Can atheists convert theists?

[Edwardo Piet]

Please observe that no meaning was stated with it.

However vague a definition the usual definition of the Easter bunny is - it's still a definion, it still means a bunny on easter that gives you chocolate eggs or whatever. However vague the meaning, it's still a meaning.

All meaning you ascribe to it is atributed to it by you.

It's from tradition actually.

In fact you're simply guessing what it could mean based on prior experiences with the concept of Easter Bunny.

So since you ackknowlege the traditional concept of the Easter bunny... why don't you therefore acknowledge what it traditionally means? It's definition=what it means=it's meaning.

Evidence for your own attribution to the concept? That makes no sense. You're rejecting a concept that hasn't been defined. That's saying that X does not exist without a definition of X.

However vague the concept... it's already been defined. The Easter bunny is a traditional thing as I said above... and, God is at least commony defined as "the creator of the universe", and a deity. "The creator of the universe" can be disbelieved due to you being unconvinced and finding it improbable, lacking in evidence, etc. God defined as meaning "the creator of the universe" therefore has meaning as just that "The creator of the universe." You can disbelieve or believe the existence of such a thing. I disbelieve it hence why I'm an atheist.

As pointed out, verifiable definitions can be given and unverifiable definitions can be given. You cannot reject existence of the Easter Bunny on basis of an unverifiable definition (that really is just the agnostic stance about the Easter Bunny)

God is often said to be "the creator of the universe" and a deity. This is the definition I use. This definition can be given and the existence of the actual thing defined in reality can be rejected due to lack of evidence. Such a thing is indeed unverifiable which is why I disbelieve it any why I'm an atheist. I try not to believe things without verification. I need to claim no knowledge of God whatsoever to be an atheist, unlike what Knight said. Just because I claim knowledge of the existence of the concept doesn't mean I claim knowledge of the actuality of God's existence. Certainly not - if I had any knowledge of God's existence I wouldn't be an atheist!

If the Easter Bunny is defined you cannot reject the existence of the definition.

Once defined the definition exists. And then when that definition is defined I obviously don't then reject the existence of the definition - because the definition obviously exists because it's just been defined! It is the thing itself that is defined (as opposed to its concept) that I reject the existence of because I know of no evidence of it.

If God is defined as "the creator of the universe". That is already self-evidence of its definition, because its definition has just been defined, that's self-evidence of it! But the acutal thing that the definition is defining (a and supposedly THE only creator of the universe(this universe)) I know of no evidence of at all and hence why I reject or IOW disbelieve the existence of it.

If the Easter Bunny is not defined you cannot assess the claim. Guessing definitions only can lead to assessing your own attributions to the words.

Definitions don't need to be guessed they just have to be, well, defined.

EvF