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

[paulpablo]

EVIDENCE.  You yammer on and on and on about "evidence", you ignore responses and keep yammering about "evidence", and even when we ask for "evidence" you keep yammering on and give us nothing.  Zip.  Nada.   Pages upon pages upon pages of people asking for your "evidence".  You give us absolutely nothing.  Worse than nothing - you ignore everything you've been told, and type crap like the nonsense above.  All you do is stick your nose in the air, try to think up a new way to tell us how superior you are, and have fun typing more insults.  

We tell you and tell you and tell you:  Definition of atheism =  disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.    We tell you that we have not seen sufficient substantive empirical evidence to support belief in any deities.   Evidence, not something from a book of fairy tales, not stories for people who had "experiences", not philosophical arguments, not "look around you, only an idiot looks at nature and fails to see god" - - - you keep flapping your jaw about evidence, so give us the evidence.  

Put up or shut up.  How much longer are you going to spread shit all over our carpets and try to claim you're throwing pearls before swine?

I have to ask you to stop and think more carefully.

Read the question:

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?

"Where is the evidence?" is not one of the answers. The answers are one of the following:
a) I've examined the evidence and found it lacking, or
b) I'm incompetent and incapable of seeing the evidence.

Those are the only two possibilities that can explain why someone sees a lack of evidence. 

So once again: Which is it?

Pretty sure that the two terms exist because of the difference.

Pretty sure noone's talking about the existence of the terms.

How is it that someone as learned as you in epistemology struggle so with the idea of justified true belief?

You're good at repeating slogans. Too bad you don't understand them.

It's been about 50 years since justified true belief was refuted. For my struggle (and those of contemporary epistemologists) you can thank Edmund Gettier.

But to keep the discussion on track, the bottom line is: Your belief+knowledge account of your view about the existence of God refutes atheism itself. 

Here's why:

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)

Taking (3) as a premise in a second argument, we get the following:
1) If a conjunction is false, one or both of the conjuncts are false.
2) The conjunction "The belief (atheism) is true and justified" is false.
3) Therefore, either atheism is unjustified, or atheism is false, or atheism is both unjustified and false.

Read the second conclusion again. You're logically committed to the view that atheism is either false, or unjustified, or it's false AND unjustified.

Someone who knows a bit of formal logic can verify the structure of my argument here.

Thanks for playing. Now tell me about your justified true belief.

I can see one fault here, atheism is a lack of a belief rather than a belief. I'm surprised you overlooked this since you say atheists are always telling you this.

It might be the case that you're constantly being told the same arguments by atheists because you're constantly ignoring the arguments resulting in them being repeatedly explained.