This is not valid in content

"Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. http://dictionary.reference.com... round 1. "His entire arguments hinges on the assumption that an atheist is someone who disbelieves in God. There is no credible definition that defines an atheist this way. " rogue round 2. Contradiction much? Her own definition says an atheist is either: 1 a person who denies the existence of a supreme being or beings 2 a person who disbelieves he existence of a supreme being or beings. I then went onto present this: http://www.investigatingatheism.info...... "Perhaps the most obvious meaning to many people now is the absence or rejection of a belief in a God, or gods" which defines an atheist in either of these 2 ways: 1 absence of a belief in god 2.rejection of a belief in god. I would like to admit this is from the university of Cambridge, so that wouldn't be a credible source.(Sarcastic smile). Onto her nonsense about disbelief. She defines it this way, disbelieve: to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in, which is fine. Here is how belief is defined. 1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing http://www.merriam-webster.com... Now the person who does not know whether god exist, is clearly not in a state of mind where they place trust or confidence in the existence of god. and if one is not in the state of mind where thy place trust or confidence in the existence of god, they do not believe in the existence of god. That would imply an absence of belief or have no belief in. Absence and not being there or having no are the same concept. So by all definitions this person meets the definition of atheist. My opponent blatantly contradicted her own definition, when confronted with my arguments, I hope my opponents problem is she does not understand the definition of belief and that clears things up. Let me give an example, we have 3 people: Bob, Tom, and Jim and Jim is accused of stealing from the office and Bob and Tom are discussing it. Bob: So what do you think, is Jim really stealing that stuff Tom: I don't know, its possible either way. In this example it is clear Tom does not believe that Jim is innocent, he also does not believe Jim is guilty. We would answer these questions this way Does Tom believe Jim is innocent? No Does Tom believe Jim is guilty? No Tom has an absense of belief in the innocence of tom and an absense of belief in the guilt of tom. He disbelieves either positive claim until further notice. On any single claim a person either holds the positive attribute of belief in it or they do not. Through definitions I have shown that if a person answers yes to the the question: Do you believe in god? They are a theist, while if they answer no to the question, they clearly have the absence of belief in god so they are atheist. My opponent continues to conflate knowledge with belief in a intellectually dishonest attempt to maintain her incorrect beliefs. The right thing to do would be for her to admit her failures and say she was wrong, I really shouldn't have to had written anything more after her blatant dishonesty pointed out right here in the beginning.