Definition of Atheism

[MindForgedManacle]

Funny, that's not how most atheists define it.

Funny, that's irrelevant. The category of "people" supersedes that of "atheist", so the most common usage of the word is not what most atheists supposedly use. Further, who cares? A group doesn't get to dictate that only the legitimate definition of their group is what they decide. Nazis may have believed, for all I know, that Nazism could only be defined as some positive movement. That obviously doesn't translate into people actually using Nazism in that light.

Blatantly false. You've been given the dictionary defintion, so you can't be ignorant of this. There is no practical difference between saying you don't believe something and saying you disbelieve it.

Again, using a dictionary as a means to settle a definitive meaning is silly and leads to contradictory "settled" meanings, because using dictionaries like that is a fallacious appeal to authority. What I'm saying is that there IS a practical difference between believing something is true and believing it's false. However, you (and others) are changing to conversation to "Either True or not True", which includes both indeterminate views on propositions and views that particular propositions are false, which is simply a way of trying give a priori preference to your own position.

The reason YOU believe these words as meaning those things is your agenda to get everyone to agree with your definition.

No it isn't. I just have a different view. Considering the rigidity with which internet atheists have argued for this lack theist position seems much more like an agenda than me critiquing what I think is just a nonsensical definition.

I see you avoided responses to this exact same argument in the other thread, so I'm not going to waste my time again. If you can refute objections to this particularly stupid argument, be honest and do it there instead of making us refute the same arguments repeatedly.

What is the objection? I don't remember you ever actually tackling this. If you did, just repost it here and I'll gladly address it.

I'm going to stop here. You lack the most basic capacity for honest discourse in that you can't acknowledge any error on this topic, so you can't adjust your argument or position to accomodate new information, you've got your conclusion and all you care about is arguing for it, not whether it is actually reasonable. You're just repeating yourself because saying the same thing in different ways is all you've got. This topic isn't worth discussing with someone who is irrational about it.

When did I say I can't accept any error on this topic? Whenever I disagree with you guys, I invariably get told - and have been told by you in this post - that I'm telling people what they think. And ironically and hypocritically, by the very same people who are telling those who only label themselves agnostic what THEY think. Further, I've given reasons why I think my position is more rational, but your responses are silly redefining of the idelogical spectrum to suit other terms you've redefined, such that you can claim something like "atheism is the starting position!!!11".