SimplyAtheistic

I think the point here is, that logic and science can answer questions that christianity attempted to, and therefore we don't need it. And you are right, if it turns out christianity is true, we will need it when we die. The problem is, christianity lacks evidence and is highly questionable. There is a chance that it might be true, but there is also a chance you might die if you walk outside, but is that going to keep you inside forever? It all boils down to proof, or lack thereof. Nothing has been proven completely true, but the probability that christianity is true is much less than natural theories presented.
Jake

luvluv

Jake Johson:

Firstly, in the interests of honesty, how about you put the HA! from my last statement where it actually is? I wasn't HA! ing the notion that Tony doesn't need Christianity, but the notion that lpetrich exhausted all possibility of discussion in his response to me. (Or at least his response in my general direction, he can't talk directly to one such as I am.)

What, praytell, has lead you to believe that naturalistic theories and Christianity are mutually exclusive? Did not science get a signifigant start from the notion that since a rational God created the universe that the universe must therefore be explicable in terms of rational laws? How does the existence of a lawful universe NEGATE the propositions of Christianity?

What questions does science and logic answer that Christianity attempted to?

Starboy

Tony, I think that your question "Do people need religion?" is a trick question. People need some of the things that religions have historically provided. In my opinion the most important is to teach people how to live life well. The stories of a religion can teach and guide people on how to treat each other for the benefit of all. As I see it thought the popular supernatural religions are in big trouble. They are no longer able to deliver the goods. In order for people to learn from the stories of a religion they must be able to take them seriously. You can't take the stories seriously if they are out of whack with a societies perception of reality. We have changed and science is now how we understand reality. We no longer understand and explain our experience of the world on a daily basis in terms of spirits, souls, sin, ghosts, angels, demons and all of the rest of the supernatural nonsense peddled by supernatural religion. As time goes on this disconnect between the reality of the supernatural religions and daily life will become so great that it will be hard for anyone to take is seriously. That is not to say that there is not a place for religion, but whatever it is, it had better be more in line with what is perceived as the common reality of its adherents.

Starboy

SimplyAtheistic

Ok, first off, I forgot to delete the HA! part, my apologies. Secondly, christianity and naturalistic theories must be exclusive, as being omnipotent and omniscient defy the laws of physics. It is simply not possible. And though rational laws describe matter and motion, they do not govern it. You imply the laws where somehow created, and it is not so. The very nature of matter is described in the laws, and matter could not exist in any other fashion, or else it wouldn't be matter. The existance of a universe described by our physics completely negates all propositions of christianity. And as far as the questions science has answered, how about the way man was created (or evolved to be precise), creation of our world, the fact that we have many different languages, the fact that there is a rainbow, etc...
Jake

Shake

Talking about missing points ... no one's talking about giving up their rights to have beliefs in the supernatural. If I've followed this correctly, the point of the early posts is that as man progresses, the need for religion will slip away and fewer people will practice any. No one will say, "You can't ..." believe in/worship any deity you like! But perhaps believers will be more and more looked as the ones with the silly beliefs.

What if Christianity is ultimately COMPELTELY WRONG on one or two major points?

How do you know it is not? You may need Xianity, but that doesn't mean it's not FALSE! If it's false, and I'm content now, then I can continue to be, unless I find something else to be true!

Oxymoron

No. People don't "need" religion, any more than they "need" a dishwasher. It just so happens that - analagously to many modern devices - it saves a whole lot of trouble when it comes to living. Such as having to think hard. Or putting up with partial solutions. Or accepting pain, loss and injustice.

Religion does give people a "free" social life. Many western communities seem to have fragmented down to the level of the family unit whilst conurbations grow year on year. Social bonding becomes harder, and a lack of common values can mean that social units are left isolated. Whatever might replace religion would have to perform a similar function. This might require a fundamental restructuring of our communities and social values. Can't see that happening in the short term! So meanwhile, religion is "business as usual".

Tony

Hi Amie,
My family is not ideal, but yes, we have respect for each other.
Thanks for your sweet opinion about me.
You sound like a sweetie too.