Do we expect too much from human reason?

[Thumpalumpacus]

The foundation of atheism is the assumption that the
rules of human reason are binding upon the area the god
claim is being made about, all of reality, everything.

There is no proof that the rules of human reason are
binding on all of reality, an arena we can not yet
define in even the most basic manner.

Where the hypothetical deity interacts with reality, there should be an effect, susceptible to examination, in our reality. If there is no effect at all, then it cannot be said that an interaction has taken place.

Reason is much more successful in interrogating and describing reality than is faith. We find that to be the case no matter which investigation you choose to ponder. When we want to solve a crime, we use detectives and evidence, not prayer. When we want to investigate the nature of subatomic particles, we use colliders and observations and formulæ, not Biblical research or meditation or a smoke lodge.

Reason need not be binding upon all reality (indeed, I pointed out prior to your joining this thread that there are aspects of human existence which do not submit to reason). But -- it describes objective reality very well, and because of that, the assumption that we should use reason to investigate new aspects of reality is not based on faith, but rather, on experience.

That is why your argument is flawed.

[FatAndFaithless]

A god that cannot interact with our human experience of reality (the only experience under which we can operate) is identical to a god that doesn't exist at all.

[Thumpalumpacus]

A god that cannot interact with our human experience of reality (the only experience under which we can operate) is identical to a god that doesn't exist at all.

Exactly.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

There are no tennants of atheism.

[Thoughtage]

An atheist lacks belief in god(s). That's it. You should not assume anything about why they feel that way or what else they believe or don't believe.

Why does the atheist lack a belief in god? Other than those few who have never heard god claims, the answer is always the same. They believe reason is qualified to address the topic.

By the by, agnostic is not an intermediate position between theist and atheist; there is no intermediate position. Just in case that comes up

If I lack a belief in god, and also spend the next 2 years in this thread challenging atheism enthusiastically, does it add clarity to the conversation to call me an atheist?

Technically, dictionary definition-wise, I agree you are correct. In the real world, not so much.

---

Reason is much more successful in interrogating and describing reality than is faith.

Which is why I am arguing against atheist faith.

It's much more reason-able to just admit the simple truth. Nobody knows what does or doesn't form the foundation of all reality. We don't even know what the phrase "all of reality" refers to.

---

A god that cannot interact with our human experience of reality (the only experience under which we can operate) is identical to a god that doesn't exist at all.

Hmm, so those billions of galaxies not discovered until only 100 years ago didn't exist until we discovered them??

[The Grand Nudger]

Why does the atheist lack a belief in god?

Born/raised that way. For shits and giggles, just because. It's a tuewsday and on tuesday they don't believe in gods........?

Other than those few who have never heard god claims, the answer is always the same. They believe reason is qualified to address the topic.

Reason is qualified, but it's probably not the only or even most common route to atheism as-of-late.

It's much more reason-able to just admit the simple truth. Nobody knows what does or doesn't form the foundation of all reality.

So, it could be waffles, right? No shit, straight faced....it's waffles all the way down, eh? You do agree with me....don't you, I mean hell, it could be waffles....yes?

[Whateverist]

Somebody asked....

Can you list what you see as the tenets of atheism’s
faith?

And I replied....

Somebody makes a god claim. Such claims typically
attempt to describe the source of all reality, the
foundation of everything.

The listener analyzes the god claim with their human
reason. The listener concludes the god claim lacks
sufficient evidence. The listener becomes an atheist.

Plenty do emphasize the importance of evidence. And all things considered, if you want to convince someone else of anything, what can be better than evidence?

The foundation of atheism is the assumption that the
rules of human reason are binding upon the area the god
claim is being made about, all of reality, everything.

There is no proof that the rules of human reason are
binding on all of reality, an arena we can not yet
define in even the most basic manner.

Thus, the foundation of atheism is faith.

No, the foundation of atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Your hypothesis is that it is faith in human reason which leads one to respond in the negative to god claims. So in the absence of evidence, what is it that makes you so confident in your hypothesis. Just so you know, it isn't my confidence in human reason which causes me to question your hypothesis. As with god, I'm just not feeling it.

What I say is I harbor no belief in gods. I don't defend myself from them, they just find no purchase in my soil. That isn't a reasoned position and I no more need faith in reason to reject a hypothesis than I do to accept one.

But atheism doesn't require any rejection of god belief. A simple admission of its lack will do.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Which is why I am arguing against atheist faith.

I'm an atheist, and I have no faith. I agree that atheists ought to be completely faithless. Some make positive claims of gods not existing; I disagree with those claims for the reason that disproving a premise is exceedingly difficult unless internal contradictions can be demonstrated. I don't think those claims are based on faith, though, but rather a simple overstepping of evidence. The Christian conception of god is one which is riven with contradictions, so I'm perfectly comfortable asserting his absolute nonexistence; but that is not to say that I think all gods are equally fallacious. And such an assertion is not made out of faith, but rather out of an analysis of the characteristics imputed to such a deity.

It's much more reason-able to just admit the simple truth. Nobody knows what does or doesn't form the foundation of all reality. We don't even know what the phrase "all of reality" refers to.

Atheism doesn't address this, and I haven't seen any atheist assert that all of reality is known or understood. Can you show us an atheist who claims to know "all of reality"?

In that sense, this rejoinder of yours is a strawman, to my eyes.

[Whateverist]

It's much more reason-able to just admit the simple truth. Nobody knows what does or doesn't form the foundation of all reality. We don't even know what the phrase "all of reality" refers to.

I completely agree. I'll go further and admit I don't even know if it makes any sense to ask about the 'foundations of reality'. Does reality require a foundation, or is that just human reason over reaching again?

[Mudhammam]

Why does the atheist lack a belief in god? Other than those few who have never heard god claims, the answer is always the same. They believe reason is qualified to address the topic.

And knowledge is derived from something other than evidence, reason, and argument?

By the by, agnostic is not an intermediate position between theist and atheist; there is no intermediate position. Just in case that comes up

I have to disagree. There are people who spend their entire lives vacillating between one and the other, or think atheists and theists are essentially talking about the concept of infinity perceived in two radically different languages, and are happy to call themselves agnostics. I think they'd be correct to refer to themselves that way. They don't know, and perhaps they respect the idea of God and live out their lives accordingly, even remaining in their religion because they believe it touches something supernatural or otherworldly that is closer to a mind rather than a mechanical principle. I think all of these people are justly called agnostic.

Which is why I am arguing against atheist faith.

That's ridiculous. You haven't even addressed the faiths of afaeryism, aunicornism, amermaidism, or 9/11isaninsidejobism, and you want to tackle aSupermanism?

But seriously, learn how to think for yourself, and remember an important tip: there's a reason why the human race advances, and it has nothing to do ancient magic incantations.

Hmm, so those billions of galaxies not discovered until only 100 years ago didn't exist until we discovered them??

Again, logic. Learn your fallacies. Jesus fucking Christ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

We don't argue by saying, "I don't see X. That is evidence that X doesn't exist."

That's Logic 101. No, I'm not kidding, I have an exam on this in my Introduction to Logic class this Wednesday.

Rather, the correct formulation is, "I do not have good evidence or reason to believe that X exists."