Atheism Has No Burden of Proof

AtheismMy opponent accepts that Atheists have a BoP, however he denies that Atheism itself has a BoP. This is ridiculous since an Atheist is someone who follows the doctrine of Atheism, and is defending the position of that proposition; the BoP of Atheism.I remind my opponent of the law of identity: If it is Atheism, then it is Atheism. "God does not exist" fulfils the requirements of the definition of Atheism; the only way this statement can be coherent and non-contradictory if disbelief in the statement "God/deities exists" is accompanied. Taking the law of identity and non-contradiction in consideration, is someone who says "God does not exist" an Atheist and necessarily holds the psychological state of Atheism (disbelief that God/deities exist) or not? I believe the answer should be quite clear. This is literary all it takes to negate the resolution; one type of Atheism which has the burden of proof is more than enough, and the resolution is indeed negated.Regarding Pro's pro-choice analogy, this is an obvious strawman or redherring. My statement was that he is required to defend the application of the resolution on every type of atheism for the resolution to hold. It is self-evidently irrational to hold multiple contradictory beliefs, and I never implied or claimed that. A more appropriate analogy would be someone claiming that pro-choice makes no moral statement because that person defined pro-choice as the psychological state of "disbelief that it is immoral to abort fetuses for convenience (which may or may not include the psychological state of 'the disbelief that it moral to abort fetuses for convenience' as well)", so all it takes to refute the resolution is to show that all or some pro-choice positions make moral statements. Forgive the rough definition.Pro attempts to argue that a psychological state that includes multiple BoP holding positions, which have that psychological state necessarily, does not have a burden of proof. This is incoherent; someone who hold the proposition "God does not exist" necessarily "lack of belief that God exists" by definition, someone who claims "A deity's existence or non-existence is unknowable" necessarily "lacks belief that God exists/does not exist" by definition. By definition, they are Atheists who lack belief in the existence of deities, and they have burden of proof. regarding their positionLack of beliefI remind my opponent of the statement that Theism can also be defined in the same way as lacks belief (that no deity exists). However, my opponent insisted that Theism have burden of proof in his prongs of a dilemma action. Therefore, it does not follow and is hypocritical to conclude that Atheism has not burden of proof on this principle. This changes the terms into nothing-ism, and based on that some Atheists are Theists, and some Theists are Atheists.The logic behind this "change of understanding" completely falls apart under examination. Lets take the proposition "a deity or deities exists" or the proposition "no deity exist", and inspect the possible reactions:1- A person understands the proposition and accepts it. He has a god-theory.2- A person understands the proposition and rejects it. He has a god-theory.3- A person understands the proposition but completely forgets it. He has no god-theory.4- A person understands the proposition but does not care, so he does not care to engage or discuss it.5- A person does not understand the proposition neither accepts or rejects it, and remains bewildered by it (due to language/communication or confusion regarding concepts). He has no god-theory.6- A person never hears the proposition and can't reject or accept it. He has no god-theory.7- Rocks, mud, dead amoeba, and other material that can't gain knowledge can't reject or accept the proposition. They have no god-theory.We can say with a large amount of certainty that number 3 to 7 lack a god-theory and truly have no opinion on the matter. Does any category other than category 2 apply to someone who calls self an "Atheist"? Hardly. Under this new understanding, Atheists lack the ability to gain knowledge, akin to rocks and mud, or do not understand and are bewildered about the concept of deities, or they simply do not care. Obviously, none of these are the case and we are left with option two, which can be due to a multitude of reasons (The concept is a paradox, no sound supportive argument exists, the opposite is true etc...). Therefore, my opponent's case by appealing to "lack of belief" falls apart.I prefer to use non-Theist simply because it prevents the unnecessary task of inventing new terms. When you propose a truth statement to someone, the three answers are:1- True. [rejects 2 & 3]2- False. [rejects 1 & 3]3- I don't know ("need more research" or "it is impossible to know"). [rejects 1& 2]Since you defined Atheism as rejection of answer 1, and I may define Theism as rejection of answer 2, does this mean that we need to invent new terms to address every answer individually when it comes to an immaterial first cause? Discussion is simply more fruitful and efficient if we stick with Theist, Atheist, and Agnostic.AgnosticismPro advocates irrationality and disregard of the BoP, when the definition states that obligation exists on all to warrant reasons for their belief. If the belief is not based on reasoning; statements of logic or evidence, then the belief is based on irrational emotional reasons. When a belief is taken, the belief must be accompanied with reasons for the belief , otherwise there is absolutely no reason to think that the belief has any value. The position that God claims are unknowable negate a person from rationally believing God claims. Unless my opponent is making an equivocation between irrationality and rationality, I don't see an argument.The PropositionPro ignores that he gave a controversial and challenged definition of Atheism, which includes the belief that God does not exist. My opponent attempts to defend the exclusion of Theism in his weird combination of "not belief" and "belief".The first reason makes no point; according to the law of double negative, A Theist is also not an Atheist, so I don't see the conclusion. He then proclaims that only he, as an Atheist, gets to define his beliefs, but doesn't tell us how the situation of Atheist is different than Theism. The third argument Pro proposes is that since a lot of Agnostics irrationally believe without evidence or logical basis that there is no God, then we should accept their irrational position based on popularity/population, this does not follow. Finally, he appeals to his standards of a "productive intelligent discussion", which is essentially the claim that when an Atheist makes a claim it is not the same thing as making a claim, and explained in the prongs of dilemma section.Prongs of a DilemmaMy opponent begins his argument with a Tu Quoque/redherring fallacy; he does not deny the error of his position and his intention to find an excuse to not defend his claims (As obligated by the definition of the BoP), he distracts with the accusation "Well, you too!". Based on this, the foundation of his argument has no merit (on a side note: his accusation is false).It seems that pro introduced the concept of a "true burden of proof", this invokes the no true Scotsman fallacy in which definitions are arbitrarily changed on a whim to ambiguous standards. The philosophical BoP is an obligation on ALL parties to provide sufficient warrant for their position/claims. That's it.My opponent not accepting that the burden of proof is on whom claims (including claiming the argument to be false and claiming the position to be false) sounds like an attempt at justifying a fallacy fallacy:Person A: Obama is a democrat because the sky is blue.Person B: Your argument is non-sequitur and non-valid. That you are wrong proves that Obama is not a democrat.As I stated above, the number of Agnostics who irrationally believe that God does not exist based on emotional reasons rather than logic or evidence is irrelevant in a rational debate, otherwise you would have to equally accept agnostics who irrationally believe that deities exists based on emotional reasons rather than logic or evidence. The issue of what first creator is, whether it is a deity or random chaos, affects beliefs on a multitude of issues such as morality, purpose of life, value of human life, and so forth, stating that it does not affect society or a community is false.Wrap upPro did not contest the point that the burden of rebuttal fits perfectly with the provided definition of the philosophical burden of proof. Thus on this basis, conceding that Atheists have a burden of rebuttal is equivalent to conceding that Atheists have a burden of proof.Regarding the burden of proof shifting, I have already provided a source from Black's law dictionary. The burden of proof is fulfilled by providing sufficient warrant for a position, and once sufficient warrant is provided, this shifts the benefit of assumption. It seems strange that my opponent proclaims that someone does not have a BoP, and then describe the BoP when describing their actions.Pro seems to be promoting a system of radical skepticism which does nothing but deny. The endeavor of such system is to attempt to destroy knowledge without seeking knowledge itself. Without seeking the truth, new knowledge, evidence, or attempting to answer questions, nothing can be called more false than the other. This type of radical skepticism devolves into an irrational: "The truth is whatever the Atheist says it is".ConclusionI hope all parties benefited, doubted, and learned from this debate.Pro did not provide any convincing arguments with strong and valid foundation. Furthermore, it is the case that the resolution was conceded by Pro on multiple occasions. Thus, I believe that it is reasonable to conclude that the resolution is negated judging by the content of this debate.