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

[paulpablo]

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.

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.

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.

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   I won't agree with this unless some historical reference given that shows the definition of atheism has changed from including a lack of belief in gods to not including a lack of belief in gods.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.

1) The JTB account entails that if a belief is justified and true, it is knowledge.
2) Your belief (atheism) is not knowledge (agnosticism)
3) Therefore your belief (atheism) is not both justified and true. (modus tollens)

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.