Weak Atheism is Logically Incoherent

You can't prove weak atheism true. Dirk even concedes this point. Which means that since I can offer evidence to support Theism, and no evidence can be offered to support weak atheism, the Theist position is the more rational. EvidenceDirk offers an analogy regarding the color of the sky. The problem with weak atheism, however, is that it doesn't actually make a positive claim for atheism. If they had conflicting evidence to support their view, then they could make the statement "there is no God," rather than the intellectually ambiguous "I see no proof for God's existence" (of which there is much). The problem is the only evidence they will accept is beyond the Theist's ability to provide. But philosophical arguments are as much evidence as are empirical evidences. In fact, Theists can, and do, even point to the universe to prove God's existence (see, for example, the Cosmological and Teleological Arguments). Logical fallacies. Shifting the burden of proof. So here, Dirk affirms that weak atheists do shift the burden of proof. Traditional (strong) atheists make the statement "there is no God. " Weak atheists make the statement, "I don't have to prove my case, you do. " They can make the statement "I see no evidence for God X," but they can't, or don't, offer any evidence for the lack of God's existence. They are agnostics in disguise. Their position opens the possibility that any number of gods could exist, they just won't state that any one possible God, or no gods, actually exists. I was not trying to offer a contradiction with atheists proving their position. I never said there is no logical way to prove atheism true -- just that there's no logical way to prove weak atheism true. The reality is, there is evidence for God's existence. There is also evidence for atheism. Honest people should admit that there is evidence for both. The question is, which one is more probable. Which evidence is stronger, the evidence supporting Theism or the evidence supporting Atheism? Argument from ignorance. Dirk could not prove the existence of ethereal sheep. But we can prove their existence improbable based on what we know of sheep. Additionally, just like Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot, there is absolutely no reason to believe in ethereal sheep. They exist only for the purposes of the analogy. However, there is reason to believe in the existence of God and angels. We have holy books that talk about them and describe them. They may not actually exist, but the point is that we have reason to believe that they exist, if you ascribe to the holy books that describe them. There are a lot of claims that can be made, and Theists reject most of them. But it is not without evidence. I believe that the evidence most strongly points to the God of the Bible as existing (though those arguments are for another debate entirely). I can, and have, make reasoned arguments for God's existence, and for the existence of the God of the Bible. To claim there is no evidence for it is simply dishonest. I can even admit there is evidence for atheism, as well. But the evidence more strongly supports Theism. AsideNow Dirk is attempting to re-define agnosticism. Agnosticism is the belief that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence (though some agnostics either believe you should live as if God exists, or as if He doesn't). Agnosticism has existed longer than the position of weak atheism, so I think it is doing agnosticism a disservice by attempting to place them into that camp (especially since some agnostics, like Immanuel Kant, believe that even though you can't prove it, you should still live as though God exists). Atheism means "lack of faith in God, nothing more. "This point actually does have a bearing on the debate. The weak atheistic position cannot defeat the Theistic position because the Theistic position is argued using evidence, whereas the weak atheistic position is not. At worst, this could simply be seen as a re-statement of what I have already mentioned. Atheism is the default position. "No one is born with or without belief in God. "Dirk's analogy here doesn't do the job he hopes it does. There may be some kids who are disinclined to believe in God, but that doesn't mean we all are. I have already explained that there was never a time in my life when I was an atheist. My Christian journey has been to accept the beliefs of Christianity, literally as a child, and then when I started questioning my faith later in life, I started looking for evidence to support my views and found a wealth of it. (Note: I was not questioning my faith as in starting to go atheist, I was questioning them to see if there was good evidence to believe what I believe was true, or if I only believe that way because I was raised that way. )Aside. While I may not remember much of my early life, I'm sure I would remember a major paradigm shift, such as going from Atheist to Christian. There was no major paradigm shift. I merely believed in God and chose to dedicate my life to Him at an early age (I was five). Dirk seems to indicate that ignorance is always the default position. However, we can be skeptical of these things not because we should be ignorant until proven otherwise, but based on our knowledge of the topics at hand. I would imagine that very few people test anything thinking, "this is complete hogwash, but I'm going to test it anyway" (though I could be wrong). It seems to me they test thinking, "this may, in fact, be true. Let's see if it is. " We can rightly be skeptical about the sentience of trees based on what our common beliefs are of sentience. Trees, even though they are alive, are inanimate creatures. They cannot move unless a force acts upon them (like the wind). As such, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that trees are not sentient. The other examples fail under similar criteria. "We're all Atheists, I just believe in one less God than you do. "By the definition of Theism, Theists cannot be Atheists. Atheists reject belief in God (or gods), whereas Theists believe in God (or gods). Here's where weak atheism really breaks down. I could be considered an "a-Thor-ist," but it's not due to lack of evidence that Thor exists. It's due to evidence that the God of the Bible exists. The evidence for the Biblical God is much stronger than the evidence for Thor's existence, so I reject Thor and believe in God. I can say unequivocally that "Thor does not exist. " I don't state that "there is no evidence for Thor, so prove it to me. "PZ Myers. Yes, PZ Myers is an. .. interesting fellow. :)However, now Dirk is hitting the nail on the head. Atheists claim there is evidence for Evolution, even though Theists (with the exception of Theistic Evolutionists) reject it as having no convincing evidence. Atheism should be the same way. You can only reject the existence of God if there is stronger evidence against God's existence. And in that case, you would make the claim that God does not exist. Conclusion. I believe I have successfully defended the resolution. I look forward to our next and final round.