The true meaning of atheism is the belief that God is just as likely to exist as not

Con: Firstly, I would like to point out that I do not completely agree with the definition of Atheism that you gave, being "The lack of belief in a deity", The definition i provided was the dictionary definition. atheism asserts no system of beliefs so if you believe God doesn't exist you are not an atheist, you are an anti-theist. someone completely without beliefs, by default, gives equal possiblity to all scenarios in question. This is the meaning of being un-biasedThe definition of atheism is supose to represent neutrality but it has been hi-jacked by anti-theist to respresent a belief that God does not exist. This is why there is so much confliction as to the meaning of atheism. Weak atheist, strong atheist, agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist. But none of these makes sense. How can someone lack belief in God weaker or stronger? Either you believe, do not believe or believe not. You can't strongly not believe as oppose to weakly not believe. Just like you cannot be a gnostic atheist. How can you know God does not exist (gnostic) but not believe God doesn't exist(atheist)? This is a direct contradiction. You can only be a gnostic anti-theist: I believe God does not exist and I know this is true. CA1: Con states this a debate about semantics. It is not. The definition of atheism is clear: The lack of belief in a deity. Many atheist claim they do not believe God DOES NOT exist they just do not believe he does. In order for someone to hold true to this statement then they cannot assert one way or another what the plausibility is of God existing. Therefore, they can't say it's less plausible for God to exist. If you want to assert that it's unlikely that God exists then you must call yourself an anti-theist not an atheist. This may not seem important to anyone but it is. atheism is suppose to represent neutrality not propogation of any perspective; much like a baby. Babies are considered atheist because they have no awareness of God (no belief) therefore make no assertion as to Gods existence being plausible or not. The minute an "atheist" makes an argument to discount the existence of God they become an anti-theist (it doesn't count if they are trolling). When people attribute something to the hospitable nature of neutrality they expect a neutral perspective. Anyone that says God is just as likely to exist as pink unicorns is not being neutral. they are implying the chances of God existing are minimal. This person is not neutral, therefore, not atheist. They are anti-theist. CA2: Con states that any word that generalizes a group of people should have it's meaning derived more so from the qualities of those people. but atheism was not conceptualized to define what people are but what people are not. That is all. Athesim does not mean to actively oppose God's existence, that is anti-theism. It does not define lifestyle habits or worldview. This is why "atheist" often claim that anyone/thing that doesn't believe in God is an atheist. babies, animals, some sects of buddhism... "atheist" claim that the default mentality of living things is atheism. This is true but when those living things start opposing God's existence they now become anti-theist or anti-alienist (if you believe aliens don't exist) or anti-santa clause... Con cannot have his cake and eat it. CA3: Con goes on to use the word liberal as an example to the broad definition of certain words used to describe people. But liberalism describes an entire worldview. Atheism does not describe a worldview and in fact that is something "atheist" constantly denounce. There's no central atheist doctrine. There's no atheist morality system. There's no authority on atheism. Atheism is simple - the lack of beleif in a deity. Liberalism is a worldview. Atheism is not a worldview. Atheism is the lack of something not the addition of something. CA4: Con says that he has shown us why the meaning of the word atheism should be derived from the motivations and convictions of those who choose to identify with it. once again, this is a totally unreasonable way to define things. Just because a group of people decide to start calling themselves aliens it doesn't mean they can dictate the offical definition. Not to mention the fact that majority of atheist don't choose to indentify with it (babies, people not aware of God) it is forced upon them by default. This is why an opposition to God should not be hidden under the banner of atheism, anymore. CA5: Con then goes on to use the opinions of many self-described atheist and the larger atheist Facebook community as a means to judge the true meaning of atheism. Con goes on to share quotes and opinions as to how these people pro-claim God's existence to be very unlikely. we can effectively say that these people believe God doesn't exist and they assert it. But this is exactly my point; we already have a word for these kinds of people and it's anti-theist. Agnostic anti-theist: To believe no deity exists but without claiming absolute knowledge (uncertainty)Gnostic anti-theist: To believe no deity exists and with absolute knowledge (certainty) As you can see these above definitions encapsulate the opinions of said atheist figureheads and community without trespassing on the true definiton of atheism. Or else, how would one tell the difference between an atheist by default (a baby) and an agressive atheist by choice (richard dawkins)? They'd both be under the banner of atheism. This creates a lot of confusion and allows the mainstream anti-theist community to hide from criticism when people question their beliefs. They claim "atheist have no beliefs" yet many of them believe God is very unlikely to exist. they cannot have their cake and eat it. CA6: Con goes on to claim that the believer of the idea "god is just as likely to exist as not" already have the title of religously agnostic and he then goes on to describe it as follows: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.Ok, so what about the people that believe it CAN be known? Are they still religious agnostic? And does that mean humans are born relgiously agnostic? Or what about people that believe there's reason to believe In a creator (God) but there are equal amount of reasons to believe in naturalistic materialism (no God) and believe the answer can be found with diligent search? relgious agnosticism and atheism seem to share the exact same definition: lack of belief in God, except religious agnosticism claims a worldview of not being able to ever know the truth. Atheism has no world view. CA7: Con states that because the definition of religious agnosticism resembles my contention that atheism means to believe God is equally likely to exist as not that I must exclude the word "atheism" from occupying this defintion. Firstly, religious agnosticism makes the claim that one cannot know if God exists or not. I'm not making that claim for the meaning of atheism, the reason being is because it's not neutral. To say something is equally as possible as not is a neutral stance. I'm claiming the definition of atheism is to remove beliefs not add them. Meaning, as soon as you add beliefs related to the realm of theism you a no longer an atheist. A neutral party by default must assert neutral odds to all contenders or else it is not neutral. For example, I have 3 suspects involved in a crime but I hold no belief towards who done it then I must state it's equally possible any one of them could have done it. If I don't believe suspect 1 is innocent then I must believe it's equally possible he's guilty. Atheism does not claim that God is innocent of existing so atheism means that God is equally as possible of being guilty of existing as all other suspects. remaining consistent with Con's logic, we already have a word for his beliefs - anti-theism - so why should it be atheism as well?