You seem confused. I gave you the actual definition of the word. That definition precludes it from being a religion or belief.
I have shown you wrong. You just can't admit your view is not the lack of God but the belief there is no God which makes it a religion that is why they are now organizing Sunday meetings
you can't show that I am wrong, unless you can show the dictionary is wrong, which is silly. this has been proven false
this is a lie. I have repeatedly pointed out the definition of atheism, and my status as an atheist. I lack belief in a god or gods.
That's just it. He has an active belief that gods do not exist. That is not a lack of belief. So by the definition he provided he cannot be an atheist, since he holds an active, albeit negative, belief in the existence of God's.
You have an active, negative belief in the existence of gods. That is not a lack of belief. I am not telling you what you believe. You have repeatedly told us that you believe gods don't exist.
I have corrected you on this at least twice now. Having been corrected, you are now intentionally lying about my position. you can not quote me ever saying any such thing, as I have repeatedly pointed out that I lack belief in the existence of a god or gods, in perfect harmony with the definition of atheism.
That's not a unicorn, mythical or otherwise. That would fall under the legend of the alicorn, a crossbreed of the mythical unicorn and the mythical pegasus. Also he is claiming that there is a real animal unicorn upon which the legends are built upon, much as the legendary Chuck Norris, is based upon the real Chuck Norris.
Is good you can prove things to yourself. The rest of us though usually rely on facts. Here this may ( hope springs eternal ) help with your education. https://gizmodo.com/did-unicorns-ever-exist-1504933413
You are wrong in that it is a subjective matter. For some it takes more faith to believe that there are no gods, than to believe one or more exist (belief not automatically being worship). For others it takes more faith to believe there are gods. And then for others, the amount of faith needed for either position is the same. The amount needed for one or the other is not absolute as your post implies.
You are getting it backwards. What he is proving is that he and anyone who claims God or gods don't exist are not actually atheist, because the definition of atheist precludes that. Their misuse or colloquial use notwithstanding.
This is where you are wrong. You are claiming the label and then saying by claiming that label you must fit the definition. Reality is that we see if you got the definition, and then we can apply the label. You do not fit the definition, therefore you are not an atheist.
This has been proven wrong, using the definition of an atheist to prove it wrong. You actively believe that gods do not exist. This is a belief in them, in their non existence. You do not lack belief. Therefore, by the definition you provided, you cannot be an atheist. Bringing up the definition repeatedly, only supports the argument that those who are claiming the label atheist are not.
You, having been corrected, are the one lying then, if you want to play the lying game. However, given that both of us believe our positions are correct, neither is lying. You, however, are just wrong. But one doesn't have to be lying to be wrong. Ah, then you are in the third position of actively believing that the evidence is insufficient to decidedly say that gods exist or do not exist. That is still a belief and not a lack thereof.
I find it quite interesting that the article completely ignored the goat angle. The most common description of the unicorn includes the chin tuft and the cloven hooves, Hollywood depictions aside. These are also the images on the tapestry series from England during the medieval period.
But if the answer was always no, then I would not have gotten them. Your argument is more suited to no answer than an answer of no, which is what you posted. Maybe unintentionally switching that up?
