Weak Atheism is Logically Incoherent

0. Evidence A recurring theme in my opponent's rebuttals is his claim of evidence for the existence of a diety. This is actually just a restating of his original point 2, which I've already answered: Namely, that weak atheism's susceptibility to evidence is the most logical portion of it, rather than some imagined logical weakness. Please see my original response to point 2 for a more thorough rebuttal.If my opponent would like to discuss a specific claim of evidence, I would be happy to start another debate with him, so that the claims get a fair hearing. I will go ahead and provide VERY brief rebuttals for the two specific claims he's already mentioned, however.1. "You can't prove weak atheism true."My opponent claims evidence for theism as a rebuttal here. Please see point 0.2. "If someone comes along with evidence for God's existence, you automatically lose."My opponent claims evidence for theism as a rebuttal here. Please see point 0.Cosmological: Asserts something that needs a first cause to explain the first cause.Teleological. I believe this is the "Complexity requires a designer" argument? So far, every complex phenomenon we have discovered can be described without a designer - See evolution, cosmology, etc.3. "[Weak atheism] commits the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof."I find myself trying to explain why "A god exists" is a claim. I'm afraid I more or less have to fall back on definition here - http://dictionary.reference.com... "3. to assert or maintain as a fact." I find it impossible to state the weak atheist position in such a way that it makes any claim about gods.If "A god exists" is a claim, the burden of proof must logically fall on those making this claim. If theists have evidence, they should present it - A weak atheist will be obligated either to change their views or, if they find the evidence invalid, make a counter-claim against the evidence presented.Many agnostics are weak atheists, and many weak atheists are agnostics. I don't understand why my opponent asserts they're in disguise. (As a good natured joke: Are they ninjas? :) )My opponent correctly states that the weak atheistic position is open to the possibility of any number of gods existing.1 & 3 Possible ContradictionMy opponent asserts that there is no way to prove weak atheism logically true. That is, there can exist no evidence, and no evidence can be IMAGINED, that would be proof of weak atheism. I agree with this point.He then goes on to assert that weak atheism makes a claim. (And thus must shoulder the burden of proof.)What arguments is my opponent wanting to hear if no evidence can be imagined that would be proof of weak atheism?My opponent claims evidence for theism as a rebuttal here. Please see point 0.4. Argument from ignorance.My opponent's reference to Bertrand Russell is an excellent example, as his teapot example is old enough to have made its way into books, and thus falls afoul of the two problems with relying on books to rebut this argument.The first problem is that there isn't just one set of holy texts, there are thousands, most of which are mutually exclusive. Which books am I to give weight to? In a world where thousands of people mark "Jedi" on the census as their religion, that is not an easy question to answer.The second, and far more damning problem with books is that it doesn't matter that they're books. Books are nothing more than the written claims of other people - As such, they have no more weight than my written claims of ethereal sheep, Russel's written claims of teapots, or Tolkien's claims of elves.4.1 "There are a lot of claims that can be made, and Theists reject most of them. But it is not without evidence."Well, shucks, that's just wrong. For example - You've denied my claim of ethereal sheep while having zero evidence of their non-existence. In fact, you did not even try to get a definition for them from me, nor construct any experiments to test for them. The sheep do not even conflict with any theistic beliefs that I am aware of.Sadly, there are millions of people in the world making similar ridiculous claims, and merely to continue forward, the vast majority of these claims have to be ignored unless the person making them can present compelling evidence.My opponent claims evidence for theism as a rebuttal here. Please see point 0.AsideMy opponent dismisses my argument as re-definition of agnosticism, then immediately defined agnosticism... Paraphrasing the very definition I was using! This actually made my laugh out loud. I'm not sure where we're getting our wires crossed here.My opponent is correct that some agnostics do pick a god and live as though that god exists. I wasn't intending to place all agnostics in the weak atheist camp, just the majority of them, who live as though no god exists.5. Atheism means "lack of faith in God, nothing more."My opponent insists that his original point has bearing, so I'll make a go at deconstructing his points here."[Weak atheism] is a fairly recent re-definition of the term [atheist]."Might be, but I'm not well versed in the history of atheism. Whether it is or isn't doesn't make weak atheism incoherent.Paraphrase: Weak atheism is intellectually lazy compared to strong atheism and thus insults strong atheistsPerhaps! Whether it is or isn't doesn't make weak atheism incoherent.[Cool Carl Sagan quote]Cool, a Carl Sagan quote."[...] rocks and cats would also be atheists."I'm not sure applying "atheist" to a rock makes much sense. I thought about how to communicate the concepts of "existence", "god", and "question" to my cat, but I suspect her of being too simple to meaningfully reply.I'm not really sure how any of this can be built up to proving the logical incoherence of weak atheism.My opponent does make a sort-of new point in his rebuttal, but he's right that it's more or less redundant with points 1-36. "Atheism is the default position" (With Aside 2 wrapped in)My point wasn't that some kids run across the concept of a god and respond "Oh, that's stupid".My point was that kids uneducated in the concept of a god do not have a concept of a god, and thus no concept of a god's existence, until someone else tells them about it.This is true of literally everything everyone believes - It is no surprise that you don't remember the state before learning about god, since it's unlikely that you remember the state before learning about floors, walls grass, arms, birds, the US government, France, and a million other things.To be fair, I'm still not sure about France ;)My opponent did not contest my assertion of his appeal to consequences.Did you believe trees were sentient before I presented the problem to you and you thought it over? If you did not, then you DID have a default position - And it was disbelief.7. "We're all Atheists, I just believe in one less God than you do."My opponent contests that, since belief in gods is frequently mutually exclusive, those people who believe in an exclusive god are strongly a-diety-isctic toward all other gods, not weakly a-diety-istic towards those gods.This is valid, and breaks apart the core of my "Believing weak atheism is logically incoherent is logically incoherent" point. Thank you!PZ MyersMy opponent asserts that claims without convincing evidence should be rejected... I... Wholeheartedly agree! I have been making that point repeatedly while refuting his points, and am pleased as punch to see him backing me up on it.Confused. But pleased.My opponent claims evidence for theism as a rebuttal here. Please see point 0.ConclusionBarring some devastating evidence from my opponent, I believe I have successfully refuted all of his points in support of this debate's topic.I want to thank my opponent for his time, and thank him particularly for proving me wrong on my "Believing weak atheism is logically incoherent is logically incoherent" point.Cheers,-DirkP.S. Just a handful of characters left! I've managed to slip in right under the wi