I can solve the "atheism only means a lack of belief" debate rather quickly: "Theism" is not an epistemological claim, it's an ontological claim. It's a claim saying "God exists." From this claim, an epistemological position is developed, called a "theist," one who believes theism is true. "Atheism" is not a negation of "theist," nor is "atheist" derived from "theist." Instead, "atheism" is an ontological claim, negating "theism;" the corresponding epistemological claim is "atheist," meaning one who believes in "atheism." I suspect the whole thing is designed to avoid talking about whether or not God exists and to avoid having to back up anything anyone says, but there it is, people.
Now an atheist may retort that he’s undecided on whether there are any gods and which one or ones might exist, but that he thinks Christianity’s God is false. Fine; technically, you’re not an atheist. You win. But now notice the problem: the skeptic has admitted that he espouses a truth claim about Christianity—namely, that it is false. And now he cannot merely assume such a claim is true, but must argue for it.
The only way someone remains both not an atheist and avoid the burden of proof is by stating that he doesn’t know nor take a position on the truth of Christianity, either. But notice even here, claims the skeptic makes within the context of the debate will still need to be defended. So, essentially, the skeptic only gets completely off the hook by not making any claims whatsoever within the debate. That will be nearly impossible to do (since most, if not all, objections to arguments or points involve counterexamples taken as true). Hope this helps everyone!