"Straw man argument": The fallacy of redefining a word or position so that the new definition is easier to knock down, so that you can erroneously claim the original definition has been debunked too.
So now that you've proven yourself to be willfully illogical and dishonest, let's move on.
The word "Atheism" means "no belief in deity". That's ALL the word means. That's ALL it has ever meant.
>>the belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to
>>nothing
The notion of "nothing became something" sounds more like creationism to me, not cosmology.
>>and then nothing magically exploded for no
>>reason,
You obviously 1) don't understand what the Big Bang really is (even in layman's terms), 2) haven't made any effort to read up on it, and 3) blindly assume that atheism and acceptance of cosmology are the same thing. It was not a "magical explosion". If you don't know what a "quark" or a "singularity" is, then you have no business pretending to know more than scientists who work in the field.
>>magically rearranged itself for no reason
Like many ignorant religious people, you additionally throw cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolution into the same category. These are 3 completely different branches of science. And they're driving by anything BUT "magical rearrangement" or "random chance". Again, if you actually took the time to research this instead of pretending you knew more about science than scientists, you'd realize how much of a fool you're making of yourself.
But oh no, I'm sure "it had to do with a talking snake and a tree" makes MUCH more sense.