I wanted to see if I could simplify my atheist…

I will be starting a new bimonthly show with Dr. Fazale Rana from Reasons To Believe (Dr. Hugh Ross’s organization) soon live from their West Covina studio on their RTB YouTube Channel. I will be explaining many of my arguments against bad atheist and bad theist arguments as I am neither atheist nor theist (I am agnostic) and do not have a belief either way on the proposition of God existing…so I have no dog in the fight. It will be a show that is based upon science, philosphy, theology, and epistemology.

The show will be to help both atheist and theist become bettter at having more productive discussions and dialogs…and raise the dialog for all those wanting to have more engaging and fruitful dialectics.

I am hoping to take a few examples from this group of both good and bad apologetics to be used on the show.

I will give you an example of one of my arguments theist should use more against atheist who claim that they merely just “lack a belief” and claim atheism is ‘merely just a lack of believe’. It is my atheist special pleading argument:

Details are in blog, but summary goes:
**If strong atheism (B¬p) is “Believes that God does not exist”
then weak atheism (¬Bp) would be “Does not believe God exist”.**

**Then strong theism is (Bp) “Believes that God does exist”
then weak theism (¬B¬p) would be “Does not believe God does not exist”**

**If one asserts weak atheism (¬Bp) is to be held as “atheism”
Then someone else can assert that weak theism (¬B¬p) is to be held as “theism”**

**If you deny them that then you are guilty of special pleading.
**
[https://greatdebatecommunity.com/2020/02/27/if-bp-is-held-as-atheism-then-bp-can-be-held-as-theism-else-you-are-guilty-of-special-pleading/](https://greatdebatecommunity.com/2020/02/27/if-bp-is-held-as-atheism-then-bp-can-be-held-as-theism-else-you-are-guilty-of-special-pleading/)

I wanted to see if I could simplify my atheist special pleading argument because people have once again been talking about it. This is a little more explanatory I think, with a much more succinct s…