Yeah, the problem with that, is that I came across an old dictionary where atheism was defined as evil.
.
Since I quite specifically said I was using the primary dictionary definition, and not an old disused version, I can't see the problem sorry? When someone uses a word, if they don't state otherwise the assumption must be they are talking about the primary definition currently in the dictionary. The thread author seems to me to be trying to force all atheist into a definition that suits his own beliefs, and had little to do with how the dictionary defines the word atheism.
Since dictionaries reflect common usage, it's dishonest to assign definitions that don't reflect this as if they are the primary definition, rather than what you mean by it, or if you are using an archaic definition that no longer reflects what common usage of the words means. That's why we have dictionaries, and while etymology is fascinating, dishonest semantics is just tiresome.
It's clear the author is a theist, it's clear from his own posts he isn't an agnostic, unless he doesn't know what it means, as he has made assertions about what he believes the nature of a deity to be, which is negated by agnosticism.
So sometimes you can't win and neither can I, because we are playing cognitive relativism in the end.
I don't see this about winning or losing, but about using a reference tool like a dictionary correctly. We have common usage definitions in dictionaries for a reason, if you are deviating from that, which anyone is entitled to do, whether it is a secondary definitions or utilising etymology to make a point, then the honest thing to do is specify this. The author of the thread has not been honest here. IMHO.
Off course for that we need the correct and proper definitions of the words involved including correct, proper and definition
Indeed, and that is why we have dictionaries for reference, if we are deviating from those definitions, as the author has done repeatedly, then it is disingenuous of him to pretend he is speaking for an entire demographic, or even broadly for a significant number of atheists. As beyond my lack of belief in any deity or deities, which is what the primary dictionary definition of that word currently tells us, he can't know what I do or do not believe until I tell him, yet he has posted erroneous assumptions about atheists and atheism throughout this discourse. he has also dishonestly implied that agnosticism and atheism are somehow mutually exclusive, which they clearly are not.
Unfalsifiable claims are easy to create, but nothing can be asserted from not knowing something. This is the very definition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. i have seem many theists attempt to reverse the burden of proof using this fallacy.
If a claim is unfalsifiable I consider it to be meaningless, as I can know nothing about it, I must therefore remain agnostic, i cannot do otherwise. Now I can either believe all unfalsifiable claims, whish is impossible as it will inevitably lead to believing contradictory claims, or i can believe one or some of them, which is clearly biased as there is no objective difference. So I am left with rational and epistemologically consistent position of disbelieving them all. This then is my position.
So i am an atheist, as I do not believe in any deity or deities as no one has ever demonstrated any objective evidence for any deity. if the deity being imagined is also an unfalsifiable concept, then I also must remain an agnostic.
The author keeps telling me I can't do this, and has yet to address the fact that I am both an agnostic, at least where deities imagined are unfalsifiable concepts, and an atheist.
In my experience when a debate starts with someone dishonestly misrepresenting a basic word definition, there is little hope they will be diverted from their agenda with facts or reason.