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

[Delicate]

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   I won't agree with this unless some historical reference given that shows the definition of atheism has changed from including a lack of belief in gods to not including a lack of belief in gods.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

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.