Weak Atheism is Logically Incoherent

0. EvidenceI'm glad we agree that this isn't the place to try to debate evidence.We're covered pretty thoroughly, between us, the idea that if there is evidence for theism, than weak atheism would cease to be correct. I'm not certain that "wrong" and "logically incoherent" are synonyms, but even if we accept that they are, my opponent would have had to produce solid evidence for theism to prove himself correct. While watching the world change forever as a result of an internet argument would have been awesome, I'm afraid we won't be seeing that today.Indeed, my opponent tacitly admits that evidence may be faulty in his first paragraph by stating that both theism and atheism have evidence. If my opponent thinks that there is evidence for both sides, but has chosen a side, then he has clearly rejected evidence - The very thing that he is calling weak atheists logically incoherent for doing!Weak Atheist VS AgnosticMy opponent then descends into the "weak atheist/agnostic" mire again. My opponent defined agnosticism as "the belief that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence", which I agree with. Most weak atheists are agnostics, believing that, since the existence of gods cannot be proven one way or another, they must fall into the default category of lacking belief. My opponent's suggestion that weak atheists should become agnostics is nonsensical by his own definition.Cosmological ArgumentThe KCA asserts the existence of a deity to explain the first cause. The natural following question is, of course, "But what caused god?". Carl Sagan says it best, illuminating the problems this point poses for KCA advocates best by invoking Occam's Razor: "If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from. And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?" [1]More simply - The KCA asserts that all things must have a cause, and then immediately asserts the existence of a thing without a cause to explain this. This means that at best the KCA has no explanatory power, at worst it is not internally consistent.Teleological ArgumentI agree with my opponent that a non-theistic explanation for events does not disprove a deity. This, however, has no bearing on the correctness or incorrectness of the Teleological argument. If your argument is that something is too complex to have have ANY explanation other then being purposefully designed, and someone shows a method by which that thing CAN come into existence without being purposefully designed, your argument becomes invalid. Fascinatingly, the competing explanation doesn't even have to be correct to disprove this specific argument, it just has to be possible.If your argument is that it is more probable that something was designed than the competing explanation, then you run into stickier problems - Namely, that you have to work out how probable it is for the thing in question being designed! I don't even know how you would start to work out this figure, rendering this argument more funny than persuasive.3. Logical FallaciesTaking claims together as a cumulative claim is an attempt to invoke the fallacy of proof by verbosity. Claims must be dealt with one at a time - And every time theists claims of evidence are taken one at a time, they consistently fail to provide the proof they purport to provide.1&3 Possible contradictionMy opponent responds to my question by instead trying to back up one of the points that results in the contradiction. The entire point of this section was exposing a curious incoherency in his train of thought, which I believe I have done a fair job of in previous posts.I'm not sure how "prove" and "show that believing in God is more reasonable than not believing in God" are different. Nothing can be proven to 100% certainty, the entirety of life is a guessing game.4. Argument from ignoranceIt pleases me to see my opponent acknowledging that both his book and others have arguments for their religions. This is an important point to understand to make sense of the world.However, it also underlines an important problem with relying on a holy book to rebut much of anything - Namely, there are a truckload of the things, and almost all insist that they are the correct book because of claims X, Y, and Z.The telling portion of this is that, to date, every one of these claims a particular weak atheist happens to come across have failed to prove their point. Again, weak atheists fall back on their strength - Should a weak atheist FIND a claim that is valid in a holy text, he can immediately stop being a weak atheist. Far from incoherent or a fault, adjusting bad claims is a prime way in which humans add to their knowledge.(I think I would have to side with Han Solo on this one: "Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid." [2] ) (I am unbelievably pleased that I've managed to work a Han Solo quote into a debate.)Rejection of claimsClaims of ethereal sheep don't actually contradict anything in the bible, even if you assume that "ethereal" means "heavenly". At no point in the bible does it say "Oh, and by the way, God did not make any angels that resemble sheep in any way". (I believe it DOES say that animals don't have souls, which is close, but unrelated.)In trying to rebut my argument, my opponent has actually strengthened it - He discarded my claims without evidence, revealing himself to be hold analogous beliefs as a weak atheist with regards to ethereal sheep!AsideTo answer my opponent's question: Because "Weak atheist" and "Agnostic" mean different things! Using your definitions, I've given a complete explanation of that above.My opponent uses a strawman against his own definition here. (?) Saying that you lack a belief in god is not at odds in any way with saying that you cannot prove god does or does not exist. (Again, both of these are my opponent's definitions!)5. Lack of faithWhile this doesn't affect the debate, my opponent is correct that my cat is, for example, an a-France-ist. I'm not sure why my opponent objects to that - And I'm curious enough that I wouldn't mind an explanation in the comments after the debate. 6. Atheism is the default position"In this case, I'm not sure we can say that atheism is the default position, because kids wouldn't logically not believe in God, either." - So, er... since they don't believe in god, and don't disbelieve in god, perhaps it would be most accurate to say that they lack a belief in god?My opponent is correct that kids will believe whatever you tell them, although it has no bearing on the argument.Final ConclusionAlthough I don't believe my opponent's arguments stand up to critical examination, I was pleasantly surprised at their robustness - I know that, were I in Pro's shoes, I could not have argued near as well as he did. I also learned several things in the course of the debate, and discovered several new courses of study, for which I wish to thank my opponent.Over the course of this debate, I have pointed out numerous flaws in my opponent's thought process, both as it applies to the debate's topic and its own internal consistency. Whether or not you believe that weak atheism is true, or believe that Strong Atheism is preferable to it, or even believe that there is or isn't a god, I have consistently shot down every argument for weak atheism's logical incoherence, showing it to be at the very minimum a logically valid position.I encourage all creeds to vote Con!Cheers,-Dirk[1] http://goo.gl... (Link shortened to work around a technical limitation of Debate.org)[2] http://www.imdb.com...