Thanks for creating a forum with real debate!

[Mister Agenda]

Name them, and follow it with doctrinal evidence which insists that all atheists must follow them.

Naturalism. (Belief in supernatural events would be heretical. In fact, the acceptance of souls, angels, miracles, for example, would mean you were NOT an atheist.)

If only, yet I have met atheists who believe in astrology, homeopothy, and reincarnation. There's not a commonly-accepted word for 'a-superstitionist', but an atheist can believe in anything except gods, even souls. The meaning of the word 'atheist' is not 'a-soulist' or 'monist', it's 'not-a-theist'.

Empirical evidence-based scientism. (Myopia. Only tool you own is a hammer. All problems resemble a nail. We ''ought'' to rely on the scientific method but science doesnt do "ought". Science only does "IS".)

Again,easily refuted by appeal to counter-example. See Raellians, who consider revelation a valid source of knowledge.

Presuppositionalism. (An unverified past-eternal, perpetual motion universe/multiverse can and must exist without a cause. This is necessary to avoid the Kalam cosmology.)

Now THAT is an atheist I've never encountered: one who says the Kalam argument isn't true because the universe is past-eternal. I've heard that the Kalam argument doesn't address the possibility that the univerese might be past-eternal; but that's not presuppositionalism, it's just part of pointing out that the Kalam argument is built on unsupported assertions. Try looking up 'presuppositionalism', it's a Christian thing, apparently.

The fallacy of the default position / burden of disproof. (It is a logical fallacy to claim that your own metaphysical position is automatically the default truth against which all others must carry the burden of disproof. Especially when theism is the prevailing, long-standing, majority worldview.)

It is not a fallacy to hold the null hypothesis until it has been overcome.

Of course, you can retreat to the neutral corner and fly the white flag of agnosticism pleading that you are open-minded and that God, angels, miracles might exist. But that would make you an agnostic. Not an atheist. And your brain would have two conflicting positions - a) theism might be true. b) atheism might be true.

You should know this by now, but one can hold the position that theism might be true without holding that it IS true because those positions do not, in fact, conflict. I can acknowledge that there might be a large diamond at the center of the earth without believing that there IS a large diamond at the center of the earth; for instance.

Atheists can be anything at all, pretty much. An atheist can be selfish, lazy, stupid, hateful, spiteful, mean, capricious, jealous, petty, violent, wicked and cruel...

Thats right. They CAN. And atheism, has no objective basis to differentiate these acts as sinful/evil. But that too, is part of what can be used to define atheism.

Neither does theism, which is merely the belief that one or more gods are real. It doesn't say what's right or wrong, or any of that, because mere theism isn't a religion, it's just theism. Mere atheism is just atheism. If you want to compare, say, secular humanism to Christianity or rational skepticism to Spiritualism, you can do that; but comparing atheism to Islam is a non-starter because they aren't comparable, it's comparing apples and oranges to compare a general non-belief with a specific belief. It would be equally confused to compare mere theism with (for instance) Ethical Culture.