When Atheists Can't Think Episode 1: No Evidence for God?

[Delicate]

CROSSLESS1:  No argument from me on that point.

Whether you deem my question immaterial is irrelevant to me. In one of your threads, you were the one who posted the link to Plantinga's lecture notes, in which he lists both non-belief in solipsism and belief in a god or gods as properly "basic" (not irrational to believe even if it can't be rationally demonstrated). I assume you endorse that position, or else there would have been little point in referencing Plantinga in the first place.

I'd like to know if, in fact, you agree with Plantinga and, if so, how you justify the linkage between belief in god(s) and acceptance of an external reality as "basic" in his sense.

DELICATE:  I personally do find Plantinga persuasive, within his larger project.

Belief in God is indeed properly basic, in my view.

And I can lay out my reasons for why. But to do so requires groundwork.

For instance, I can't hope to convince downbeatplumb, who is convinced all legitimate knowledge must be provable. That kind of hardcore empiricism is rejected in epistemology but is popular among new atheists.

But once again, that's a different conversation than the one downbeatplumb and I are having.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This must rank among the most disingenuous responses I've ever received at AF, which is saying something considering some of the world class bullshit and master ninja evasiveness I've encountered from some of your fellow theists. Do I really need to remind you of the title of your own thread?

When Atheists Can't Think Episode 1: No Evidence for God?

Just to refresh your memory, here's your OP:

One of the standard mantras atheists are taught to say is "I'm an atheist because I have seen no evidence for God."

This is not a convincing reason to be an atheist. Why?

It's possible for someone to be too blind or too ignorant to see or understand the evidence. Just like a toddler might say "I see no evidence of the validity of Quantum Mechanics" or a blind woman might say "I see no evidence of the existence of colors" the problem might be with the person and not the evidence.

Clearly, if the atheist wants the public to believe that there is no evidence, they have to be able to respond meaningfully to purported examples of theistic evidence. (bolding added)
 
Atheists here, for the most part are not competent enough to do this. 

And hence, when someone says they are an atheist because they have seen no evidence, the best response seems to be to send them to an optometrist.


Then, in the third post of this thread, you provided the link to Plantinga's lecture notes, and I knew then where this was heading. Here's what I wrote on page 14, thirteen days ago:

We need to be clear about the nature of the game Delicate is playing, aside from the delight he/she takes in being a douche. Plantinga and his ilk assert that belief in "God" is basic in much the same way that belief in other minds is basic, i.e., that one is not irrational for believing either position even if one is unable to rationally demonstrate them (what the connecting thought between belief in God and rejection of solipsism may be escapes me -- but no matter). So that list of "arguments" is superfluous for purposes of determining whether belief is "rational" or not. By embracing Plantinga, Delicate has already asserted by fiat that it is.

The arguments that follow aren't really meant to prove anything or even provide evidence as the word is usually understood. It's more of a cumulative case that you're either predisposed to accept as largely true (as the Protestant thinkers toiling in Plantinga's wake do) or you're not, in which case the entire edifice will appear ridiculously weak. The reason it's pointless to pursue knocking down each argument in turn -- at least as it applies to Delicate -- is that when you're done, you're still going to be left with a person who crows that belief in God is basic, i.e., not irrational -- even if that's all he has left of his "argument".

It's a waste of time.


So here we are nearly two weeks later. I agree with you that there are certain beliefs that are "basic" in the sense that they can be reasonably held even if they can't be rationally demonstrated (e.g., an external reality, other minds) and ask you to clarify in what sense a belief in a god can possibly be basic in the same way that believing and acting as though the world we experience is real and external to us. Your response? Deflection: "Oh, but this isn't what my discussion with downbeatplumb is really about."

Bullshit.

My question goes to the heart of what this sorry excuse of a thread is "about". You start the thread by likening atheists to toddlers who cannot understand quantum physics (like you do ) or to a blind person who doesn't experience color because we don't "see" the evidence for a god -- evidence that you seem to think is blindingly obvious (pun intended). Then you say that atheists must be able to respond meaningfully to purported examples of theistic evidence. Then, for page after page (here and in other threads), you simply ignore multiple members' requests for this "evidence". You dodge that by getting into a dung flinging contest about "evidentialism" -- as though that represents the epistemological stance of all atheists in relation to all questions. It doesn't. I'm an example of someone for whom it doesn't apply across the board. And when I try to engage you on your own chosen turf regarding the idea that belief in god is "basic" (reasonable to hold if not rationally demonstratable), you actually have the balls to say (1) you could lay out your reasons why but that would require some groundwork (thus giving the lie to the notion that the belief is properly basic), and (2) that the fucking question is irrelevant to the discussion.

It looks like my post from the 14th was spot on, though I admit that I didn't go nearly far enough in overestimating you and your sense of intellectual integrity. I won't make that mistake again.

If you've made one thing clear in this post it's that you don't understand Plantinga's case.

That and you're hysterical.