their psychic anxiety by adjusting their faith in such a way as to cause as little conflict with alternate beliefs as possible. They believe in an abstract “God” but do not invest much emotion in the details. They derive their happinesss from other sources which are grounded in a more tangible reality (family, friends, work, hobbies, etc.). It is only when a person tries to derive happiness solely from religion that problems arise.
Shaw’s quotation, and Rider’s OP are only making the point that the fact that faith seems to make some people temporarily happy is not a convincing argument for the VERACITY of that faith.
Finally, what if I am, say, a Christian, and i’m reasonably happy, but then I meet a Buddhist monk who seems to be ECSTATICALLY happy. Does that mean his faith is more “true” than mine? Should I look for the faith that seems to produce the most happiness in its adherents and assume that THAT one must be the truest?
Because you like debating/arguing?
Pretty inflamatory thread title for an OP that doesn’t actually say what the title implies.
—So what’s the problem?—
There’s no substantive problem. The problem is that some people actually do try to convince others that certain things are true simply because believing them makes them happy. As Christians here have pointed out, that argument is not only faulty, but it belies the actual experience of many Christians (i.e. their beliefs DON’T always just make them happy)
Welcome to the Church of the Wire! All hail the glorious electrode!
What if they are not debating you? 
I can agree with what Diogenes said. I guess what really gets me is that there are some people who would want every single person in the world to think exactly like them with regards to religion, with no regard to the varied experiences that other people may have had in their lives.
Take me, for example. I have had many experiences in my life that prove that deity does exist. I don’t go around telling everyone that deity exists, though, because to me it really doesn’t matter.
There are some people who, regardless of whether I proselytize or not, will see me as an idiot nonetheless and will do anything short of torture and murder to prove me wrong. They just cannot stand the idea that other people may see things differently. And so they attack and jab, in the hopes that I eventually will wake up from my “delusions”. There aren’t many such people here on the board, but these are the people I am generally against.
The OPs quote is being touted as a “weapon” against those who would place faith in whatever gods they may pray/worship to as a method for happiness. I see no need for such a “weapon” if the people in question are not proselytizing at you directly.
I don’t see a problem with this, at least not for me. There is only one person in this world who can answer this question for you.
And that was a damn fine one-liner Arnold!