Argument against atheism

[Mister Agenda]

amkerman, first I would like to salute you on your honest style of discussion. Lately I've run into a series of people who can't give on the slightest point, no matter how absurd or counter-factual. Your willingness to really consider what we're saying is refreshing.

I think we may be at an impasse, and I apologize if this summation is too simple: It seems to me that you've just renamed objective reality, God. That may define God into existence for you, but it only works as an argument if others accept the definition. Sure, if you say objective reality is God and I find it probable that objective reality actually exists, you can say that I believe in God as you've defined it. If that pleases you, feel free, I'll just mentally translate 'objective reality' whenever you say 'God'. I assume that by 'argument against atheism' you mean an argument for the existence of God. Technically you have succeeded in your argument according to the terms you're using, but it is a pyrrhic victory: you've had to give up every attribute of God that distinguishes it from the rest of existence. I think Dawkins referred to pantheism as 'sexed-up atheism'. It's a long way round to avoid thinking of yourself as an atheist.