Albeit, if you had bothered to observe the sources amidst the original post, your would probably have seen that the original post's definition, is merely one of a sequence, that includes a similar form to the God targeted in the video sequence
Which is exactly the problem. Having a sequence of definitions which you switch between without explanation is equivocation. You arent matching the definition of anybody you are trying to communicate to, and the points you make are incoherent because they rely on multiple conflicting definitions at once.
We were talking about whether atheists dismiss gods in general
, which includes your definition of minimally capable god. Switching to a seperate definition of a highly capable god and saying that atheists reject that possibility says nothing about your original contention that atheists tend to dismiss all gods (not to mention one data point of Richard Dawkins is not a significant defense of the tendencies of atheists in general). You have a definition of a minimally capable god and the contention you were defending is that atheists reject the possibility of that minimally capable god existing, else you must concede that other people dont agree or recognise your overall definition of god (ie, that your "minimally capable god" is missing elements that others consider fundamental to god status)
You also stated that "The instance that we are Gods, does not require an understanding of the simulation hypothesis", where in fact the latter definitions you just brought up are pretty much all of the elements involved in understanding the simulation hypothesis. Its hardly surprising that I disregarded the definitions which you specifically said werent required for the conversation.
It still seems to me that you are equivocating; in fact it now seems you are equivocating to the extent that you are confusing yourself
and having trouble remembering what point you are trying to make.