thats not being defensive at all. being defensive would be pointing out that's not even the point of what i was posting about
lol
This is you being defensive, by the way.
and even if you had shown me wrong on literally any point, which you didn't,
I genuinely laughed here. You said that atheism was faith-based, and it isn't. If you want me to go through the motions of showing you why that isn't the case, by all means let me know. Because I've done it multiple times before I thought doing it here would be superfluous. Again, though, let me know if that isn't the case.
the points you're arguing wouldn't have detracted from my post at all.
They have, actually. I suppose you were just too lazy to read them, like you were with that link I gave you that proved you were wrong about most internet atheists being of the gnostic persuasion.

Getting really defensive would be pointing out that regardless if you sit on the strong or weak spectrum of atheism, by the very nature of not being able to prove something's nonexistence, it takes faith to hold true to a lack of belief in a God.
No, that would not be you being defensive. That would be you being wrong.
You being defensive would be something like, say, displacing the blame for your own mistake on someone else, i.e. "That was obviously hyperbole I thought that was obvious".
You don't know for certain if it truly does exist, so while the amount of faith is subjective, and imo significantly less than what it takes to believe in God, a lack of believe requires faith.
Saying "I don't believe in god" is not a faith based claim, and that's what atheism is.
In case you're unaware,
theism is the belief in a god.
Atheism means lacking a belief in god. That "A" is very important.
Hyperbole is something that you've used in your own arguments plenty of times
Don't see how that's at all relevant, especially considering you weren't being hyperbolic when you asserted you were being so. You were flat-out wrong. You weren't exaggerating the truth; you were factually incorrect. There is a distinct difference.
regardless the point of saying it was to show an extreme quantity of people who walk around ridiculing religion as something faith-based, while believing there is no way God could exist to be something of 100% certainty.
No one's arguing that gnostic atheism is not faith-based. However, your assertion that there is an "extreme quantity" of gnostic atheists has yet to be proven, and I'm more than a bit surprised at the fact that you're continuing to assert this after refusing to look at my link that states the exact opposite.
If you want to play semantics please go else where, as I want to actually discuss religion.
I think I'll stay right here, but thanks for your concern. Though, feel free to drop this discussion at any time if it makes you unhappy.
And my point. Not the representation of random people that I don't know, make another topic for that.
If you intend to misrepresent a group of people (a group of which I am a part), I'm going to correct you. Unless you've forgotten, we're free to discuss anything in the ASE. It would be wise to stop demanding that I take it elsewhere.