Weak Atheism is Logically Incoherent

Evidence We could certainly discuss the evidence for Theism, if he would like, as this isn't really the place for it. However, I could call into question the weak atheist's position that it is susceptible to evidence. Anyone who claims there is absolutely no evidence for Theism is clearly biased, as there is evidence for both Theism and Atheism (certainly enough evidence to make up your mind one way or the other). The question is which position is better supported by the evidence. I would argue that Theism is. It just doesn't make sense to say "there is no evidence" for Theism, which is clearly false, just as it is false to say there is no evidence for Atheism. As I have already shown, weak atheism is logically incoherent. It denies evidence for both sides (where there is clearly enough to make up your mind), and it is nothing more than agnosticism. To be consistent, they must either become strong atheists (making the claim that God does not exist) or become agnostics (you can't prove it either way). The only difference between an Agnostic and a Theist/Atheist is that Agnostics claim you can't prove it, so we can't say one way or the other (though you can still live as though a God does or does not exist), and the Theist/Atheist claims that you may not be able to prove it conclusively, but there is enough evidence to believe God does or does not exist to justify belief (or no belief) in God. You can't prove weak atheism true. Again, you can show enough evidence to justify a belief (or no belief) in God. Weak atheism is barely indistuingishable from Agnosticism. Evidence of God's existence. Dirk's objections here are not valid objections. The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not assert that God needs a First Cause. It only asserts that everything that begins to exist needs a cause, so the universe requires a cause because it began to exist. Asking "what created God? " is not a valid objection, as I have shown in a previous debate. [1]Dirk is correct that the Teleological Argument is the argument from design to a Designer. However, simply saying that science *can* explain everything does not disprove God's existence. God set the natural laws into motion, so simply appealing to natural laws does not prove that the existence came about without God, just that it *could have* come about without God. Even then, it is still wrong that it could have come about without God, as it is more mathematically probable that this universe was created by God, than it came about naturally, as I have argued in another debate. [2]Logical fallacies. I understand why saying "God exists" is a claim. However, theological arguments for God's existence are about probability, not about proving God's existence beyond the shadow of a doubt. Theistic arguments for God's existence, taken together as a cumulative claim, make a very powerful argument for God's existence. It is entirely reasonable to believe in God's existence. Atheistic objections to these arguments (most of which are logically air-tight -- yet they still try to find fallacies rather than address the argument itself) are either weak objections, or the atheist tries to find fallacies where none exist. But again, that's probably a discussion for another debate. Possible contradiction. Actually, weak atheism does make a claim, that there is no evidence for God's existence. But by making that claim, they shift the burden of proof back on the Theist to prove their position. It offers an easy way out saying, "I don't have to prove my position, you have to prove yours. " This, effectively, is used to try to get an easy win against Theists. I'm not sure what arguments could be offered as proof of weak atheism. The claim "there is no evidence for God's existence" is clearly false. There are many evidences for God's existence. It is true we can't conclusively prove the existence of God, but we don't have to. We just have to show that believing in God is more reasonable than not believing in God. Argument from ignorance. I agree with Dirk that there are thousands of holy books, most of which are mutually exclusive. However, there are reasonable arguments offered that the Bible is the true word of God (as other religions offer their own proofs). Arguments for the Bible's reliability are irrelevant to this debate. The point is, there are reasons to accept the Bible's word over other religions (and other religions would say the same of their holy book). So it's not exactly true that there is no reason for believing in them. If you can offer logical reasons for believing your holy book is the correct one, then there is no reason to believe that other gods or celestial beings exist. Especially if the Bible is correct, it would preclude the existence of any other gods or mythical beings. (On a slightly related note, if I wasn't a Christian I would probably belong to the Jedi religion :D ). As I have stated, if you draw a reasonable conclusion that your religious text is the correct one, then you have no reason to accept any other religious claims. This is also why it is not reasonable to believe in a celestial teapot -- that teapot only exists in the analogy of Bertrand Russell. It is more reasonable to believe in God, angels, or even Zeus, than in Russell's teapot. Rejection of claims. Well, the definition of "ethereal" is basically "heavenly," so I was thinking of sheep that had the same characteristics of angels. :) However, there are limited rounds in this debate so I didn't have the luxury of waiting for your definition of "ethereal" before responding to it. I do have evidence for their non-existence because I have reasonable evidence for the existence of the Biblical God. AsideWhile it may seem as though I was using a tautology when referring to Agnostics, my point was why would someone refer to themselves as "weak atheist" rather than simply "agnostic? " The atheist position is that there is no God, and the Agnostic position, that you can't prove it one way or the other. It's just incoherent to say you're an atheist, but you can't say there is no God. Lack of faith. I will concede Dirk's points here. He is correct that while they may be valid objections to weak atheism (which I suppose is debatable), they don't actually show that weak atheism is logically incoherent. However, regarding Dirk's cat, the incoherence lies in the fact that cats can't logically be atheists. However, claiming that atheism is nothing more than "lack of faith in Atheism" would mean that cats can, in fact, be atheists if all that is required is a lack of faith. Cats lack faith in just about everything (except, in most cases, in their human's ability or desire to feed them). 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. Kids usually (though not always) grow up believing in what their parents taught them, whether it be Christianity, Hinduism, or Atheism. You'll probably say that shows weak atheism to be the default position, but I wouldn't say that, either, as kids will usually believe what their parents tell them, even without evidence. Kids will believe in Santa Claus even before that first present is laid under the tree. I am, unfortunately, low on characters. I will just re-iterate that I believe I have shown weak atheism to be logically incoherent, in that it doesn't make sense to claim "atheism" yet to claim "I can't say there is no God," which is exactly what atheism affirms. They may as well consider themselves Agnostic. Again, I thank Dirk for his thoughtful replies and for taking the time to debate this with me. [1] . http://www.debate.org...;[2] . http://www.debate.org...