Personally, i see nothing wrong with religion, generally speaking.  What i wish to be reformed though are the people behind the religion.  No matter how wonderful the belief system, if the one in charge is a serious nutcase followed by equally disturbed nutcases, then you got a seriously bad situation.

No matter how fast or high tech a car is or well-tuned, if the driver is no good, or drives while under the influence, you are almost guaranteed an accident.  So do you blame the car when that happens?  Of course not!  Its the bloke behind the wheel whose at fault.

If only the Islamic mullahs would tell their faithfull to please stop making public artworks from the blood and carcases of the innocent, and if only the roman catholic church would castrate their pedophile priests or give them something else to vent their raging hormones by allowing them to marry, then the world, though woudn't become a paradise, would be a slightly better place nonetheless.

I tried to, by asking you to explain exactly what you meant when you said theism satisfies a need atheism could not.

I'm willing to let you define terms, then go from there.

So far, you've only tried to argue from analogy, poorly if I may say so, and have refused to tell us exactly what you meant with your statement.

I want to understand you better, but you seem unwilling to let me do that.

Here's my hand at defining the idea of a human "need."

 If you say something like sex is a need, is seems to me that you're saying sex is something we instinctually want/crave/desire. As a result, to generalize and say that sex is a need for all human beings is going too far in my opinion. You would have to consider those who never want to have sex, and as a result, would need to make your claim that sex is a need personally for you, but not for all human beings. This isn't what you want though because then you can't make your analogy to religion as a need for all human beings. Religion then, would only be stated as a need for you.

I would have to agree with Yellow, that a need would be things such as water and oxygen; without them, we die, no matter who you are. Those things would be considered needs. Surely no one would die from not having sex. Therefore, if someone has gone their whole life without sex, then they would be a shining, living example of how sex is not a need. Merely, sex is a strong desire.

Similarly, I think Yellow would then just swap out and say, "I can survive without religion as a human being, just like I can survive without having sex."  

I think the problem wavefreak with using the word "need" to describe sex or religion are the words that are synonymous with 'need' such as 'necessity'. They both seem like the same word but are subtly different...

Need:

1. A condition or situation in which something is required or wanted: crops in need of water; a need for affection.
2. Something required or wanted; a requisite: “Those of us who led the charge for these women's issues … shared a common vision in the needs of women” (Olympia Snowe).
3. Necessity; obligation: There is no need for you to go.
4. A condition of poverty or misfortune: The family is in dire need.

Necessity:

1. 1. The condition or quality of being necessary.
   2. Something necessary: The necessities of life include food, clothing, and shelter.
2. 1. Something dictated by invariable physical laws.
   2. The force exerted by circumstance.
3. The state or fact of being in need.
4. Pressing or urgent need, especially that arising from poverty.

[I highlighted some of the key parts that I am referring to.]  

See, 'need' is used in both definitions to describe the other. This seems to be where the conflict lies between the different opinions of the meaning of 'need'. By comparing these two definitions, I think it may be clear to avoid using 'need' when speaking of sex and religion within human beings lives. But, use 'need' when speaking of oxygen and water as a part of human beings lives.  

You could perhaps say that sex and religion are "lesser needs" but then that wouldn't get the desired meaning across. (presumably) 

That's just my two-cents.  

heh sorry Yellow, I didn't know I was supposed to say something But, I couldn't resist jumping in the mix!

Yeah, "need" is an awfully strong term, which is exactly why I took exception to the statement that sparked this whole discussion.

I agree that all humans would have similar needs, wants, desires, etc - whatever they are.

What bothered me was the statement that I somehow have something unfullfilled, because I don't believe in god.

Humans are wonderfully adaptive and flexible creatures, and most of us find ways of getting by and reconciling the brutalitity and amazingness of the world around us within our own belief systems.

This says little about the validity of such systems (philosophy and science do that), rather, it speaks of the human will.

I'm honestly not trying to, but your statements thus far have been quite vague. I'm working with what you give me - or don't give me, as the case may be.

Well thank you for that, I agree, but do you believe that one NEEDS theism to get through something like that? Your statement certainly implied that, did it not?

That statement has been the whole point of our discussion.

And I've agreed with you. Theism is VERY difficult to let go of.

My problem, as I said, was with the statement that sparked our conversation.

So, does one need god belief to deal with loss? Does theism provide something other beliefs cannot? Do you still stand by your original statement, or have you seen that you might have maybe overstated the case, likely out of understandable ignorance, maybe just a bit?

Or would you like to actual clarify and furthur defend your original statement?

Either is cool with me.

You're right, it does seem evasive. All I wanted was a straight answer.

Bull. You said: "Theism meets a need that atheism can't. It is irrelevant that it is irrational. Until atheism can meet these needs, people will never embrace it."

What is there not to understand about that: Your belief system supplies something mine cannot. You said that, in plain english. I've spent post upon post trying to get you to elaborate on that, and you've still really yet to define what this need is.

It would of been so much easier and simpler for you to say, "You know, I kind of put my foot in my mouth there" and have been done with it - which is exactly what I think you did. Instead, you ran with it, and here we are.

Then you probably ought not have said what you said if you did not want to have this discussion.

This does NOT mesh with your original statement.

If it did, your original statement would have read something like: "Theism meets a need that atheism also meets, just in a different way".

But of course, you didn't say that. You said something completely different.  

I've given you opportunity after opportunity to simply explain yourself, or retract the statement or whatever, and now you're trying to insult me by saying what you said was essentially completley different that what you actually said.

Own up to your own words.

Yeah, all of that is well and good, and completely different from your original statement.

I haven't forgotten exactly what you said, but I think you have. I see this all the time (on both sides). Somebody says something, frankly insulting or not very intelligent, makes a feeble attempt to defend it, hopes people forgot what the argument was about, and waters down their original point into something amiable.

I've had enough of that crap.

Yellow it's odd really, I don't think wavefreak read my post. I tried to help, I tried...