The true definition of Atheism
What I am actually going to do in this first bit of the discussion is not tell what I think is the true definition of Atheism. What I am going to do however is point out that I have noticed in some discussions involving Theism and Atheism some people somewhere along the line get stuck and start arguing about definitions.
Now, instead of trying to refute each other's idea of how something is or should be defined I think a much more pragmatic approach should be for both parties to come to an agreement on an idea about that "something" so it can continue to be explored.
So for example, if you are an Atheist defining Atheism as a lack of belief instead of the outright denying of the existence of God and a Theist claims your definition is flawed then invite the theist to accept or at least entertain this definition and then explore it.
The burden of proofs
So in an argument about the existence of God does the burden of proof rest on the Theist or the Atheist? Now, if the Atheist in question is someone that claims there is no such thing as God then the burden of proof rests on both the Atheist and Theist as they are both making unfalsifiable, untestable claims.
If on the other hand, if the Atheist is someone that doesn't deny the existence of God but doesn't believe in God either because they see no good reason as of yet to do so, then the burden of proof will always be on the Theist who outright claims that God does exist. Without Belief does not equate to the denying of something or believing that something doesn't exist; without belief is simply that; without belief.
Also, after reflecting on this for a bit I've thought that if I myself was a theist I'd more comfortable debating someone that denies the existence of God as it gives me the opportunity to put the burden of proof on them first. You can't do this with someone that is simply without belief; it's like asking a silent person to prove something they never claimed. Hence, I also think this why some Theists that I've witnessed from my experience start resorting to having arguments about the definitions; it makes their position much easier to defend.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
Although I think that the definition of atheism is something definite (the definition is literally in the name itself), I pretty much agree with everything you say here.
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: definition of atheism    definition   name   nbsp  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 45%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 70%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.68  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 49%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://www.defineatheism.com/
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 70%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.86  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 29%  
  Learn More About Debra
On the other hand, the atheist's claim that the god does not exist, the burden of proof is also on them to prove that this is the case. It is very hard, if not impossible, to prove that something does not exist in the Universe, but nonetheless one cannot claim it without a good evidence.
But when someone claims that we have no knowledge of any gods, and it is reasonable to assume that, by default, gods do not exist - that is a position not requiring proof. The null hypothesis is that we know nothing about the world, and we know nothing about what exists - and, since the space of the entities that can in principle exist is infinite, assuming that anything can exist without proof is philosophically problematic.
As such, I subscribe to the following set of rules:
1) If you claim that something exists, prove it.
2) If you claim that something does not exist, prove it.
3) If you do not know if something exists and have nothing to go on, then assume that it does not.
4) If you do not know if something exists, but have solid arguments in support of its existence, then assume the neutral position: "It may or may not exist".
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
The problem with arguing God is simple.
Anything that takes the position of God must either have always or nevernexisted which determines,
1. That which has always existed is not subject to change
2. That which never existed is defined by two characteristics
1.never
And
2. Existed
Since existence is a word that describes being, the influence that determines being must determine that existence is conditional only based on what exists.....therefore if something does not exist it does not have the potential to cause, itself....
I can make the logical assessment but I'd like for someone to make the logical assessment so they understand God is nescesarry,
Also the human form requires a source of form....
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.52  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: ExistedSince existence    actual logical considerations.The problem   logical assessment   human form  
  Relevant (Beta): 74%  
  Learn More About Debra
However, since people intend for logical assessments to take place to understand or form understanding, I'll leave it up to someone to want absolute proof or logical discussion and then proof.
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 44%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: logical assessments    form understanding   people   place  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
I have no idea how that argument is supposed to prove god or how it is supposed to be a logical argument. Can you go step by step and explain your reasoning?
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 40%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: step    logical argument   argument   idea  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
I have no idea how that argument is supposed to prove god or how it is supposed to be a logical argument. Can you go step by step and explain your reasoning?
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 40%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: step    logical argument   argument   idea  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
You're making no sense yet again please try and formulate your arguments into something reasonably intelligible by using statements that make sense
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 42%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: sense    arguments   statements   nbsp  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
It's not hard to understand your all morons if you can't make sense of something as staight forward as what was written.
First and foremost I made a logical series of assessments but apparently morons are incapable of understanding so now I'm going to speak to you like a dumbass child.
Logical statements
1.when saying God doesn't exist
2. Then what takes that place
  Considerate: 23%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: logical series of assessments    illogical dumbass statement   God's existence   nothing.You people  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 7%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: site    dumbass people   bitch   Debra  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
Thank you. You could not have made it more clear that you are not someone worth talking to. I appreciate you being like this at the start of our discussion so we know not to waste our time with you.
  Considerate: 57%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: start of our discussion    nbsp   time    
  Relevant (Beta): 75%  
  Learn More About Debra
You say .....
1.when saying God doesn't exist
2. Then what takes that place
My reply ......A multicolored Unicorn?
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 27%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: placeMy reply    1.when   multicolored Unicorn   God  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra