The OP conflates religion and churches, congregations, etc.
Religion is based in belief (faith). Churches, congregations, etc. are social constructs to share and exchange those beliefs in a community.
***Why atheism can’t replace religion ***
It has “nothing” to offer!
Neverdem; Thank you for posting!
While there is no altar call in the article, and the religion described is generic, I will be sending this to several people who would describe themselves as wandering on the borders of belief.
On the whole, religion simply seems to be playing less and less of a role in the average person's life...at least in the developed world. The United States is an exception, although even here atheism is much more prevalent than it was even half a century ago.
Here's an interesting graphic from Gallup: A religiosity index of the world's countries. The brighter the color, the more religious the country's people.
All I can say is, local roads are a complete MESS with—no exaggerations here—tens of thousands of worshippers trying to get into and out of the various services of the different churches. Local cops try hard to get Sundays off so they can work off-duty at high wages directing traffic for all these services. Churches are being built rapidly as there is more demand for space and even monstrous buildings are crowded. This says something about the hunger people have to hear Christ preached.
The great contradiction people miss is the fact that being an atheist also requires faith in the certainty that there is no supreme being or unexplainable things. There is an arrogance in the denial of the fact we simply don’t know one way or another.
>> Article: Religion at its best is about making me better, and a better contributor to the common good.
New-Age tripe.
Thankfully, Christianity is not a religion.
“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him” Voltaire
Interestingly, atheism is more of an anti-Christian religion than anything else. If Christianity ceased to exist, atheism would have no purpose.
As a non-believer, I have far more respect for someone who has arrived at his or her religious convictions as a result of mature personal reflection than someone who is religious because of a need to conform, a desire for “community”, or because “they were raised that way”.
Parts of Western Europe are already “post-religious” in the sense that a majority of of people do not believe in the existence of a god who takes a interest in their individual behavior, but religion is in no danger of extinction there - tens of millions of people still value their personal religious experience and place it make it the core of their moral values, attempt to enlist new believers to their ranks, and will doubtless continue to do so.
Such believers may no longer have the force of the state to enforce their convictions upon others, but it seems to me that this strengthens, rather then weakens, their moral authority.
The article completely misses the relationship between God and His follower. I belong to God. He is the sole source of truth in my life. I do not prize my life above my bond with Him. The world will destroy my body but it cannot touch my soul.
OK Michael W. Austin. You will soon meet
your maker. What then? Your smart prose
will serve you poorly. MARANATHA!
I’m not willing to trade God for the Mets. Or even a good team.
Self-sacrificing degrees of greatness are untenable when there is nothing great worth sacrificing for.