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

[Simon Moon]

Yes, no one (aside from genuinely disturbed people) act as though solipsism is true. And no, as per Plantinga, we can't rationally demonstrate that solipsism isn't true -- it's simply a basic belief. Please connect the dots for me. How is belief in a god "basic" in the same sense as a belief in an actual external reality? I've mentioned this little nugget of apologetic irrationality before (whether in this or another of your threads -- not sure now) and never heard anything more on the subject.

So you admit not everything you believe is provable. That refutes downbeatplumb's claim.

As to whether belief in God is basic, that's a good question but immaterial to this particular conversation.

So far my point is just that not all we believe is provable.

That is why the strength of one's beliefs should be proportional to the strength of the evidence.

ALL the beliefs I hold, I do so tentatively. I am not absolutely certain about any of my beliefs, but some of my beliefs are extremely close to certain.

[Simon Moon]

Double post.

[paulpablo]

Again forgive my obtuseness. But is not atheist one who rejects belief in the existence of deities? Also is not an agnostic one who thinks something such as "god" can't be known. How then are these Mutually exclusive?

Properly speaking, an atheist is one who affirms that God doesn't exist. An agnostic is one who neither affirms God's existence or non-existence. A theist is one who affirms God's existence.

On the internet, however, as a rhetorical move designed to avoid the burden of proof, atheists often redefine atheism to mean lack of belief, or something to that effect. This definition is inconsistent.

But whichever definition you choose, and even if you believe atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, it logically follows that atheism is false or unjustified. See my argument for why.

You gave this as a link as to the reasoning behind why atheism and being agnostic are mutually exclusive.  There's no reasoning in these paragraphs it's just you making the same statements.  Starting a sentence with the words "Properly speaking," isn't reasoning, it's still just a statement. And you saying the definition of atheism is inconsistent doesn't make it inconsistent.

[paulpablo]

Who is the broader world of intellectual inquiry?

The fact is that I reject a belief in god because I see no evidence of God. Definition of atheism =  disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

I don't know anything about God, I don't know he doesn't exist or that he does exist, I know nothing about him apart from heresay which I don't believe in.  Definition of an agnostic =  a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-9794-po...#pid211908

Your explanation goes back to my previous dilemma: People can see no evidence of God because they have competently examined the evidence and found it lacking, or they are simply incompetent and incapable of seeing the evidence.

Which are you?

Even if someone is incompetent and incapable or competent and capable of seeing evidence it makes no difference to the definitions of atheism or being agnostic.

[paulpablo]

One label pertains to knowledge, the other pertains to belief. If you're not smart enough to discern the difference, that's your problem, not mine.

Love,

A  Concerned Agnostic Atheist

If you understood the difference between belief and knowledge, you wouldn't have a category for both in your epistemology.

Love,

Someone who has studied epistemology and actually knows the difference between belief and knowledge. 

PS- Ask me to explain.

This is the third link you gave me in reply to me asking for reasoning behind you saying that the definition of atheism and being agnostic are mutually exclusive and again these are just statements.
There's no reasoning to the statements or any use of definitions from a dictionary or Wikipedia or use of any logic, it's just you repeating the claim that you're right about this topic with no explanation.

[SofaKingHigh]

Fucking dolt. I already handed you your ass on this in the other thread. I'll repeat the argument anyway.

Evidence for QM exists regardless of any individual's ignorance. The evidence is made available and is repeatable for any and all to see and participate in if they so choose. The same cannot be said for supposed evidence for god. If there was one shred of evidence it would be made known immediately for all to see. The fact that instead of demonstrating said evidence you choose to say that we are too blind to see suggests you have absolutely nothing.

There is also no such thing as theistic evidence. You've got nothing but bullshit arguments that setup some type of ignorant quandary in which to insert your notion of god. It's ridiculous, it's not evidence. You cannot define or argue your deity into existence.

You expect me to take this bullshit seriously?

You, sir, are a tremendous thundercunt of the highest order.

[downbeatplumb]

Ok so I believe in things that can be proven, you believe in things that can't, but to you my way of sorting reality from crap by demanding evidence or proof is somehow wrong.  You do know that in the whole of history there has only ever been one way to separate what we assume to be true from reality, one way and only one way to distinguish between how we would like things to be and how they really are and that method is science. If things cannot be tested by the scientific method than you have no way to determine whether they are a real thing or not. Now add to that that I think that the idea of a god is really really stupid, begging so many questions and not providing anything of value to any part of how we view reality. Now imagine that and there are millions of people who not only believe things that can't be shown to exist but these same beliefs are actively retarding progress both scientifically and socially. 

Some sensible questions about god coming up.

1: What is god made of
2: what does it look like
3: What was the process it used to bring reality into being.  
4: Where did it get the materials.
5: Explain how a being who can apparently exist without any dimensions including time can be said to exist. 

Those will do for a start. 

Can I explain why I believe what? that part of your post was just hanging at the end with no real explanation.

You believe in plenty of things you can't prove.

You believe your experience of the external world is not an illusion of your mind.

So your refutation of my plea for proof is to posit we are in the matrix and it could all be a lie. Do you realise that that particular argument is either used by stoners or people who have lost any hope of winning an argument based on actual reality.
So I declare myself the winner of our exchanges based on the fact that you have shifted the nature of reality to make your position reasonable.
I win.

[robvalue]

Let's see that again in slow motion...

DBP is in white, Delicate in black.

I'll declare the winner of the debate by pin fall. You'll know it's me because I'll wear a mask.

http://youtu.be/xVtEpdGBgKc

[Delicate]

So you admit not everything you believe is provable. That refutes downbeatplumb's claim.

As to whether belief in God is basic, that's a good question but immaterial to this particular conversation.

So far my point is just that not all we believe is provable.

That is why the strength of one's beliefs should be proportional to the strength of the evidence.

ALL the beliefs I hold, I do so tentatively. I am not absolutely certain about any of my beliefs, but some of my beliefs are extremely close to certain.

I admire the carefully stated view of how one ought to proportion their beliefs.

And yet, that's not the whole picture. It doesn't speak to the category of basic beliefs. Beliefs that we take to be true absent any evidence for them. See foundationalism in epistemology.

The reason this is important is because I think many atheists naively hold to some form of evidentialism.

The wikipedia article on evidentialism lays out the view and some serious criticisms against it.

[Delicate]

Properly speaking, an atheist is one who affirms that God doesn't exist. An agnostic is one who neither affirms God's existence or non-existence. A theist is one who affirms God's existence.

On the internet, however, as a rhetorical move designed to avoid the burden of proof, atheists often redefine atheism to mean lack of belief, or something to that effect. This definition is inconsistent.

But whichever definition you choose, and even if you believe atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, it logically follows that atheism is false or unjustified. See my argument for why.

You gave this as a link as to the reasoning behind why atheism and being agnostic are mutually exclusive.  There's no reasoning in these paragraphs it's just you making the same statements.  Starting a sentence with the words "Properly speaking," isn't reasoning, it's still just a statement. And you saying the definition of atheism is inconsistent doesn't make it inconsistent.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-9794-po...#pid211908

Your explanation goes back to my previous dilemma: People can see no evidence of God because they have competently examined the evidence and found it lacking, or they are simply incompetent and incapable of seeing the evidence.

Which are you?

Even if someone is incompetent and incapable or competent and capable of seeing evidence it makes no difference to the definitions of atheism or being agnostic.

If you understood the difference between belief and knowledge, you wouldn't have a category for both in your epistemology.

Love,

Someone who has studied epistemology and actually knows the difference between belief and knowledge. 

PS- Ask me to explain.

This is the third link you gave me in reply to me asking for reasoning behind you saying that the definition of atheism and being agnostic are mutually exclusive and again these are just statements.
There's no reasoning to the statements or any use of definitions from a dictionary or Wikipedia or use of any logic, it's just you repeating the claim that you're right about this topic with no explanation.

I think it's best to start from a more basic place. Presumably we can start off by agreeing on some common ground. Namely,

1) regardless of which definition one prefers, the lack of belief definition is new. It's a revision of the established, historically prevalent definition.

2) incompetent atheism is irrational and ought not to be taken seriously.

3) someone who is informed about epistemology will find it nonsensical and self-refuting to have knowledge and belief as distinct categories and take both seriously because belief category is missing either justification or fails to take a truth value.

If the above views are reasonable, then everything I've said in the links follows.

So naturally the first question for you is which of the premises you have a problem with? And then, based on your answer, I'll explain how they lead to my conclusion.