Atheism Has No Burden of Proof

Unfortunately, Con has spent nearly the entire round arguing with a strawman. In addition many of his rebuttals were redundant so rather than a point by point response format, I will lay out my case from A-Z addressing each of Cons objections along the way.Atheism Saying that atheism has no BoP is not the same thing as saying that atheists have no BoP. Con repeatedly tries to argue that if an atheist makes a claim then that atheist has a BoP. Indeed he does. However atheism is not a claim, it is a response to a claim. So to answer Cons question; Yes, if an atheist says "God does not exist" then he absolutely has a BoP. But as I have made abundantly clear, "God does not exist" is not atheism. It is instead a claim that falls into atheism.Con continues to argue that I have to defend every type of atheism, which is absurd. Imagine a person who believes that a woman should be allowed to have an abortion after 8 months. Would that person be considered Pro-choice? Yes. Does that mean that every Pro-choice advocate is obligated to defend that belief? No. It doesn't matter if the belief falls into the Pro-choice position, that doesn't make Pro-choice "the belief that 8 month pregnant women should be allowed to have abortions". In just the same way, "God does not exist" fits into atheism, that doesn't make it atheism. And if Con still wants to argue that I have to defend all types of atheism then the same would hold true for him. The guy who believes in Zeus is just as much of a theist as the guy who believes in Jesus, so if Con is a theist then according to his argument he would have to defend both.I am not sure how to make this point any clearer, a belief that is consistent with a position does not suddenly equate the position with that belief. Therefore, if my argument shows that the position of atheism is simply the lack of belief in God, then all of Cons bootstrapped propositions like "God does not exist" or "God claims are unkowable" or "God is useless", can all be dismissed because those are all separate propositions from the one we are actually addressing.Lack of belief To show that Atheism is simply the lack of belief, I will start by going back to the commonality argument which Con never directly responded to. I explained that when we have a group of anything in which we attach a label to, the label is defined by that commonality. This is basic English. We don't call someone a Puerto Rican because they dance salsa or because they eat rice and beans. We call them a Puerto Rican because their family heritage goes back to Puerto Rico. Their heritage is the one commonality amongst every Puerto Rican, so that is what the word actually refers to. The same goes for phones. Some have internet, some play movies, some have navigation. None of that matters. If it makes phone calls then it is a phone, if it does not make calls it is not a phone. It's that simple. So going back to the topic, some atheists believe there is no God, some believe the term God is useless, etc... none of that matters. They all lack belief in God. That's the one commonality amongst all of them so that is what the word actually refers to. It's that simple.Also, Con still argues that lack of belief makes someone a "non-theist" yet ignores the fact that this is exactly what "A"-"theism" means. He says my other examples only address behavior, which is not true. Someone who is asexual is someone who is simply not turned on by sex. That has nothing to do with their actions. It is instead all about their mindset, so Cons rebuttal fails.AgnosticismCon strawmans my interpretation of agnosticism as "I know something that I do not know". Con seems to be unaware that belief and knowledge are two different things. To make this point I will simply ask: is the statement "I believe X is true, but I don't know that X is true" coherent?Of course it is. Knowledge is stronger than belief, so the position that God claims are unknowable does not negate a person from believing God claims. This is why the terms are not mutually exclusive. So to illustrate one last time:Agnostic Theist: "I believe God exists, but I do not believe one can know whether God exists"Agnostic Atheist: "I do not believe God exists, and I do not believe one can know whether God exists"The very fact alone that both of these positions are perfectly coherent negates all of Cons attempts to classify Agnosticism as a third category in between Theism and Atheism. It addresses a separate proposition which says nothing about whether a person holds belief in a God.The PropositionIn round one I gave a non-controversial and unchallenged definition of theism as the belief that God exists, and pointed out that this leaves us with only two propositions that address this definition: "God exists" and "God does not exist". Everything else is irrelevant. I also pointed out that there are three possible positions with respect to these two propositions: 1) Belief that God exists, 2) belief that God does not exist, or 3) no belief in either proposition. So it comes down to how we treat position 3. We can either give it its own separate label, or we can combine it with one of the others. And since position 3 clearly does not fit into theism, that narrows us to only two possibilities: Keep it separate, or combine it with atheism.And the reason we combine it is because of the arguments I have already made. First, because "A"-"Theism" = not a theist. Second, because that is how atheists define atheism and you don't get to define my position. Third, because from a practical everyday life standpoint there is no difference between not believing either proposition, and believing God does not exist. Our understanding and approach in dealing with observable reality remains unaffected by this distinction so there is no practical reason to put these positions under separate labels. And fourth, to have productive intelligent discussion we address one proposition at a time...Prongs of a DilemmaI find it ironic that Con implies I am trying to use this argument as an excuse to not have to defend my claims when that same implication on him seems to be the only sensible thing driving his argument. When we classify lack of belief as a completely separate position from theism and atheism then one of two things happen:1) The theist argues with a "God does not exist" atheist allowing him to declare the burden of proof split. In this case neither side upholding their BoP produces no meaningful result.2) The theist will simply dismiss the Non-theist/atheist as someone who holds no belief in anything thus is not worth a discussion with. In either scenario, the theist gets to protect his/her beliefs from defeat by never holding a true burden of proof.This is once again why we address one prong at a time. It is the irrelevancy of the opposing sides actual beliefs that keep the discussion on the proposition focused. It is true as Con argues that the opposing side can present arguments for an alternative proposition without rendering the debate unproductive. That is because arguments in support of an alternative proposition do not distract us when we know what the actual proposition in question is. If in a criminal trial the defense negates the prosecutions argument, we know to shift the argument in favor of the defense. If however in the same trial the prosecution negates the defenses argument for innocence, then we know not to shift the argument in favor of the prosecution because the BoP is on the prosecution. It is not the arguments that change without a clear BoP. It is the way the arguments are evaluated, which affects our ability to determine whether a given proposition should be accepted or not accepted. When we don't follow this we tend to accept beliefs based on logical fallacies such as argument from ignorance (I don't understand X, therefore Z) when we should be saying "I will accept Z when it meets its burden of proof".Now I am sure Con will take this entire point and claim that it applies just the same to the "God does not exist" believers, therefore there is no reason it must apply to theists. However, aside from the other arguments I have already presented above and as I have already pointed out; Compared to non-belief, it is theistic claims that impact our lives and our society. Theistic claims are what make people get up and go to church every Sunday, spend their lives studying a very long book, saying prayers before every meal, etc... Any claim which makes that kind of an impact needs to be properly evaluated. The "God does not exist" claim changes nothing about the way we live as opposed to no belief at all, therefore the "God exists" claim is the claim we as a society should focus on.Wrap UpThe arguments I have made above clarify my case and addresses Cons rebuttals. I will now offer some quick responses to arguments that may need further clarification:Con asks if I believe that atheists have a burden of rebuttal. Of course they do. The burden of rebuttal is not the burden of proof. This debate is about the burden of proof.Con characterizes the BoP as something that shifts back and forth based on the discussion. That is false. The BoP is always in relation to a particular proposition, which remains the focus throughout the discussion. Saying that someone does not have a BoP is not the same thing as saying that they have no responsibility at all. It means they do not have the responsibility of convincing anyone to accept the proposition, only to not accept it. Not accepting something does not = accepting something. It takes more work to get one to accept something, which is why the shouldering the BoP means something.Con strawmans my case as arguing that atheist's beliefs must be accepted. No, I am arguing that when discussing the proposition "God exists", the atheist's beliefs about other propositions are irrelevant. _ No further relevant arguments to respond to. The resolution is negated.