Anyone who claims God is unlikely to exist is not an atheist

Pro: Thank you for your arguments. In this round I will do two things: I will attempt to defend premise three, and show why it does not fail. Furthermore, I will use Richard Dawkin's scale of belief to illustrate why an anti-theist is also an atheist. First of, premise 3. The opponent alleged that "If you think the existence of God is unlikely, not only do you not think God is true, you actively believe it is false. This conflicts with the definition of atheism being not a disbelief or denial of God but solely a lack of belief." The problem with your rebuttal is that it gives the wrong definition of atheism. The definition does not state a lack of belief. It states a lack of belief in god. Those last two words are essential, because they give the sentence an entirely different meaning. A belief is simply accepting that something is true without proof. However, a believe in something is accepting that that specific something is true, without proof. Believing IN something is a positive assertion. It implies a faith on a specific position. I can clarify this with expanding on my deductive argument: Premise 1: Believe is to accept that something is true. Premise 2: Believing in a specific thing means accepting that that specific thing is true Premise 3: Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of god(s). Premise 4: If you think that the existence of god is unlikely, you don't accept that it is true and therefore you do not believe (see premise 1+2) Conclusion: If you think god is unlikely you are an atheist. You have asserted that people who claim that god is unlikely are anti-theists (That term is usually used differently, but I'll just go with that term because the debate is clearer when both sides use the same terms). You once again argued why not believing in god due to a lack of evidence can be considered anti-theism, and while I could also argue about that, since I think the default position on any topic should be a disbelief until there is any evidence, but I don't see the need for that. Whether or not equating the probability of god with the flying spaghetti monster could be considered a belief is completely irrelevant, because the definition of atheism does not talk about believe in general. It talks about a belief in god. Your believe in god can be put on a 7 point scale, like Richard Dawkins did in his book 'the god delusion': 1: Strong believer (Knowing god exists) 2: De facto believer (Not being 100% certain, but accept that god exists) 3: Weak believer (Sceptical, but leaning towards believing) 4: Agnostic (No position whatsoever. God may or may not exist, both options are plausible and we can't be certain) 5: Weak atheist (Sceptical, but leaning towards not believing) 6: De facto atheist (Not being 100% certain, but accept that god does not exist) 7: Strong atheist (Knowing god does not exist) Someone who claims that god is very unlikely (or as likely as the flying spaghetti monster) would be a 6 on this scale. If you belief in a god (1, 2 and 3) you accept that god exists on some level. If you don't belong in one of these categories you lack this believe, and are therefore by definition an atheist. This implies that even the position of complete agnosticism is in fact a very weak form of atheism. You would probably define 6 and 7 as anti-theism, and you may or may not be right about that, but that is irrelevant for the question if they're atheists. They don't believe in god so they are atheists. To conclude, in this round I have attempted to show why the two words of the definition of atheism that the proponent ignored are in fact crucial to understanding what atheism is, improved the deductive argument and given Richard Dawkins' 7 point scale to illustrate how anti-theists are also clearly atheists. Once again, I eagerly await your arguments.