No, technically I analogized them, not conflated; I'm making a comparison, not merging them. The stumble seems to have occurred because you are using a non-standard definition of 'divinity' that I overlooked initially.
Yes, but it is impossible to determine or even discuss if something does exist or non-exist if it is not first defined. Tell me, do kerzuxes exist, do you find that to even be a meaningful question? You're not going to now be inconsistent and 'insist' on a definition are you?
I never insisted that a definition has to mean a complete description, but leprechauns and divinity do mean something. A leprechaun is not a Kraken and divinity is not bad breath, and we know that because both leprechaun and divinity do have some attributes or definition.
Is the definition of "humanity" the concatenation of all the definitions those factions of believers have, or is it simply "supposedly intelligent beings who are rumoured to exist"? Are those who do not believe these undiscovered beings exist not entitled to issue a description of them which includes "does not exist"?
If for some reason we must arrive at one 'definition' to rule them all, then I'd say it's the opposite, the definition of humanity is probably the attributes that most of these debaters agree on, which sounds like it's just a different group of supposedly intelligent creatures, who it has been proposed may possess qualities A,B, and/or C. In your scenario here, as soon as we have some agreement on what qualities these debaters agree humanity possesses, then it is not valid to then define it as having no characteristics at all and that it can be everything or nothing.
In the objective sense things are complicated because words can have multiple definitions and cover a spectrum of meanings; 'theory' in science is a well-founded explanation for a phenomenon and in colloquial conversation theory oftentimes means a guess. It sounds like each debater has their own personal definition of humanity, just like theists have of their gods. But you seem to be saying that the atheist shouldn't be basing anything concerning the existence of gods based on the ability to argue with these different conceptions, as it is failing to address general 'divinity'. When I ask you to clarify then what Leo's divinity conception entails, you say it has no characteristics and can mean nothing or everything, which means essentially that you don't actually have any definition of divinity, which since it's the case has nothing to do with atheism and the definitions of divinity that it disputes, so I'm not sure why you brought it up. Why exactly am I able to find definitions of divinity in any dictionary, why don't actual etymologists struggle to provide a definition if it really as you said has no characteristics?
I think I've largely misread part of your argument here. When you were first talking about how atheists are good at picking on the 'backwards' religions (that billions of theists actually believe in...) and how they really should be addressing some general 'divinity', I assumed there was something about this other more general definition of divinity that atheists don't have a good answer for or that are more sophisticated conceptions than the more defined gods. After asking what you mean though, the only reason I'm getting why atheists don't have a good answer for this other 'general divinity' is because there is no definition there to actually dispute; I don't see that as a strike against atheism at all, not much argument to be made against everything, anything, and/or nothing, but that of course is not what atheism disputes anyway. Yea, I'm lost.