Weak Atheism is Logically Incoherent

And I'll promise not to hold his stupid mistakes against him if he promises not to hold mine against me. :)Dirkson is correct, that the first round is for acceptance. I apologize for not including this in the last round as I was pressed for time, so I will include the information now:Round 2 is for opening arguments (Con may also rebut). Round 3 is for rebuttals. Round 4 is for rebuttals and closing statements. Additionally, the definition of God or gods can be broadly defined in this debate, for the simple reason that we are not here to debate the existence of God or gods. We are here simply to debate whether the claims of "weak atheism" hold merit. Additionally, for simplicity's sake I will use "God" for the remainder of this debate, but it should be assumed that I am also talking about "gods" when talking about what atheists don't believe in. Atheists used to believe there is no God and be quite certain about it. But there seems to be a fairly recent re-definition that atheism now is meant as "lack of faith in God. " This is a very nebulous position and is prone to serious criticisms. You can't prove weak atheism true. You can't prove your position correct. If someone comes along with evidence for God's existence, you automatically lose. If you are not making a positive claim that God doesn't exist, then you can't seriously say that someone who believes in God is incorrect, especially if they have evidence for doing so. Weak atheism is logically fallacious. Additionally, weak atheism commits at least two logical fallacies. First, it commits the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. Atheists are no longer required to prove their position correct, they just claim "You have to prove your position to me. I don't have to prove it to you. " They claim that anyone making a positive claim bears the burden of proof, but this is clearly incorrect. If an atheist tells me there is no God, they are responsible for proving it to me. The one making the claim bears the burden of proof, just as I bear the burden of proof in this debate to show that weak atheism is logically incoherent (rather than asking Con, who agrees with weak atheism, to prove it to me). Second, it commits the fallacy of the argument from ignorance. "You can't prove it is true, so it must be false. " In order to avoid this logical fallacy a weak atheist would have to become agnostic. Now I will examine a few claims of weak atheists. Atheism means "lack of faith in God," nothing more. This is a fairly recent re-definition of the term. It is intellectually lazy and, quite frankly, is insulting to academic atheists who actually do use logical arguments to try and disprove the existence of God (such as the Problem of Evil, or arguing against logical arguments for God's existence). Astronomer Carl Sagan sure believed there is no God. He has written, "The Cosmos is all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be. " [1] Additionally, if atheism were simply lack of faith in God, then rocks and cats would also be atheists. Considering that Theism is an intellectual position, why would atheists not want to approach Atheism from an intellectual standpoint? Atheism is the default position. This is also false. No one is born with or without belief in God. You are raised in a certain ideology so you are more likely to believe in the faith (or lack of faith) that you were raised in. Children raised in a Christian home are more likely to be Christians. Children raised in an Atheist home are more likely to be Atheists. There was never a point at which I was an Atheist, for as long as I was able to think rationally I have believed in God. On top of that, if atheism was really the default position, that would mean it requires absolutely no thought to be an Atheist. So for the sake of intellectualism, Atheism should be rejected in favor of positions that can actually be proven correct. We're all Atheists, I just believe in one less God than you do. Dirkson alluded to this last round, and this is simply a bizarre statement. I believe in one God. I am not an Atheist, I am a Theist. Atheists don't believe any gods exist, a Theists believe a God or gods exists. A Monotheist believes in one God, Polytheists believe in many gods, etc. If you believe in a God, or in many gods, you are not an Atheist. Atheists attempt to blur the lines of reality by appealing to this semantic game. Atheist PZ Myers has some very strong words for this kind of Atheist. As he has written in an article, "Would you be swayed if someone pointed out that you disbelieve astrology, homeopathy, tarot, witchcraft, and palmistry, and he has simply gone one step further than you, and also disbelieves in evolution? "Similarly, you did not go through a list of religions, analysing each one, and ticking them off as unbelievable. I certainly didn’t. Instead, you come to the table with an implicit set of criteria, like evidence and plausibility and experimental support, and also a mistrust of unfounded authority or claims that are too good to be true, and they incline you to accept naturalism, for instance, as a better explanation of the world. Turning it into a quantitative debate about how many gods we accept, instead of a substantial debate about the actual philosophical underpinnings of our ideas, is kind of lame, I think. " [2]ConclusionI think I have thoroughly shown why new atheism is a logically incoherent position to hold. I look forward to reading Con's rebuttal. [1] Sagan, Carl, Cosmos, p. 4). [2] . http://scienceblogs.com...