As long as humans contest with resolving mind/body/consciousness questions some people will continue to need religion… It's one way of sidestepping the awkwardness of deciding whether on the one hand you're in two minds about Cartesian dualism or on the other hand unequivocal in supporting neutral monism (pron. 'moan'-ism).

But the beauty of belief systems – both philosophical and religious – is that we can always grow a third hand and, for example, decide instead to agree with the concept of epiphenomenalism. Which, to my way of thinking, falls far short of how grand it sounds… Exactly like all religions do.

Had the topic of this discussion been: "Can we prove that religion is needed?", I would have responded in one word:

No.

In order to disprove a statement, one must show that every possible model in which that statement is true, is logically inconsistent.

I present a model wherein religion is needed and this model is logically consistent, hence while it cannot be proven that religion is needed, it is also impossible to prove that religion is not needed.

This model is consistent, not because I am a genius, but because it is conferred in scripture by ancient seers who directly experienced the Reality of God.

Some create their own God, themselves.
I see we are not even touching the questions asked.
Not surprised ,but still not willing to even try to untangle Y s posts.

Belly,

Re: - "the questions asked":

Surely the question as to whether or not we need religion is a subjective. One person will say no, while another will say yes.

There is no definitive answer to such an inquiry - only philosophical opinion.

(a more pertinent question is: "Bunnings ads - do we need them to keep exploding out of their defined area and obscuring the posts underneath?" :)

Yuyu wrote, "ancient seers who directly experienced the Reality of God".

That's so true Yuyu .... you ARE a genius.

Yep, they all experienced the "Reality of God" in several ways ...

(1)They made up the idea of supernatural perspectives

(2) They then made up the theory that these perspectives were truthful

(3) They then entrenched those "belief" systems in themselves and others

(5) "Belief" then permanently replaced accuracy of fact

(6) And finally, they wrote their "beliefs" as if they were "facts" in ancient scripture

So yes Yuyu, you are correct. They DID experience the "Reality of God". They experienced the reality of making it all up, then believing it as fact, and then writing it down in ancient scriptures.

And Yuyu, you need to know this model is consistent throughout those scriptures, not because I am a genius, but because it is conferred in scripture by ancient seers who experienced this Reality of God".

I'm so happy that I have had the opportunity to explain it to you Yuyu.

Up to a point, Lord Copper, err... Poirot.

>>I just noted your sentence "A condescension born of the most complete form of egoism."....er, cough!....that's the pot calling the kettle black.<<

I did qualify it by aligning the egoism on display with Yuyutsu's completely subjective argumentation. Which has the effect of making it entirely bulletproof, and invulnerable to rational, objective discussion.

Nonetheless, it's good to be pulled into line occasionally by someone whose views you respect.

>>Yuyutsu explains without defending - I believe that is the crux of your frustration.<<

I'm not sure about that. It is more that he explains without actually explaining. It is relatively simple to construct a world that is entirely self-referential and subjective, because it means that you don't actually have to explain yourself at all.

Moreover, I'm not at all frustrated. The journey through Yuyutsu's mind has been both informative and entertaining. But as far as I am concerned it has reached its logical conclusion.