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

[Fake Messiah]

This has nothing to say in response to my post.

Thanks for the ramble though.

Listen, you're just embarrassing yourself with this topic. All that you're showing is that you're an uneducated dumbass. Really, how hard it is to actually read a book on science? Try with Richard Dawkins "Magic Of Reality" which was written for such primitive mindset like yours. Why the fear? Are you maybe afraid that by reading an actual science book on how world works you'll lose your religion? Well you have to ask yourself is your religion worth sacrificing reason? If it is then go to some mental hospital and don't bother normal people.
And if you're doing this to be funny, it's not. It's like laughing at a person that limps.

[Edwardo Piet]

It's very hard not to call you a total idiot here. What you've said is the exact opposite of reality.

Whatever Delicate, I'm kind of not living in reality right now I'm too fucking happy I must be dreaming

[Losty]

It's very hard not to call you a total idiot here. What you've said is the exact opposite of reality.

Whatever Delicate, I'm kind of not living in reality right now I'm too fucking happy I must be dreaming

Trust me bestest Turtle you're living in reality. Delicate is suffering from restless anus syndrome, don't mind her.

[Edwardo Piet]

[downbeatplumb]

I think I have explained my position so please don't try to give me home work.
Oh and I see you have dodged my questions again about the nature of god which makes me think you don't know.

I'm having a lot of conversations with a lot of people on the forum. Lots to read, and I want to try and respond to all the messages I get out of respect to each poster.

It's possible for things to skip through the cracks.

If I miss a question it might be because I'm responding rapidly and skimming.

Could you try and be charitable? If I were as uncharitable as you are you know things wouldn't be pleasant. I'm asking you to reciprocate the charity I'm showing you.

PS- not homework. Learning.

Foundationalism has grappled with the question you're trying to address and has already provided a name and a rigorous and well-established formal system within which your described doxastic structure fits. What your describe IS a homespun and patchwork version of foundationalism.

Your assumptions correspond to basic beliefs.

But you also said some really silly things like "Where as what you suggested was that ultimately we can't be sure this is all unreal so you may as well believe in god."

I never suggested anything like this.

I think you're seeing ghosts of theism lol.

The way I read your post was that you were implying that nothing could be ultimately known so we can't be sure of anything. As a believer in woo yourself I took this as a justification for the belief in anything because hey you cant be sure we aren't all brains in vats anyway.
This seems like the last resort of someone who has no evidence for their position but if you say that's not what you were saying what were you saying?
All I have ever asked your is evidence for a god and you have yet to supply any.
Anyhoo I have now read up on foundationalism, which seems like another bunch of words used by people to justify unproven beliefs, as such I reject it. Can I have some evidence for god now. Oh and can you explain the nature of god, what its made of how it creates universes etc etc.

[tkolter]

Atheism is not hard we simply demand evidence grounded in our senses and what our instruments of science since we are materialists can show, under conditions which can be challenged by other scientists and your religious books if a deist, personal revelations (you could be Delusional) or other soft evidence. So in the case of the supernatural just prove it enough to include the study of it as an area science is interested in.

[paulpablo]

1) I prefer the definition which is correct and most up to date.   I won't agree with this unless some historical reference given that shows the definition of atheism has changed from including a lack of belief in gods to not including a lack of belief in gods.

2) Let me just try and understand this sentence.   Incompetent = Not having or showing the necessary skills to do something successful.
Atheism = disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

If you can explain to me what incompetent atheism is then I'd be grateful and I might agree with you on this point.

3) The first time I heard about epistemology is in this thread, I don't consider myself well informed about it enough to agree with you on this either.

If this is anything to do with your informed opinion based on the fact you have knowledge of epistemology then I already replied to this before by telling you that atheism is not necessarily a belief, it's a lack of a belief, disbelief and can also be a belief that there is no god.

The only circumstances in which these three things would be correct is where atheists believe there is no god and claim to know there is no god and for theists who claim there is a god and they know there is a god.

We're talking about two sets of things here.

On the first three, given that the redefinition arose on the internet, I don't see how there can be a historical reference. The evidence for (1) would be the established works on atheism and agnosticism.

The origin of agnosticism is in the work of TH Huxley. In his article titled Agnosticism, he explicitly positions agnosticism as contrary to atheism. Atheism, he points out, is a form of "gnosis".

Likewise, I point to the SEP article on Atheism, written by none other than eminent philosopher JJC Smart. This article rules out the view that atheism is merely a lack of belief.

The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry, written by none other than William Rowe (the legend that brought us the contemporary version of the problem of evil) agrees with this position.

"Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief."

But that's not all, many laypersons detest this revision. Here's one example: https://philosophersgroan.wordpress.com/...we-can-do/

One of the comments in that post references Anthony Flew, that great legend, and his failed attempt to make atheism a default position.

Strangely enough, there are also comments in the post referencing internet atheism.

How does JJsmart rule out the view that atheism is merely a lack of belief?  I don't understand how someone can rule out possibilities of what a word can mean.  Surely definitions are created by common usage for understanding.  And if I'm speaking to people who haven't accepted the new definition of atheism then I would simply say by their definition I would be considered agnostic.

[Angrboda]

Likewise, I point to the SEP article on Atheism, written by none other than eminent philosopher JJC Smart. This article rules out the view that atheism is merely a lack of belief.

I think we must have read two entirely different articles, for nowhere in this article does he appear to address that topic.

[Crossless2.0]

Plantinga allows that a belief in a god can be basic by way of the "indwelling of the Holy Spirit" or whatever claptrap phrase Calvin used; it can be basic for one person in one set of circumstances but not for another person; it can be basic for a person at one time but later not so (the reasonableness of belief in god as basic can be outgrown); it can be basic through a profound experience of nature ("Oh, what a pretty sunset!" on steroids), etc. He also opens the door for religious pluralism: there can be basic beliefs peculiar to Christians with their theological presuppositions, Hindus, etc. You're all reasonable for believing your woo because you (surprise!) had some experience that is congruent with the beliefs dominant in your particular social group.

Blah, blah, blah. Big deal.

If this is the sort of epistemology you need to feel your beliefs are intellectually respectable, so be it, Delicate. Most of us here aren't concerned about what philosophical band aids you feel the need to resort to but whether your beliefs are true. Let me know when you are ready to deal with that.

[Mister Agenda]

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. 

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.

All you had to do to prove atheists are wrong in their assessment of the available evidence for God was to present some. Instead you tried an argument for it being unreasonable to expect evidence before accepting a claim. How weak does your position have to be to resort to this nonsense?