>>Neither of this would fall under the definition of believing - holding true despite lack of evidence or despite evidence to the contrary.
>
>He doesn't claim to be an agnostic (my point earlier) but an Atheist and stated that he believes there is not a God. Did I miss a post or misunderstand?

May I quote the relevant part:

" ... they don't believe there is a God.". Hence they are a believer.

Which is an illogical trap - professing an unbelief in statement A somehow makes you a believer in the negation of the statement? What if the statement has no logical value at all?

Along the same line, the equating of belief in an imaginary friend with "belief" in science, from the same speaker.

So no matter what you do, you're still a believer, doing exactly the same as we do, therefore one of us, you'll come around sooner or later, you only don't know it yet, but we in our superior nonlogic know better. Well, I'm not subscribing to that POV, no matter how it's called.

I've danced this dance ages ago on this forum. I guess I still haven't forgotten the steps :).