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

[Silver]

Anything written above a third-grade level is word-salad to you, buddy. 

And by the way, your attitude represents the anti-intellectual nature of atheism on this forum.

Dude, your responses are zen to me. They only make me stronger.

I simply wonder if your goal in regards to posting here is one of your own benefit or one that can benefit anyone.

And I am the wonder of this forum simply for the reason that I am capable of putting you in your place with a sentence.

Unlike the amazing Esq who can do it with a novelesque flare.

[Goosebump]

Isn't the "JTB" the Gettier problem? If so doesn't that mean that it's "true but unknown"? How is that provable or even usable in any argument? Atheists don't say there is "No God" they simply say there "Is not Your God". I think your entire reasoning is false because your making some assumption.

It isn't. The Gettier problem attacks JTB. To be more specific, the Gettier problem attacks the claim that JTB is N&S for knowledge. Given Gettier (and other) problems with the JTB account, I think most epistemologists today take JTB to be N&~S for knowledge.

Thanks for the clarification. I looked up the "JTB" Theory. If what I looked up is true it's the Plato theory of knowledge. IF that's the case that doesn't your argument still possess a problem. Meaning your used it incorrectly?

S believes P... and P is true... Atheists don't "believe" anything. So how is that argument applicable?

Thanks again for the clarification.

[Delicate]

It isn't. The Gettier problem attacks JTB. To be more specific, the Gettier problem attacks the claim that JTB is N&S for knowledge. Given Gettier (and other) problems with the JTB account, I think most epistemologists today take JTB to be N&~S for knowledge.

Thanks for the clarification. I looked up the "JTB" Theory. If what I looked up is true it's the Plato theory of knowledge. IF that's the case that doesn't your argument still possess a problem. Meaning your used it incorrectly?

S believes P... and P is true... Atheists don't "believe" anything. So how is that argument applicable?

Thanks again for the clarification.

I think you have something confused. Let's start from the beginning.

Atheists here combine two mutually exclusive views into one (agnostic atheist).
They justify this by saying "agnostic refers to their knowledge, while atheist refers to their belief".
JTB (which at least one atheist here seems to affirm) says JTB = knowledge.

[Silver]

JTB is just another cute acronym for theists to tote around in false justification of their mythology.

[Delicate]

JTB is just another cute acronym for theists to tote around in false justification of their mythology.

Which is why Cato endorsed it. 

LOL can you blame me when I point out how dim you guys are?

[Silver]

Which is why Cato endorsed it. 

Has Cato since given reason for supposedly endorsing it?

[IATIA]

LOL can you blame me when I point out how dim you guys are?

And yet you are the one that believes in bronze age fairy tales.

[Goosebump]

Thanks for the clarification. I looked up the "JTB" Theory. If what I looked up is true it's the Plato theory of knowledge. IF that's the case that doesn't your argument still possess a problem. Meaning your used it incorrectly?

S believes P... and P is true... Atheists don't "believe" anything. So how is that argument applicable?

Thanks again for the clarification.

I think you have something confused. Let's start from the beginning.

Atheists here combine two mutually exclusive views into one (agnostic atheist).
They justify this by saying "agnostic refers to their knowledge, while atheist refers to their belief".
JTB (which at least one atheist here seems to affirm) says JTB = knowledge.

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?

[AAA]

There is plenty of evidence that points to a designer. Information rich cells and the fine tuned universe are old but good arguments that give the appearance of design. When you first see it, the conclusion should be intelligent cause. Materialistic explanations fall short continuously, which ironically inadvertently ends up making it more likely that the design conclusion is correct. I think there is plenty of evidence from biology that supports a designer.

Nooope.


No designer is needed to explain the complexity of the Universe, and if the complexity of the Universe requires a designer more complex than the Universe itself, then that designer must also be complex enough to require a designer more complex than itself, and that designer must also require a more complex designer...welcome to infinite regression.


If your designer doesn't require a designer more complex than itself, then why should the Universe?


If your designer is the only thing in reality that doesn't require a designer, then that's special pleading.


Check.

Right, the infinite regress leads to something that must be outside of time and without need to be caused. The question is: is it more reasonable that this is an intelligence or unintelligence? I think that it is more reasonable to think it is an intelligence. Nobody wins in the infinite regress, but I think the naturalists/atheists are in a slightly worse position.

---

For one who just ranted about presuppositions, you certainly are quite unaware of that which takes place within the Christian mythology.  After all, religion has built its church walls based on false realities.  

Being a Christian and believing in evolution based on an imaginary sky daddy being behind the workings of evolution is quite a retarded apologetic stepping stone, I do agree.

For one who cannot accept reality as it is certainly has no problems accepting mythology as factual.  (I was responding in reference to how you posted, and you obviously repeated yourself, triple A)

There is nothing intelligent about any design based on a primitive mind's concept of human origin.

I know that I have presuppositions, we all do. You can't get away from them no matter how hard you try. You look at the cell with your presuppositions and see areas that you think aren't perfect. I look at the cell with my presuppositions and see impressive complexity and teamwork between enzymes based solely on their structures giving them specific chemical properties. 

And what mythology did I promote as fact?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Of course you're arguing that the two should not be disparate.

I'm pointing out that they are, and that there's a reason for it.

If you cannot understand the simple difference between belief and knowledge, I don't see much hope of this being a productive conversation. You go on ahead and bruit about your misapprehnsions regarding atheists, and I'll resume regarding you as someone unworthy of serious consideration.

Whatever your reasons might be for having that distinction, if you have that distinction, it logically entails that your atheism is false or unjustified. Or both.

If you disagree with my argument, point out where I am logically out of step or factually incorrect. As far as I can see, my reasoning is deductively valid.

Garbage in, garbage out. Simply because something is sound logically does not mean it is factually true.