Defining "Atheism"

[Existentialist]

you are continually being moronic

Verbal abuse isn't acceptable to me. If you want me to take any notice of your post, please edit your comments to remove the abuse. Thanks Adrian.

Anyway I still believe that you need belief in order to be an atheist.

You do. You have to believe in reality and evidence. You have to believe that the scientific method and rational thought are a more reliable way to search for truth than superstition and magical thinking.

May I ask why you think that is the case? As far as I can see, there is absolutely no requirement to believe in reality, nor evidence, nor that the scientific method or rational thought are a more reliable way to search for truth than superstition and magical thinking. If someone disbelieves in god because they claim an imaginary pixie made them give up their faith in God, then they are just as much an atheist as someone who believes there is no god because they claim to have good rational reasons for that belief. Proponents of rationalistic thinking can of course argue that their own atheism is based on rationality, evidence and science, but they would be wrong to deny others the right to be an atheist on the grounds that they 'have to believe' in rationality, science, evidence etc.

there is no need for belief to become an Atheist, it is purely lack of belief by definition.

I agree with the first part, there is no need for belief that there is no god in order to become an atheist (if that is what you're saying), but I'm afraid I think the second part is wrong. If somebody has a belief that there is no god, they are an atheist. A belief that there is no god of course results in a 'lack of belief' that there is a god, but to then describe that as 'purely' a lack of belief would be misrepresenting the individual.

The definition of atheism specifically identifies the belief that there is no god as being a legitimate definition, the definition itself does not wrap that up with people who 'simply' have lack of belief, even though logically it can, subsequent to defining atheism, be legitimately argued that the two definitions (or two parts of the same definition) share the same characteristic of 'lack of belief'. The distinction is important because the idea of a definition is to define something better, not to blur the reality, which I'm afraid saying atheism is 'purely a lack of belief by definition' does. I'm sorry this may seem laboured and complicated, but I believe it is correct - if anyone can come up with a more succinct way of expressing the same thing I would be only too pleased!