No. This is what you quoted from him and responded to:

"Academia disagrees with you (and popular parlance as well). A-theism is not non-theism. They are two very different terms and they always have been."

Here he was saying your definition of atheism is wrong, and that scarcely anyone whose job it is to know these things will agree with you. That's what you responded to.

Your "broadest definition" justification is absurd, and we've been exhausting all efforts to show you why it is. So, we really must drop this --it's about time I think we did-- seeing as you hitherto fail to understand your critics, making it likely any further objections from them will be greeted by you with the same incompetence displayed thus far.

Don't get me wrong. Available evidence seems to indicate you're a smart guy, just not very knowledgeable about this issue. No problem with that.

Bruce, look, man, I'm sure you're an O.K. guy. No need to apologize --least of all to me. We're just kicking some ideas around.

"According to 90% on the National Academy of Sciences and 97% of the Royal Academy of Sciences", babies, pets and inanimate things are atheists?

You do understand what was being argued right?

Oh no XIII, you just can't process it, he says. He's merely using "atheism" in the "broadest sense"! Why can't you "process that"?! Lol.

Seriously, that was either a very brilliant subversion, or a very, well, shall we say, slow-witted attempt at one. The rest of your response, however, doesn't really give us the slightest confidence it was the former.

Oh yeah, nothing personal Bruce --no need to apologize for the snark.

Winning, learning; tomeyto, tomahto. From thoughtful people like you, yes, learning. But, from the majority of people in platforms like these, not so much. No offense to anyone of course (I think it's safe to say the just about everyone here has at least an above average I.Q.) --just calling it like it is.

But yes, touche. You're orders of magnitude more of a freethinker than I can hope to be.

The website makes claims, yes. But claims that can be refuted. Some of those names are of people who clearly aren't deist.

If you can give me 5 names that I can't refute, then you win, innerminds. Won't be the first time I've conceded to you.

Fact still is, the founding fathers were predominantly Christian. And, the thing about Locke's 'natural rights' --the basis for the bill of rights-- is that, "the taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all". At least according to Locke. So, atheists can give themselves pats on the back and say Western moral tradition wasn't founded on Christianity all they want, but it's not true.

Thanks for begging the question yet again about theism being ridiculous to "science, logic, and reason" and by saying theists are irrational.

Don't say you're capable of having a "reasonable discourse" then.

Bruce: "Oh I'm capable of having a reasonable discourse! Let's talk about your ridiculous beliefs that violate 'science', 'reason' and 'logic'. And, maybe we can discuss your irrationality too!"

Right.

Oh yeah, the little matter of those naked assertions of yours, while now's not the time, you may want to tend to your little orphans in your next debate.

So, according to you, pets --dogs, cats, birds, fish-- and, well, everything inanimate, are atheists. Well done!

In other words, you're saying theism and leprechaunism aren't epistemically parred, an idea I hoped would be implicit in my first response to KSW. Sometimes the simplest route is the least fun :D
But, yeah, you say things more pithily than I ever could.

XIII,

The comment which you're responding to wasn't really for the one directly above it, but was for KapanaligSaWala's original point about open-mindedness to God being scarcely different from the same to leprechauns.

I'm not saying God's existential relevance makes him real. I'm saying God's existential relevance should make him much more worth being open-minded about than 'leprechauns'.

KapanaligSaWala's original point was this ( where he quotes Andy but substitutes 'leprechaun' for God to make his point):

"For the alephrechaunists, ask yourselves whether it is possible to have a being called a lephrechaun. This being does not necessarily have to love you, nor hear you, nor conform to ANY concept of a lephrechaun that we currently have. If you think about the universe and what we yet don’t know about it, you’d have to at least consider the possibility of such a being, else you would be as close-minded as the fundamentalist you so despise."