It's strange that I'm asking you very clear and straightforward questions to clarify your position, and you refuse to answer.  Which may be the reason why this is going nowhere.  And, reductio ad absurdum is a well regarded form of argumentation.  Essentially designed to attack positions that are overly broad or ill defined... like this one.

I thought my argument was quite clear, but if not, I'll restate it.

You've said that you believe pigs qualify as atheists.  However you presented a definition that would exclude them.

So, what are your qualifiers for what should or should not be considered an atheist?

For my part I would say an atheist has to...

1.  Be a person.

2.  Have the capability to hold a position regarding the proposition "a god or gods exist".

3.  Hold the position of atheism (holds the position that the proposition has not been shown to be true).

This is a clean cut criteria that includes everything I think we are really talking about when we talk about atheists, and excludes everything that we do not.

So, can you create a criteria that would include pigs and babies, while excluding ants?  And if so, why should we use a definition of atheist that includes pigs, when we are really never considering pigs when we discuss atheists?

That depends on how we agree to define non-gamer.

We can definitely define the term non-gamer in such a way that would include cactus.  However, the question I'm posing is does it make sense to use such a definition?

If we are using the term non-gamer, what are we really trying to convey?  I'd imagine we are always trying to convey the idea of a person who does not play video video games.  If this is what we mean when we say non-gamer, we should construct the definition in such a way that it includes people who don't play video games, and only includes that group.  A definition that could apply to cacti would be too broad, and would include things in the category of non-gamer that we really don't mean to include

Let me put it this way.  Me and you want to perform an academic study on atheists in the United States.  In an academic paper we would have to define atheist in such a way that it would apply to every member of our population (everything that we want to consider an atheist in the US) and would not apply to anything outside of that population.

Would you want the 70 million or so pigs in the US to be counted as part of the population for our study?  I would say no.  So, we would need to define the term in such a way to exclude them.

Do we really want babies counted as part of our atheist population?  That's more of a gray area, but I'd probably say no.

To sum it up, I'm trying to get at what we REALLY want to talk about when we use the term atheist.  We should use a definition that clearly defines what we are really talking about.  And when we use the term atheist I'm 100% sure we never really want to talk about pigs.  And I'm pretty sure we almost never really want to talk about babies either.  So we need a definition that recognizes that distinction.

I thought it would be implied, but if not let me revise my statement.  

To the best of my knowledge, nobody claiming a god exists has ever been able to demonstrate it.  If you know of any Aztecs who claim to be able to summon gods, please send them my way.  It's curious though that you'd go to that example instead of trying to prove it yourself.

As for your question, I don't know what will happen when I die.  However, I don't see any reason to think that my death will effect spacetime as a whole since, as far as we can tell, none of the millions of deaths occurring within my lifetime have had an impact on spacetime.

Don't make it more complicated as it is.

Does a baby believe in a god? Yes or no?

I'm making it exactly as complicated as it needs to be.  A good definition has to be specific. And I'm sorry, but these matters are kind of complicated.  Sociologists actually put quite a bit of thought and effort into making good definitions. You're ignoring something I put quite a bit of thought into explaining to try and oversimplify it.

But to answer, no.  A baby does not believe in a god.  By your definition, that would apparently make it an atheist.  I disagree with your definition.

Since I answered a question, answer mine.

You and I want to write an academic paper about what life is like for atheists in America.  Do we talk about the 20 million or so babies in America in our paper?  Do we talk about the 71 million pigs?

So Basically... What you are saying is because Science doesn't exclude God, that God exists?
Do you see the problem with that kind of thinking?

Why can't I make assumptions if they are true? Fact is, there is zero evidence for any God, unless you disagree with that? ...Then I ask you to present empirical evidence, it's not a difficult concept, I am not asking for much.

Who your God/Religion is... Is irrelevant.
The point you are missing is that zero God/Religion has justified it's claims with Evidence, that's a fact.

Good one.
As for Science itself... We can go back as far as the Big Bang, that is what the evidence has brought us towards.

Just because you ask a question doesn't mean:
1) I will answer it.
2) You will get the answer you desire.

Correct, provided you are staying within the boundaries of the argument, which you have not.

Oh for christ sake. I have not.
I am not going to repeat everything I have stated again, I have dumbed it down enough as it is in plain black and white. - This is endless circular rhetoric, go back and re-read everything, the answers have already been provided. Skedaddle.

False. A good definition is one that is logical.
Because there are many definitions in Physics that the average person isn't going to care for.

1.  Why not?  I'm asking questions to clarify your position.  That's how conversation works. They're really straight forward, and you're just ignoring them. I obviously can't force you to answer them, but I think it is in rather poor form not to and shows you're not interested in an actual conversation.

2. I still don't see how I have.  Can you back up this assertion?

3. Yes. You absolutely have. And, when I make an accusation, I can actually demonstrate it.

Here's you claiming a pig is an atheist.

"So yes, I would also class a pig as an Atheist."  Look back at page 57, because quoting posts within a post is a pain in the ass on my computer.

For bonus points, here is you claiming that you consider animals as atheists "That I would consider an animal to be an Atheist as it lacks belief in the theistic position."

So that's twice, you're saying animals, particularly pigs, are atheists...  And I must say I'm quite amused that I'm considered absurd for pushing back on this point. And once you say animals are atheists, I think questioning whether an ant is is a very reasonable follow up.  

"Anyone who doesn't hold Theistic convictions is an Atheist, it's as simple as that."

Now, here you are defining atheist as anyone who doesn't hold theistic convictions.  Anyone is a term that applies to humans.  From Oxford English Dictionary: "Any person or people." Dictionaries of course aren't official, but I've never heard anyone use the term anyone to apply to animals.  

As I said, you claimed pigs should be counted as atheist, and then provided a definition that excludes animals.  And I just demonstrated that you've done exactly that.  So, I trust you'll acknowledge your mistake. As you have provided contradictory statements, it's entirely reasonable for me to press for clarification.

So, please explain to me how my statement was wrong.  Unless you're in the business of baseless assertions.  

4. Uhhhhh... what?  Saying that it's false that a definition has to be specific because it needs to be logical is just ummmm... wrong.  Because logical and specific are not mutually exclusive.  And they are not even contradictory in the least.  That's like saying "the ball isn't round because it's red". 

Why don't we ask a reputable physicist if a good definition has to be specific?  I'm willing to bet 1,000 dollars that he'll agree.  I'm not even being facetious, that's a bet I am 100% willing to make.

So, it's quite simple.  It's just like the god question.  You're saying something (a definition of atheist you've provided that includes pigs, babies, and humans while excluding ants, cacti and sandwiches)  exists.  I'm saying this thing does not exists.  I honestly searched for it, and could find no evidence.

As you have the positive claim, you have the burden of proof.  Which should be quite easy for you to meet if your claim is true. Can you meet your burden of proof?  Because otherwise my position is justified and yours is not.

But that's not my definition. I didn't make it. It's the definition for atheists /atheism. 

Your academic paper is a complete different issue. Here is the thing. Atheists is usually applied to humans with a more complex thought process and awareness of its environment. Animals, plants and human babies don't belong in them, because they don't understand the question nor the concept. So, you won't get an answer out of them, ever. And thus, actually no one really cares.

But as the definition of atheism /atheist currently is, it can be also applied to them. Simply, because they all lack the believe in any god. That's it. They fit the definition.

If you really want to write an academic paper then of course you start with the history of the word, the change of meaning / definitions, genetic fallacies, requirements and so on. And if I logically follow it, you will reach the moment where you test the definition on babies and pigs. But if the conclusion is: " Babies and pigs don't actively believe in any god. This also applies to a lot of adults. But one are called atheists and the others nothing while both apply to the same definition", then this results in special pleading. 

A baby can't be a monotheists as much as they can't be a president (Despite Trump proves it otherwise). But they can be (not a theist) and (not a president.) Whereas for this first we got the word atheist which equals to (not a theist).

Also, the atheistic default position is a counter argument to apologist who claim that babies are theists.  

Did you just messed up the quote? Are you answering for Zoombael? 

I understand that based on the definition you are using, babies fit.  But, I'd say that makes it a bad definition.

There is not an official definition for atheist.  The definition is whatever we (we meaning the people who are using the term) agree on.  That's why the definition changes over the year as you mentioned.  We notice "hey this definition doesn't quite capture what we mean" and then they propose a different one.  That's what I'm doing.  

That being said, it's not like I'm making up a new definition.  From Merriam Webster:  "one who subscribes to or advocates atheism". I don't think this one is perfect either, but I'd say it's much better at getting to what we really mean.

You said that when we are talking about atheists, what we are actually interested in is humans with complex thought processes that can evaluate the question, and no one cares about babies.  So then, wouldn't it be better to have a definition that includes only humans with complex thought processes, and excludes babies?  Isn't a definition that applies to what we actually care about better than one that includes things we don't actually care about?

As for it being a counter to theists, it's not really a good one.  I think that claiming babies for either group is just leaning into their method of thought.  You could say they're not theists, which is different from saying they're atheists.  I prefer Dawkin's counter-argument.  To paraphrase it's something like "There is no such thing as a Muslim child or a Christian child.  There are only children born to Muslim or Christian families."  I think this is a much better response.  I think "child born to a Christian family" is a much more apt label than atheist, and it also subtly conveys the idea of indoctrination.

No, he messed up the quote.

Circular logic is circular logic is circular logic is circular logic is circular logic is circular logic is circular logic is circular logic is circular logic is circular logic is circular logic is circular logic is circular logic is circular logic is circular logic is circular logic is circular logic is circular logic is circular logic is circular logic is circular logic is circular logic is circular logic is circular logic is circular logic is circular logic is circular logic is circular logic is circular logic is circular logic is circular logic is circular logic is circular logic...

Get my drift?