Any definition that conflates Atheism with Agnosticism is not Atheism by any sense.

My opponent wrongfully claims to be an atheist-agnostic, which is confused. A presumption which seems to combine atheism with agnosticism re-defines "Atheism" to indicate merely the absence of belief in God. But a re-definition like this down plays atheism's presumption, that there is no God. On such a definition, atheism cannot be a worldview, even babies would count as atheists! Regarding God's existence, it would be necessary on the atheist, to prove that if God existed, then He would provide greater evidence than what I, the theist, have. This is a huge burden of proof to bear! For two reasons: (1) The primary way in which we come to know God is through the inner work of His Holy Spirit, what philosophers call a properly basic belief grounded in our immediate experience, which is effective in bringing people into relations with God. 100% apart from evidence & arguments. Yet such a belief is not indubitable or unfalsifiable, for one can simply prove that the idea of God is logically incoherent for example: like a married bachelor, or round square. (2) God's colossal miracles of the creation of the universe and the resurrection of Christ from the dead. In this light, the true definition of atheism seems highly presumptuous stating "God does NOT exist." First, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Forensic scientists and archeologists affirm this principle. At this point, at best one is left with an argument on the 'hiddenness' of God' and so forth. Yet B.Russell himself saw that this inference from "a lack of evidence for God to atheism is fallacious. That's why in a 1948 debate with Copleston, he coined the label "agnostic" in place of "atheist." Understand that many people call themselves "atheists" when they are agnostics. So the question we'll start at is: Does God Exist? (A) Theism: "God Exists" (B) Non-theism: "I don't believe that God exists" (a biographical statement, not a position) (B.1) Atheism: "God does not exist" (a position) (B.2) Agnosticism: "I don't know if God exists" (a position) (B.2.1) Hard Agnosticism: "Anything about God is unknowable" (self-refuting, it claims knowledge about an unknowable) (B.2.2) Soft Agnosticism: "I don't know if God exists, but it's possible for someone to know." Now there are sound arguments for God's existence, but if you proved them to all fail, then at the very best I think you're left with Soft Agnosticism. But when Does Absence of Evidence ("I see none") = Evidence of Absence ("There is none")? This at the heart of the matter at our current stage of discussion, and it all revolves around what's called your "epistemic situation." Your epistemic situation (ES) refers to the limits of one's ability to know something through your testimony, introspection, memory, perception... etc. My ES concerning whether there's an elephant inside the Hall is very good. In contrast, my ES concerning whether there's a tea cup orbiting Mars is very poor. So to recognize when you are in an epistemically good situation to decide if God does or doesn't exist; you must have two things: (1) Evidence (any positive epistemic considerations in favor) (2) Knowledge of that evidence In this case, you can deny the existence of God ONLY IF: (A) We expect to attain evidence that is sufficient to know that God exists, (B) But lack it Now these are just the necessary conditions for being in a good ES for denying God. These aren't, however, SUFFICIENT conditions... So even if you're able to meet both criteria, that doesn't oblige you to deny God's existence! Consider the following: The nature of evidence is fleeting. It washes back and forth as scientists and humans gather more knowledge and inferences. This means that our ES is changeable within time and space. So this must contradict with the Evidence / Knowledge Criterion. Also, the possibility of the noetic effects of 'sin' could twist evidence toward our selfish ends, not to mention the unreasonably high epistemic standards atheists often apply toward theistic evidences. Maybe God might be anthropomorphically voted as logically incoherent and lacking evidence now. But will that change given new philosophies, scientific knowledge and historical discoveries? Are we in a good position to even wait on these volatile fluctuations of proofs and inferences? Never mind these questions for now, the topic of debate before us is simply the merging of any form of agnosticism (the claim to no knowledge, which therefore demands no justification) with Atheism (the claim to knowledge, which therefore demands justification) immediately downplays Atheism's claim to fit with and actually be agnosticism. To say "I simply lack belief in God" is just a biographical statement, no more.