Why I Am No Longer An Atheist

[stevil]

You said "The problem with reason and rationality is that it has no meaning of itself."
If it has no meaning of itself, then its meaning comes from elsewhere, therefore reason itself is meaningless.

Meaningless in terms of trying to come up with any conclusions. You need more than facts and reasoning, you need a goal which is subjective.

As far as I can tell you still have not presented any real argument as to why your seed theory of reason has any particular merits.

I've presented a real life scenario but you just conclude that humans are flawed. That in itself means that you have no choice but to agree that we cannot come up with objective conclusions, because "we" are human thus "we" cannot use reason and facts to come up with objective conclusions.

Philosophically speaking, I guess we could discuss the merits of reasoning and facts. But I struggle to see how this can come to any conclusions, all I possibly can to is build a straw man and knock it down. I need a proponent of the reasoning and facts theory to give me their theory so I can knock it down rather than my own straw man.

I did present the gay marriage as another scenario, but you have ignored it, so maybe, quite possibly it was only straw.

[Nihil Obstat]

Meaningless in terms of trying to come up with any conclusions. You need more than facts and reasoning, you need a goal which is subjective.
I've presented a real life scenario but you just conclude that humans are flawed. That in itself means that you have no choice but to agree that we cannot come up with objective conclusions, because "we" are human thus "we" cannot use reason and facts to come up with objective conclusions.

Philosophically speaking, I guess we could discuss the merits of reasoning and facts. But I struggle to see how this can come to any conclusions, all I possibly can to is build a straw man and knock it down. I need a proponent of the reasoning and facts theory to give me their theory so I can knock it down rather than my own straw man.

I did present the gay marriage as another scenario, but you have ignored it, so maybe, quite possibly it was only straw.

 

 

 

I've presented a real life scenario but you just conclude that humans are flawed. That in itself means that you have no choice but to agree that we cannot come up with objective conclusions, because "we" are human thus "we" cannot use reason and facts to come up with objective conclusions.

I have told you several times why this does not follow.

 

 

 

Philosophically speaking, I guess we could discuss the merits of reasoning and facts. But I struggle to see how this can come to any conclusions, all I possibly can to is build a straw man and knock it down. I need a proponent of the reasoning and facts theory to give me their theory so I can knock it down rather than my own straw man.

If your seed theory has any strength whatsoever, then it falls on you to give us some argumentation for it. If it is a valid theory, then it can stand regardless of what you are responding to. I am afraid that there is not much I can do if your theory only makes sense as a response to other positions. That is a serious conceptual problem on your end if it is the case.

[stevil]

I have told you several times why this does not follow.

Seems both of us are not understanding each other.
 
 

If your seed theory has any strength whatsoever, then it falls on you to give us some argumentation for it.

Done that several times already.

If it is a valid theory, then it can stand regardless of what you are responding to.

It has been standing superbly well thus far.

I am afraid that there is not much I can do

You can listen, and also address what is actually being stated. That would be a great start.

if your theory only makes sense as a response to other positions.

My theory can be challenged by other positions, but no serious challenge has presented itself yet

[stevil]

If your seed theory has any strength whatsoever, then it falls on you to give us some argumentation for it. If it is a valid theory, then it can stand regardless of what you are responding to. I am afraid that there is not much I can do if your theory only makes sense as a response to other positions. That is a serious conceptual problem on your end if it is the case.

As an analogy, it is like someone saying that you can make Creme Brulee with cream and vanilla alone.
Where I might say that you also need egg yoke.

They tell me to prove it.
I am then in the unfortunate circumstance of having to prove that every single possible way that cream and vanilla can be manipulated never results in Creme Brulee.

They are not having to prove even one way that it can.

You, Nihil have not even bothered to show one way that reason and facts alone can come to an objective conclusion above and beyond simply the physical laws governing existence.

[Nihil Obstat]

This is really going nowhere. Have fun convincing other people that you are making any sense.

[stevil]

This is really going nowhere. Have fun convincing other people that you are making any sense.

It wasn't my intent to convince anyone of anything.
I have heard you and one other state that reason alone...

I don't understand how it can, so asked you to elaborate, you haven't bothered.
I have learn't nothing from you in this conversation. Oh well

[Nihil Obstat]

It wasn't my intent to convince anyone of anything.
I have heard you and one other state that reason alone...

I don't understand how it can, so asked you to elaborate, you haven't bothered.
I have learn't nothing from you in this conversation. Oh well

 

Your arguments simply are not coherent. I have already showed you why. You have ignored that so far. Therefore for now I can say nothing further.

Also, again, I do not talk about reason alone. That is beyond my pay grade.

[stevil]

Your arguments simply are not coherent. I have already showed you why. You have ignored that so far. Therefore for now I can say nothing further.
Also, again, I do not talk about reason alone. That is beyond my pay grade.

You have talked of reason and facts, alone, without any subjective beliefs or stance or goals (well, that is at least what I have thought you were talking about)

I can understand how facts and reason lead to more facts that obey the physical laws of reality. This is the realm of science.

With regards to the beliefs in morality (what a person should or shouldn't do) this is rules that go beyond what is physically possible or impossible. This is the realm that we have been discussing.
If reason and facts alone can lead to any moral conclusion beyond physical laws then this proves that there is an objective moral standard.
This is what you have claimed.

I have challenged this. I am pretty sure that any moral conclusion you can come up with, I can show a subjective bias for. I suspect this because I highly doubt the universe cares what people get up to. I do not have a bias (a seed) that humans are sacred. Without this, at the very least, how can I agree to any morally based conclusion based on reason and facts?

[Nihil Obstat]

I have challenged this. I am pretty sure that any moral conclusion you can come up with, I can show a subjective bias for. I suspect this because I highly doubt the universe cares what people get up to. I do not have a bias (a seed) that humans are sacred. Without this, at the very least, how can I agree to any morally based conclusion based on reason and facts?

 

The fact that you can claim that we are biased does not mean that we are actually biased.

I can probably take everything you have ever said and assign viciously racist motives to it if I worked hard enough, but that does not mean you are racist.

[theculturewarrior]

I have I left anyone's questions unanswered?  Should I move on to part 2?