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

I've been very busy with work, unfortunately. In this final round I will address Pro's rebuttals and arguments, and repeat (and perhaps clarify) my own. Pro used my statement "Believing IN something is a positive assertion. It implies a faith on a specific position. " to argue that believing in something implies a faith on any specific position. However, that was not the intention of this sentence. I mean that Believing in something implies faith on only one specific position. In the case of believing in god, it implies faith in the position that god exists, and no other. The whole debate can be boiled down to one apparently simple question, and it's nothing more than semantics: What does the phrase "believe in god" mean? Pro argues that this phrase means having any position on god. He used examples like 'god is love' and 'god is man made'. According to him "I believe in god" can be equated to "I have a believe that is related to god" I on the other hand argue that the phrase "believe in god has" a very different meaning. I argue that believing in god can be equated to accepting the specific position that god exists. It is difficult to say which one is correct, because after all, it is a matter of interpretation. You can interpret the phrase your way, and I could interpret it my way. However, both interpretations are not equally good and accepted. The best explanation is obviously the one that most people agree with. After all, I could also interpret the word big to actually mean small, but that would clearly not be an equally good interpretation because it would confuse people. I haven't done any empirical studies on which interpretation is most widely accepted, but I do have some good indications that my interpretation is the widely accepted one. However, since this is the last round and I can't bring in new arguments, I unfortunately can't provide much evidence for it. All I will do is appeal to the common sense of both my opponent and of the voters: If anyone says "I believe in god", what is your first though? Do you think that that person has a (yet unknown) position on god, or that he accepts that god exists and is true? I sincerely doubt if anyone falls in the first category. With that in mind, let's look at Pro's deductive argument. All the separate premises are correct. However, the conclusion that leads from it is not. Atheism is indeed the lack of a belief in god, which is the same as being without a belief in god (or with very little). I've established in the paragraphs above that the most obvious and therefore best definition for "believing in god" is believing that god exists, and believing that god exists is not the same thing as believing that god is unlikely to exist. Once again, my deductive argument still stands. With all this in mind I can further clarify my deductive argument, which shows that people who think god is unlikely are in fact atheists. 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 : (follows from 2) Believing in god means accepting that god exists Premise 4: Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of god(s). Premise 5: 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+3) Conclusion: If you think god is unlikely you are an atheist. Finally, let's go back to the scale of belief. You made some points which I disagree with. The de facto believer is not an agnostic believer. That's a contradictio in terminis. If you are an agnostic you don't accept that any position is true. If you are a believer you accept that the position that god exists is true. You can't be both. #3 is not at all an atheist. They accept that god exists, even though t hey are not certain. They make the assertion that god exists, even though there is no evidence. The investigation is pending, but there is already a preliminary conclusion, which is that god exists. The opposite goes for #5. (Also, I disagree that thinking that god doesn't exist is a belief, but that's irrelevant) You asked where anti-theist fits into all this, but I already told you. What you would consider to be anti-theists would fall under category 6 and 7: your anti-theists are not only anti-theists, but also de-facto atheists or strong atheists. You then presented another scale, which quite frankly, I found rubbish, but I think that that is obvious from the definition of atheism that I have defended in this debate. I could correct you on all of them, but I'm pretty sure that it is clear what I disagree on. In this round I have attempted to show why pro's arguments don't make sense, and why my definition is the superior one. I have done this by giving examples and using a solid deductive argument. I will conclude with the same analogy that pro used. Guilt. Believing in someone's guilt means accepting that someone is guilty. Believing there is not enough evidence to say that someone is guilty means that you lack a believe in that someone is guilty. Lacking a believe in someone's guilt means not accepting that someone is guilty. Just replace "Someone is guilty" with "God exists", read the definition of atheism again, and it becomes clear that anyone who thinks that god is unlikely to exist is an atheist. I wish to end by thanking Pro for this debate, and by asking anyone reading this to vote on who you think won this debate. It was fun.