Do we expect too much from human reason?

[Ben Davis]

The atheist believes in the conclusions delivered by reason, even though there is no proof that reason is binding on all reality, the realm it is making claims about. Faith.

*my emphasis

You're making sweeping and unsupported generalisations about all atheists. Your comment that the 'overwhelming majority of atheists' come by their lack of belief due to reason shows a gap in your knowledge on the subject. How many buddhists do you think there are; ~350 million? How many taoists; ~200 million? How many non-theistic pagans..? Now compare that to the number of people who identify themselves as 'reasonable' atheists; although this is a difficult number to pin down, I'd suggest that they represent a minority. Far from being 'a quibble', it's an important consideration to your position and one you can't simply dismiss with a wave of your hand.

If we believe that the rules of human reason are binding on all reality, without proof that it is so, we are using faith.

While it's arguable that some proportion of atheists 'have faith in reason', they will be a subset of 'reasonable atheists'. As has already been pointed out to you, some 'reasonable atheists' would not claim that 'reason can give humanity all the answers', mainly because they're reasonable.

This is the unexamined assumption that because human reason is qualified for very many things, it is therefore automatically qualified to analyze all issues, even where there is no proof of ability.

This is an unsupported assertion as models of reason demand that assumptions are examined/tested. Consequently, reasonable people may well admit that reason doesn't have an answer to certain questions (as they have on this very thread) however that doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bath-water: reason has demonstrated itself to be trustworthy enough to be a practical & useful tool. I'd go so far as to say that the overwhelming majority of questions ever posed by humanity have yielded to 'human reason'. That's enough evidence to show that the label 'faith' is not applicable.

The bottom line flaw in atheism is that it's not loyal to it's own principles.

Atheism doesn't have any principles. It's the absence of belief in theistic propositions. Period.

Theism and atheism are both built upon a foundation of faith... I do however realize they haven't heard this form of challenge before...

Actually, we've heard this many times, mainly from theists. You don't get to claim that there's no difference between positions that are based on no evidence (faith in religion) and an overwhelming proponderance of evidence (trust in reason). To do so is clearly disingenuous.

[Mudhammam]

Just another day at AF.

[comet]

over all Thought-man I may be with you. both far ends are stupid. militant and fundie wacko texas type nuts.

but

thought age, are you saying that some atheist and many more theist make claims that are past our present data set? Some of the most well know scientist call themselves agnostic. But they are atheists by definition in that they don't believe in "that type" of god. They are agnostic because they understand that the universe complexity is past our understanding so we really don't know. so no-nothing doesn't seem reasonable. But that is based on what is known. These guys do not make claims with what is not known. they use only what is known.
ok we don't know it all. so what, now what do we do? Base a belief on what we don't know? be Agnostic? that's a load. My sect of agnosticism makes claims based on what is known to the best of "OUR" ability. Then we see how many human conditions the claims can seemly help describe.

[Thumpalumpacus]

over all Thought-man I may be with you. both far ends are stupid. militant and fundie wacko texas type nuts.

Yeah, about as stupid as people who traffic in stereotypes.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I also take issue with their "answers the biggest questions" premise. What are those questions? Who or what determines their importance? Are they actually universal?

He's been asked repeatedly for a definition of this, and refuses; the closest he's come is repackaging the verbiage in the form of questions, not answers.

[Whateverist]

Take Rhythm's waffles example. I'm quite certain that waffles are not responsible for the universe's existence, and it's laughable for you to think that I would be unjustied in saying so.

Comparing waffles to the largest cultural inquiry in human history is not worth my time, apologies.

Please demonstrate that your powers of reasoning are sufficient to dismiss Rhythm's waffle alternative. Please also demonstrate the validity of your grounds for placing (just Christian?) theological considerations on a pedestal owing to your evaluation of the magnitude of cultural inquiry involved. Where are you getting your standards? Do your standards represent a consensus? Your personal evaluation of the relative degree of claim various cultural inquiries merit just isn't worth my time, if that is all they are. So far, that is all you've offered.

Given your insistence on maintaining this flawed position, it appears as if this is nothing more than an egoistical attempt to prove yourself to be on the high ground.

Please prove that the rules of human reason are binding on the arena you are making claims about.

After you. What proof can you offer as to why you alone are in a position to judge the extent to which reason may be applied to various claims. I'll wait.

[robvalue]

After asking several times you still refuse to even describe what your point is. Yes, human reason has limitations. So what?

You refuse to acknowledge whether you're an atheist or a theist, by our definitions. And you refuse to acknowledge that if we use your definitions, most of us would categorise the same as you (assuming you're not a theist). You seem to want to put yourself in some magic third category. But you're in the same category as most of us, you're just calling it something different, that is all.

So unless you want to actually be honest enough to address these points, I have no further interest talking to you.

[comet]

over all Thought-man I may be with you. both far ends are stupid. militant and fundie wacko texas type nuts.

Yeah, about as stupid as people who traffic in stereotypes.

yes ... true. We need to be very careful too. but I am right. If you "stereotype" the stock market like we can people you would by and sell bill gates for pleasure. it's not right or wrong ... Just the way it is.

but thats off topic.

[Norman Humann]

yes ... true. We need to be very careful too. but I am right. If you "stereotype" the stock market like we can people you would by and sell bill gates for pleasure. it's not right or wrong ... Just the way it is.

but thats off topic.

I have no idea what you just said, but it sounds bat shit crazy. Just letting you know.

[comet]

yes ... true. We need to be very careful too. but I am right. If you "stereotype" the stock market like we can people you would by and sell bill gates for pleasure. it's not right or wrong ... Just the way it is.

but thats off topic.

I have no idea what you just said, but it sounds bat shit crazy. Just letting you know.

yes. it is scary. Thankfully we have the police to keep literal uses of it off the streets. We see this notion horribly misused in unrestricted capitalism too. But is the base premise wrong?