Can atheists convert theists?

[Purple Rabbit]

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.

"No meaning stated" means, well, no meaning stated. You yourself have attributed "the usual definition" to the easter bunny. It's fairly common to do so too. That's what we do when we handle language, we seek for patterns from the past. And that's OK when no serious evaluation of the proposition is asked for. But that all changes when a serious assessment of the proposition is asked for, for instance when the claim entails that all methodically shared facts of reality suddenly no longer hold. Than we need a definition from the proposer to assess the soundness of the proposition and the specifics of the claim. To deny existence of all Easter Bunnies, regardless of the claim is like strong atheism, a unreasoned belief in the non-existence of Easter Bunnies whatever their definition.

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

It's from tradition actually.

Projected from tradition by you, isn't it?

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...

Don't put words in my mouth.

why don't you therefore acknowledge what it traditionally means? It's definition=what it means=it's meaning.

Because the definition was not given. You lured yourself into thinking it was given.

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.

That's just too easy on the proposers of the proposition because you and the proposers don't address any specifics of the claim. The result will be, as is manifested all over this forum, that you are chasing ever changing meanings of the concept.

Can you give me your criterion on how vague a concept is allowed to be before you don't consider it as a sound proposition? Or is it the case that anything goes? For some god is love, is a definition too. Is that vague enough for you? Than surely you'll have to acknowledge that god exists. My stance is that a big claim such as that of the creator of the universe is in need for a rather well-frmed and sound proposition.

The meaning of "the creator of the universe" isn't straightforward at all. Nature might be the creator of the universe as we know it. In that case your atheism is bunk. When you say that it's plain that no natural creator is meant, the trojan horse supplied to you by believers with a vague definition is doing its work. Is their divine personal agency in the definition? Is omnipotence in the definition? Is care for humans in the definition? Your attribution to all this is a free ride for the believer and the believer at any time can stop you with: "Hey, that's not my god!". That would not be an assessment under the rules of predicate logic. When a strong claim is made, a strong definition must be given up front. Giving in to assessing vague claims is nice to kill time, it's no serious debate.

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!

Assessing unseen and vague general claims is for fools. I am an atheist because no sound propsition on the meaning and definition of god has been presented to me. I make no assumptions about the meaning of the god concept. That is up to the believer. I agree that you don't need to make no assumptions about the god concept, but by guessing what is meant by god you in effect indeed do just that.

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.

Exactly, but the definition was not given. You guessed 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 reject or IOW disbelieve the existence of.

You are leaving out the soundness of the claim in terms of logical coherence, completeness and consistency as a criterion. I argue that a big claim demands logical robustness in this sense or you'd be chasing gods of rubber in no time.

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.

Go on then and chase those figments of your own imagination.