/atheism/ - Atheism

>>2565
>Religion is the highest expression of human intellect.

stopped reading

Religion might have been a higher form of human intellect a thousand years ago, but it's antiquated now.

Our ability to discover and comprehend the Universe on both its largest and smallest scale, I think is a better testament to human intellect then religion will ever be.

This sounds suspiciously like a copypasta. Strangely enough google is only giving me one result:
http://sociopath-community.com/topic/2015-02-09/on-the-nature-of-things

Got a secret m8? :^)

>In this we find Reification, we find the full unbounded expression of ourselves

But can't a free spirit express itself even more?

The best way humanity can learn to express itself is by studying the human psyche, not by following humanities more earlier ways of explaining things.

None of that has any relevance to religion's truth value

Did you tip your menorah?

>>2565
>Religion is the highest expression of human intellect.

Funny, I've seen sources that say that a certain part of the brain atrophies as you get older and this can lead you to be more religious.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/religious-experiences-shrink-part-of-brain/

Also analytical thinking seems to decrease religious belief:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6080/493

Enjoy your euphoria, "atheist".

>Conceiving of the immaterial
This can go two ways.

1. By this you mean imagine things that don't (yet) exist.
This however is something humans were able to do since civilization started. People are able to think ahead of time and in order to do that, one must be able to image what might exist later on but does not yet.

A farmer can imagine a good harvest, an artist a painting, etc. This is the kind of thing that leads to religion, not something that religion leads to.

b. Mankind is able to imagine things that simply don't exist and aren't able to by any means (Gods, monsters, basically story telling)

Though this is something religion does lead to, religion isn't the only necessary thing needed to obtain this. Plenty of movies, books, video games, etc are filled with creatures and concepts that don't and could not exist in the real world. There doesn't exist a mushroom that can make you twice as tall yet human beings using the ability to imagine things that don't exist were able to conceive of it and now it's part of the Mario games, which for all intense purposes is areligious.

>deriving and procuring inspiration and motivation for the finest of human dexterity.
This is also something that easily predates religion. A simple thought experiment: you're an early man. You have a bow and arrow. If you kill the prey with a bow and arrow, you eat.

However, you are not skilled at the bow and arrow. You realize that you could try to catch the prey without it and risk failing or you could practice with the bow and arrow and gain enough skill to kill the prey that time and every time afterword.

The point is, the applications of this can easily pre-date religion and likely has. It wasn't as inspiring as learning to make art or studying math to unlock the secrets of the universe but simply because the applications weren't so inspiring doesn't mean it wasn't utilized.

>This, to me, is the true secularised definition of religion. It is a positive one. Differing much so from the average dogmatic approach to the doctrines of these ideologies.
This however comes under question of what the definition of a religion is in the first place for you. To me half of what you posted is an innate human ability and the other half needs no religion to achieve.

If you are to say that wanting to be better at a craft or expressing yourself is in of itself a religion then I would have to disagree with your definition of a religion.

I could easily say being able to emphasize with someone is practicing a religion and then go on to say that proves religion is a positive aspect of society. The definition is nebulous at best with several people having several different definitions but at the same time, someone can say that emphasizing with people have nothing to do with religion which in turns breaks down the idea that religion is a positive aspect of society.

Your entire thesis rests on the idea that what you states is religious to some degree.

>Religion is the highest expression of human intellect.

You can have the most nonsensical, superstitious, obviously made up garbage and people will still believe it in droves as long as it is taught to them as children or prevalent in society.

Good example: Mormons

>>2744
>You can be a documented fraud with a thing for teen age girls and still be a prophet.

that should be

You can be a documented fraud with a thing for teen age girls and still be a prophet in America

>>2744


>You can have the most nonsensical, superstitious, obviously made up garbage and people will still believe it in droves as long as it is taught to them as children or prevalent in society.

but heres the thing though, Mormons and Scientology arent prevelant in society - they are outcasts and pariahs

Its true that some religions such as islam, do need societal prevelance and constant teching from childhood to survive

but others, like Christianity, seem to surive and spread without problem, whether it is popular or not, whether it is taught from childhood or not

it survives on the strength of the message and the strength of the testimony

the problem atheists have - and it shows in this thread - is that you are lumping all religions togehther and treating it as one. Which is absurd because saying mormonism has the same basis of belief as Hinduism or Buddhism or Christianity doesnt make sense, the major religions (With the exception of Islam) have much stronger basis and much better documentation to attest to their message

>>2749
>You can be a documented fraud with a thing for teen age girls and still be a prophet in America

Prophet MuhamMAD
Jesus Christ
Winston Churchill

Shall I go on?