At no point did I say I'm either a theist or an atheist. So revisit that. I tend to keep this to myself as I'm here for the argument and not my personal beliefs. So before you advise people to be 'good little atheists' you must make sure that they are (a) and atheist and (b) that 'good little atheist' means what you say it does. I suspect that in this case it was used as a patronizing term. That does not make for good arguments.
I never said it is amusing
I merely pointed to the fact that arguments have a tendency to become amusing as they fall apart or as they become void of any point or logic. Your mentioning the dictionary is beyond funny: it has degraded beyond funny and is now just ridiculous. Note that I'm not calling you ridiculous. I don't know you. But I've seen your argument and it does not look good.
I never stated that these things are gods, the dictionary does.
Words have true meaning only within a given context. The dictionary would give you a literal meaning and then some dictionaries give you a little sentence to illustrate context. The dictionary didn't give the word meaning in this context, you did that, and that's why your argument is wrong.
The same people that say gods exists also say man landed on the moon, the earth is round, we revolve around the sun, etc.
I'm not sure if this is true. Firstly, do you mean those exact people? I don't think there's an organisation called they like in Larson's cartoon that comes up with facts. It would in all probability be people from the same field, inclination or school of thought. But this is not a conclusive response to your statement - it's grey because we can't really establish who these people are.
My second point is better. Say someone makes point A and point A is true and shifts humanity into a desirable future. That person then makes point B. Does the findings and validity of point A have any bearing on point B? Unless they are based on the same findings they do not.
The fact however is that the assumptions, methodologies and logic that resulted in the moon landing and the discovery of the solar system, fails to give us any evidence that points to a god. The facts don't say 'a god does not exist', they just can't prove that a god does. There is no negative proof, but in the absence of positive proof they assume. That assumption you can challenge. You can say 'you can't assume until you have evidence' but then you must do the same and then no one knows (and that is probably a better logical position to take).
To illustrate the point of negative proof I always like to use the out of stock shelf. A full shelf is proof that they have the product (say cinnamon cola). An empty shelf merely means that cinnamon cola is not stocked here but can be somewhere else. So while there is no proof that the store has stock, you can keep looking because there is no proof that they have no stock either. A little sign that says 'cinnamon cola out of stock' is negative proof. You can call the search off because you now have evidence that there is no cinnamon cola in the store.
Both theists and atheists are at a shelf with no cinnamon cola. Atheists believe that the product must be here, on this shelf because this is where products are sold - if it's not here it must be out of stock. Theists say that cinnamon cola is different and that it need not be on the shelf to be available for purchase.
On both sides I get arguments that make no sense. Your dictionary one is such an argument. On the other side is the atheist (and atheist comedian's) favorite one where they ridicule the possibility of a man in the sky. Their lack of knowledge in that way is frightening. But some atheists has hopped on this band wagon and they hide their bigotry under the veil of 'fashionable arguments'.