Is Lack of Belief the Best You Can Do?

[LadyForCamus]

You know of a superior method?  Please, we're all ears.

Does the fact that many theists don't know of any superior method to their holy book prove that the rules stated in their holy book are binding upon all of reality, and thus any gods contained within?

But, they do know of a superior method. It's called human reason, and it's far more efficacious than their old books. They just choose not to use it. Again, you analogy between religious faith and human reason as faith is a failed one.

[Angrboda]

I am also happy with the majority of other atheists stating that they simply lack a belief in a god. It would be arrogant of me and anyone else to tell them what they think.

Yet we don't consider it arrogant to tell theists that what they think is irrational, would not a similar standard apply if the "lack of belief" stance is irrational? If it's an irrational position to hold, shouldn't we criticize it likewise?

[LadyForCamus]

You know of a superior method?  Please, we're all ears.

Does the fact that many theists don't know of any superior method to their holy book prove that the rules stated in their holy book are binding upon all of reality, and thus any gods contained within?

Point being, if we agree that 1) there is no superior method to reason, it doesn't automatically follow that 2) reason is therefore qualified to make meaningful statements about the fundamental nature of all reality, the scope of god proposals.  Proof is required to make the leap from assertion 1) to assertion 2).

As example, if we could prove beyond any doubt that you are the best poster on this forum, it doesn't automatically follow you that therefore you can write the next best selling book.  A proven ability at one scale does not automatically prove an ability at an entirely different scale.

"Fundamental nature of all reality" smells like a poopy assertion rolled in supernatural glitter if you ask me. What reason is there to assume there is "another scale" beyond the one we are currently on? Another stinky, sparkly assertion.

Models of logic and reason are the tools that most effectively serve us within existence. Using an unsupported assumption that there is anything beyond the scale of existence we are experiencing now as a means to put others down for being "closed minded," is unjustifiably pompous. You and Chad would make a LOVELY couple...

[Felasco]

But, they do know of a superior method.  It's called human reason, and it's far more efficacious than their old books. They just choose not to use it.  Again, you analogy between religious faith and human reason as faith is a failed one. 

Please provide proof that the rules of human reason are binding upon all of reality, and thus any gods contained within.

This is the challenge we reasonably present to holy books.  Why should our chosen authority be immune from that challenge? 

Again, human reason being "far more efficacious than their old books" doesn't prove that the rules of human reason are binding upon all of reality.  You're making a leap from one thing to another.   That leap requires proof.  Or faith.

[LadyForCamus]

I am also happy with the majority of other atheists stating that they simply lack a belief in a god. It would be arrogant of me and anyone else to tell them what they think.

Yet we don't consider it arrogant to tell theists that what they think is irrational, would not a similar standard apply if the "lack of belief" stance is irrational? If it's an irrational position to hold, shouldn't we criticize it likewise?

If the belief is indeed irrational, how does make the atheist arrogant? I'd say it's just telling the truth. Remember, theists come HERE to us to argue this stuff. If the theist is hyper-sensitive about their beliefs then they should keep them within the theist circle.

[Felasco]

"Fundamental nature of all reality" smells like a poopy assertion rolled in supernatural glitter if you ask me.  What reason is there to assume there is "another scale" beyond the one we are currently on?  Another stinky, sparkly assertion.

For the record, I'm not going to respond to snarky comments.  I don't mind if anyone makes them, it's their post to do with as they wish.  I just already have way too much snark in my own brain, and thus am not shopping for more.  

Challenges and disagreement welcome, elevated tone required for response from here.

[Neo-Scholastic]

"Fundamental nature of all reality" smells like a poopy assertion rolled in supernatural glitter if you ask me.  What reason is there to assume there is "another scale" beyond the one we are currently on?  Another stinky, sparkly assertion.

For the record, I'm not going to respond to snarky comments. 

And yet you just did.

[LadyForCamus]

"Fundamental nature of all reality" seems like an assertion with a supernatural bias if you ask me.  What reason is there to assume there is "another scale" beyond the one we are currently on?  Another assertion.

For the record, I'm not going to respond to snarky comments.  I don't mind if anyone makes them, it's their post to do with as they wish.  I just already have way too much snark in my own brain, and thus am not shopping for more.  

Challenges and disagreement welcome, elevated tone required for response from here.

Lol, fair enough. See above for my edited content. I am curious to know why you assume there is a scale beyond the one we currently experience.

[Whateverist]

Yet we don't consider it arrogant to tell theists that what they think is irrational, would not a similar standard apply if the "lack of belief" stance is irrational?  If it's an irrational position to hold, shouldn't we criticize it likewise?

If the belief is indeed irrational, how does make the atheist arrogant?  I'd say it's just telling the truth.  Remember, theists come HERE to us to argue this stuff.  If the theist is hyper-sensitive about their beliefs then they should keep them within the theist circle.

I think Jorm is just saying if a hard atheist finds the "lack of belief" stance irrational, wouldn't it be more consistent to call it out as such just as they are happy to do in the case of theist belief.

[LadyForCamus]

But, they do know of a superior method.  It's called human reason, and it's far more efficacious than their old books. They just choose not to use it.  Again, you analogy between religious faith and human reason as faith is a failed one. 

Please provide proof that the rules of human reason are binding upon all of reality, and thus any gods contained within.

This is the challenge we reasonably present to holy books.  Why should our chosen authority be immune from that challenge? 

Again, human reason being "far more efficacious than their old books" doesn't prove that the rules of human reason are binding upon all of reality.  You're making a leap from one thing to another.   That leap requires proof.  Or faith.

Human reason is not an authority, it's a tool. Again, the analogy fails. We use it because it works. There is no burden of proof on the atheist here. Please explain what you mean by "all of reality" and why you assume that any god is contained within it.