"I don't have a belief! I just reject your evidence for God"
"Atheism isn't a belief. It is a lack of belief!"
"I accept evidence and truth. So, I simply reject the evidence you have presented!"
"I don't know whether or not God exists, I just haven't accepted the God you've presented. This is atheism."
These types of conversations with weak gutless atheists can go on for hours if not days. In an attempt to completely reverse any responsibility or their belief in atheism, some modern atheists will attempt to redefine atheism to mean, "lack of belief." However, one must not allow an atheist off the hook of responsibility to provide solid tangible and falsifiable evidence for such a position. There are four charges I bring against modern day atheists attempt to redefine atheism.
1) It is academically irresponsible. An incredible christian apologetics website, beliefmap.org, provides solid academic definitions for atheism. Atheism is the disbelief in God(s). It is to deny the existence of God. It is to hold the doctrine, teaching, and belief that God does not exist. Check out the provided sources here.
2) It is philosophically irresponsible. If atheism is redefined as a "lack of belief" in God, then atheism becomes a default psychological condition. This would mean that babies and cats are atheists. Are atheists really putting themselves into the same category as a cat? William Lane Craig says of this redefinition, "It is simply irrelevant to justifying a redefinition of a term (like Atheism). What this would show if true is that atheism is a worldview that cannot be proved. It doesn't serve to redefine the term. It would just say it is impossible to have a good reason to affirm atheism – the view that God does not exist. So even if you granted that it is impossible to prove a negative, that's of no comfort to the atheist; that doesn't serve to justify redefining a word. What that simply shows is that the view of atheism is something that couldn't be proved" and furthermore, "Philosophically a belief is just a certain type of mental state which means you accept a certain proposition as true. So it is absurd to claim that you have no beliefs. That is itself a belief – the belief that I have no belief" .
3) It is professionally irresponsible. It is quite pathetic to reject the work of professional atheist philosophers to mere psychology. Many brilliant and professional academics have come up with what they believe to be philosophically sound arguments against God's existence. How pathetic is it for the Christian to teach the atheist about these arguments against God's existence? One may try to use the problem of evil, incoherence in God, divine hiddenness, or other arguments to formulate positive arguments against God's existence. However, these "new atheists" (simply internet atheists) like David Smalley have forsake their duty as atheists is shirking of their responsibility in giving good reasons for atheism. In order for theists, or agnostics, to accept atheism, Atheists should justify their beliefs for atheism.
4) It is historically irresponsible. Classical atheism has always been the rejection of God or the disbelief in God or the belief that God does not exist. It has never been understood as some default psychological state of mind 
5) It is morally irresponsible. It is a dismissal of agnosticism. Agnosticism is the belief, "I don't know whether or not God(s) exist." It simply doesn't make a decision one way or the other. The redefined term of atheism hijacks agnosticism and recreates FOUR categories of belief towards God.
Theism = "I know God exists"
Agnostic Theism = "I'm pretty sure God exists"
Atheism = "I know God doesn't exist"
Agnostic Atheism = "I'm pretty sure God(s) doesn't exist"
This is ridiculous. It does away with agnosticism all together. It incorrectly defines theism as the 100% belief that God exists with no possibility for doubt. It falsely creates a straw man to the theist to claim he or she knows 100% that God exists and has no doubts in their belief concerning this proposition. Furthermore, it attempts to let atheists off the hook by claiming "agnostic atheism." They don't know for sure, but they've simply rejected all the evidence thus presented.
How fair would it be to say, "Theism is the rejection of atheism. I simply don't accept the evidence presented from atheism and thus default to theism. I don't need to present evidence for theism, I simply lack belief in atheism." How would the atheists feel if a theist were to support such a claim to theism?
Redefining atheism isn't right nor fair. It is a coup to withdrawal from the table of conversation and sit back from the distance and criticize without any responsibility. Theists, True Atheists, and Agnostics should NOT allow those who claim atheism to default to such a position. It is disrespectful in the name of atheism and lacks any true character or truth we all (hopefully) are seeking to find.