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

[Cato]

I suggest you look up foundationalism and basic beliefs.

It will connect the dots with much of what you're saying so you don't have to reinvent the wheel.

Again trying to pass off your ignorance as profundity I see. Foundationalism still demands justification; i.e., evidence supporting the base truth upon which other truths are established.

[Edwardo Piet]

Foundationalism just fails completely due to an infinite lack of justification due to an infinite regress. Every belief needs a support from another belief, infinite regress, total failure. It's totally circular. Goes nowhere.

[downbeatplumb]

Foundationalism just fails completely due to an infinite lack of justification due to an infinite regress. Every belief needs a support from another belief, infinite regress, total failure. It's totally circular. Goes nowhere.

I do not believe in any supernatural thing. I do not believe in god, spiritualism (much to my wife's disgust, she's a spiritualist medium), ghosts, elves ,gnomes, santa, pixies or any of the other things men believed due to ignorance. For people to believe these things they have to be schooled. belief in Yahweh would perish just as surely as belief in whatever those busty figurines were meant to be in the stone agehas perished if people stopped passing on the lies. These beliefs are not fundamental they are taught to the innocent to perpetuate the whole sorry story.

[drfuzzy]

Foundationalism just fails completely due to an infinite lack of justification due to an infinite regress. Every belief needs a support from another belief, infinite regress, total failure. It's totally circular. Goes nowhere.

I do not believe in any supernatural thing. I do not believe in god, spiritualism (much to my wife's disgust, she's a spiritualist medium), ghosts, elves ,gnomes, santa, pixies or any of the other things men believed due to ignorance. For people to believe these things they have to be schooled. belief in Yahweh would perish just as surely as belief in whatever those busty figurines were meant to be in the stone agehas perished if people stopped passing on the lies. These beliefs are not fundamental they are taught to the innocent to perpetuate the whole sorry story.

Gee, brothas from anotha motha . . . I was just typing almost the same thing to Killjoy in another thread.  You phrased it better than I did though, downbeat!    

[Delicate]

I suggest you look up foundationalism and basic beliefs.

It will connect the dots with much of what you're saying so you don't have to reinvent the wheel.

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.

[Delicate]

. 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. 

Wow you really got us! I pull my hat down! It's true all of it! This means Mohammed really rode on a flying horse and Jesus was born of virgin. NOT!!!

The truth is children need to be armed with knowledge to face this world. Much more knowledge then we had in their age. It is scary but alternative is worse.
I would tell toddler evidence is all around you without quantum mechanics there would be no transistor, and hence no personal computer; no laser, and hence no Blu-ray players.

I see, Delicate, you don't understand what reality is. Reality is everything that exists.  Our five senses – sight, smell, touch, hearing and taste – do a pretty good job of convincing us that many things are real: rocks and camels, butterflies, ice creams, marbles... When it comes to things that are too far away to be seen with the naked eye like distant Galaxies or  a bacterium, too small to be seen without a microscope we don't say that these do not exist because we can’t see them.  We can enhance our senses through the use of special instruments: telescopes for the galaxy, microscopes for bacteria. How about radio waves? Do they exist? Our eyes can’t detect them, nor can our ears, but again special instruments – television sets, for example – convert them into signals that we can see and hear. As with telescopes and microscopes, we understand how radios and televisions work. So they help our senses to build a picture of what exists: the real world – reality.
Or take dinosaurs. They don't exist anymore, but we have fossils of them we can work out that they must have existed, using indirect evidence that still ultimately reaches us through our senses: we see and touch the stony traces of ancient life.
Blind people are surrounded with people who can tell them there are colors and although they can't see them they can understand that they exist because of nature of light and how it refracts.

Or what about are there aliens in outer space? We’ve never seen or heard them so we don't know if they're real. Nobody knows; but we do know what kind of things could one day tell us if they are. If ever we got near to an alien, our sense organs could tell us about it. Reality doesn’t just consist of the things we already know about: it also includes things that exist but that we don’t know about yet and won’t know about until some future time, perhaps when we have built better instruments to assist our five senses.

Atoms have always existed, but people became sure of their existence only recently and it is likely that our descendants will know about many more things that.

BUT this doesn’t mean we should believe just anything that anybody might dream up: there is infinite amount of things we can imagine but which are highly unlikely to be real – flying penis, fairies, gods, giants, leprechauns... We should always be open-minded, but the only good reason to believe that something exists is if there is real evidence that it does.

This has nothing to say in response to my post.

Thanks for the ramble though.

[Nay_Sayer]

Wow you really got us! I pull my hat down! It's true all of it! This means Mohammed really rode on a flying horse and Jesus was born of virgin. NOT!!!

The truth is children need to be armed with knowledge to face this world. Much more knowledge then we had in their age. It is scary but alternative is worse.
I would tell toddler evidence is all around you without quantum mechanics there would be no transistor, and hence no personal computer; no laser, and hence no Blu-ray players.

I see, Delicate, you don't understand what reality is. Reality is everything that exists.  Our five senses – sight, smell, touch, hearing and taste – do a pretty good job of convincing us that many things are real: rocks and camels, butterflies, ice creams, marbles... When it comes to things that are too far away to be seen with the naked eye like distant Galaxies or  a bacterium, too small to be seen without a microscope we don't say that these do not exist because we can’t see them.  We can enhance our senses through the use of special instruments: telescopes for the galaxy, microscopes for bacteria. How about radio waves? Do they exist? Our eyes can’t detect them, nor can our ears, but again special instruments – television sets, for example – convert them into signals that we can see and hear. As with telescopes and microscopes, we understand how radios and televisions work. So they help our senses to build a picture of what exists: the real world – reality.
Or take dinosaurs. They don't exist anymore, but we have fossils of them we can work out that they must have existed, using indirect evidence that still ultimately reaches us through our senses: we see and touch the stony traces of ancient life.
Blind people are surrounded with people who can tell them there are colors and although they can't see them they can understand that they exist because of nature of light and how it refracts.

Or what about are there aliens in outer space? We’ve never seen or heard them so we don't know if they're real. Nobody knows; but we do know what kind of things could one day tell us if they are. If ever we got near to an alien, our sense organs could tell us about it. Reality doesn’t just consist of the things we already know about: it also includes things that exist but that we don’t know about yet and won’t know about until some future time, perhaps when we have built better instruments to assist our five senses.

Atoms have always existed, but people became sure of their existence only recently and it is likely that our descendants will know about many more things that.

BUT this doesn’t mean we should believe just anything that anybody might dream up: there is infinite amount of things we can imagine but which are highly unlikely to be real – flying penis, fairies, gods, giants, leprechauns... We should always be open-minded, but the only good reason to believe that something exists is if there is real evidence that it does.

This has nothing to say in response to my post.

Thanks for the ramble though.

It does but....ah fuck it, It's too much effort and for a troll no less.

[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.

[Delicate]

CROSSLESS1:  No argument from me on that point.

Whether you deem my question immaterial is irrelevant to me. In one of your threads, you were the one who posted the link to Plantinga's lecture notes, in which he lists both non-belief in solipsism and belief in a god or gods as properly "basic" (not irrational to believe even if it can't be rationally demonstrated). I assume you endorse that position, or else there would have been little point in referencing Plantinga in the first place.

I'd like to know if, in fact, you agree with Plantinga and, if so, how you justify the linkage between belief in god(s) and acceptance of an external reality as "basic" in his sense.

DELICATE:  I personally do find Plantinga persuasive, within his larger project.

Belief in God is indeed properly basic, in my view.

And I can lay out my reasons for why. But to do so requires groundwork.

For instance, I can't hope to convince downbeatplumb, who is convinced all legitimate knowledge must be provable. That kind of hardcore empiricism is rejected in epistemology but is popular among new atheists.

But once again, that's a different conversation than the one downbeatplumb and I are having.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This must rank among the most disingenuous responses I've ever received at AF, which is saying something considering some of the world class bullshit and master ninja evasiveness I've encountered from some of your fellow theists. Do I really need to remind you of the title of your own thread?

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

Just to refresh your memory, here's your OP:

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. (bolding added)
 
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.


Then, in the third post of this thread, you provided the link to Plantinga's lecture notes, and I knew then where this was heading. Here's what I wrote on page 14, thirteen days ago:

We need to be clear about the nature of the game Delicate is playing, aside from the delight he/she takes in being a douche. Plantinga and his ilk assert that belief in "God" is basic in much the same way that belief in other minds is basic, i.e., that one is not irrational for believing either position even if one is unable to rationally demonstrate them (what the connecting thought between belief in God and rejection of solipsism may be escapes me -- but no matter). So that list of "arguments" is superfluous for purposes of determining whether belief is "rational" or not. By embracing Plantinga, Delicate has already asserted by fiat that it is.

The arguments that follow aren't really meant to prove anything or even provide evidence as the word is usually understood. It's more of a cumulative case that you're either predisposed to accept as largely true (as the Protestant thinkers toiling in Plantinga's wake do) or you're not, in which case the entire edifice will appear ridiculously weak. The reason it's pointless to pursue knocking down each argument in turn -- at least as it applies to Delicate -- is that when you're done, you're still going to be left with a person who crows that belief in God is basic, i.e., not irrational -- even if that's all he has left of his "argument".

It's a waste of time.


So here we are nearly two weeks later. I agree with you that there are certain beliefs that are "basic" in the sense that they can be reasonably held even if they can't be rationally demonstrated (e.g., an external reality, other minds) and ask you to clarify in what sense a belief in a god can possibly be basic in the same way that believing and acting as though the world we experience is real and external to us. Your response? Deflection: "Oh, but this isn't what my discussion with downbeatplumb is really about."

Bullshit.

My question goes to the heart of what this sorry excuse of a thread is "about". You start the thread by likening atheists to toddlers who cannot understand quantum physics (like you do ) or to a blind person who doesn't experience color because we don't "see" the evidence for a god -- evidence that you seem to think is blindingly obvious (pun intended). Then you say that atheists must be able to respond meaningfully to purported examples of theistic evidence. Then, for page after page (here and in other threads), you simply ignore multiple members' requests for this "evidence". You dodge that by getting into a dung flinging contest about "evidentialism" -- as though that represents the epistemological stance of all atheists in relation to all questions. It doesn't. I'm an example of someone for whom it doesn't apply across the board. And when I try to engage you on your own chosen turf regarding the idea that belief in god is "basic" (reasonable to hold if not rationally demonstratable), you actually have the balls to say (1) you could lay out your reasons why but that would require some groundwork (thus giving the lie to the notion that the belief is properly basic), and (2) that the fucking question is irrelevant to the discussion.

It looks like my post from the 14th was spot on, though I admit that I didn't go nearly far enough in overestimating you and your sense of intellectual integrity. I won't make that mistake again.

If you've made one thing clear in this post it's that you don't understand Plantinga's case.

That and you're hysterical.

[Delicate]

Foundationalism just fails completely due to an infinite lack of justification due to an infinite regress. Every belief needs a support from another belief, infinite regress, total failure. It's totally circular. Goes nowhere.

That's funny because the raison d'etre of Foundationalism, the central feature it bears, as it's very name suggests, is the rejection of infinite regresses. Foundational beliefs, or basic beliefs, are those very beliefs that don't rely on a regress of doxastic support.

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