You've not defined it.
I'm under no obligation to define it in your terms, as I'm not here to oblige to your activism. I've given you some common traits that theists attribute to their deities. Stop asking for further definition or it becomes clear that you're debating in bad faith.
to attack atheism
Is that how you construct my threads? Attacks to atheism? In Cofty's words, you have some more thinking to do.
your arrogant and wrong attempt to tell me what I think (...) You should seriously take his advice and stop trying to tell others what they believe
Your wholesale resort to straw man arguments is tiring. I'm not telling you or any one else what you think or what you believe. You're articulate enough to be able to read and know the meaning of what I'm saying, but you simply chose to distort what I write so that you can argue against the distortion. That's below honesty. If you disagree with my opinion, that's fine. Opinions are like asses, everybody has one. As for arrogance, well, your level of contempt indicates that you really should take a good look in the mirror.
You are pretending to know what people think and how they feel, about people that you've never met, which is not an objective fact and is often only knowable AFTER talking to them
Again, you seem to be taking upon yourself to be the spokesperson for the entire body of atheists. I've met enough atheists and read enough material to be sufficiently informed about what atheism stands for. And, just in case you missed the news flash, in the other thread "Defender of Truth" pointed out, and I agreed, that "agnostic atheist" is what more closely defines my ideas nowadays. You construct what I debate as an attack on atheism, but you're wrong. I'm questioning what I perceive to be a misleading definition of what atheism is.