For Atheists - define what you don't believe in

[Juma]

Science was supposed to close those alleged gaps but it's actually discovering more and more gaps - bigger gaps.

You have a wrong understanding. There is possibly more gaps but much, much smaller gaps. That seems to happen when a big answer is dropped in the middle of a huge gap - it leaves a small gap on either end. The fact that a new understanding creates new, more detailed, questions to be studied is what is exciting about science. We get better and better understanding of the big picture so we can pay more attention to the pixels.

I don't think the discovery of evidence suggesting the existence of stuff like dark energy or additional dimensions (M-theory) are reducing any gaps. We are making more and more discoveries that show us how much BIGGER the gap in our knowledge really is.

You focus on items (gaps) and forget the scale (size of the gaps)
We (physics) today knows all there is to know about the quantum mechanical foundations of everyday physics: The stuff that goes on in you everyday world. What we dont know is: behavior of very complex structures, the very, very large scale stuff (millons of years and thousands of lightyears) and here is where dark matter etc comes in)
But everyday life, where god is supposed to hear prayers and intervene in our lives?
There we know much more than you wsnt to believe.

 

[bilby]

We know, with greater certainty than we have ever known anything, that there are no unknown forces or particles that can significantly effect objects smaller than solar systems but larger than atomic nuclei.

There may be unknown forces that are so weak that they can change the whole galaxy; But a putative god could not use these to influence one human without influencing us all. Such forces would be like gravity; You can't have gravity that picks and chooses which small objects to influence. You can't make a 'gravity ray' that can make one person fall down faster than the person standing next to him.

There may be unknown forces that are so small-scale that they influence only subatomic particles; But a putative god could not use these to influence an object as large as a single human cell without dumping so much energy into that cell that the explosion would level a city. Short range forces imply high frequencies and that implies high energies. (That's why particle accelerators, such as the LHC, need higher and higher energies to investigate smaller and smaller scales).

Intervention by gods on humanity is ruled out by quantum field theory. An afterlife is similarly ruled out - there is no possible way for a 'soul' made of non-physical 'stuff' to interact with a physical human being. If a soul exists and is physical, then we can easily detect it - and we have not been able to do so.

It's only possible for beliefs in the afterlife and/or in a god that intervenes in human affairs to persist because most people are ignorant of quantum physics.

If you want to influence humans, you need to use electromagnetic effects to do so. Such effects are easy to detect and fully understood. They are the foundation of all of chemistry, and as a result, of all of biology.

 

[Copernicus]

since an atheist doesnt necessarily know that he/she is an atheist, or what atheist means, why would we ask this atheist to define a concept he/she doesnt know and isnt aware of not believing in?

In its most common usage, "atheists" are usually taken to be narrowly construed as people who know what gods are and reject belief in such beings. Every culture and theistic religious tradition has a specific set of gods (or a single god) with specific characteristics. Atheists naturally tend to be focused on rejection of belief in the gods that they are most familiar with, but they tend to reject the entire class of beings as implausible. Not worth believing in any more than other mythical beings that they are familiar with from folk tales or cultural narratives. For the sake of reference, I'll call this conventional type of atheist a "narrow band atheist". In this sense of "atheist", a baby would not be considered an atheist, because babies have no concept of deities to reject belief in.

On the internet, where debates over the existence of gods tend to be popular, there is a very broad sense of "atheist" that is popular, especially (albeit not exclusively) among atheists--that anyone who simply lacks belief in gods should be considered an "atheist". People get very defensive of that usage, perhaps because it turns the category into a sort of natural "default" word sense that is very easy to defend in these kinds of polemics. That's ok. Words can have a range of meanings. I'll call this usage for "atheist"--probably the usage most preferred by the TFT community--as "broad band atheist". In this sense of "atheist", babies might be considered atheists, because, not knowing what deities are, they simply lack a belief in deities.

So, to answer your question, we would ask narrow band atheists what it is that they reject. They would answer by describing the properties of beings that are conventionally referred to with common nouns like "god" and "deity". These words are defined in every English dictionary, although I always caution people not to confuse definitions with full-fledged word meanings. Like any meaning that we associate a word or expression with, the meaning of "god" is a tangled, structured web of associations. Definitions are just concise heuristic pointers to a word meaning in common usage.

A narrow band atheist would defend rejection of belief by explaining why such beings are implausible. That's not terribly difficult, but it is still easier just to demand that theists try to defend their acceptance of belief in the particular god or gods they profess belief in. Juma, I think that you are trying to work with the broad band concept of "atheist", so it makes sense to ask what possible definition of unbelief they could have. That is because your preferred usage includes people who consciously reject belief in gods and those who simply don't know what gods are or don't care to think about them. In that context, it doesn't always make sense to demand that atheists define what they don't believe in, because they could simply lack a god concept.

This is getting silly.
The majority of atheists I know doesnt have any particular image of what gods are other than the mythicsl ”bearded man above the clouds”, ”man with axe that noone else can lift” etc. thus more concepts of folklore. a lot like superman etc.
”Gods as real objects” doesnt come in to their minds as something to be believed in at all.
We believe in stuff that works, stuff that actually matters to us, as the IRS, the ground we walk on, the moon etc
The majority of atheists do not discuss religious matters.

Since you probably does not believe in Fjugkiv, please define what you dont believe in.

I can say with a very high degree of confidence that I do not believe much of anything you say here. You don't speak for the majority of atheists, so your concept of what they think or discuss is irrelevant. Just in this forum, atheists make all kinds of statements about gods and religious matters. I have already talked about many properties that we associate with gods, so I don't need to elaborate further just because you haven't been paying attention. The word is defined in every single dictionary of the English language. If you think that it has no meaning, then I suggest you start writing angry letters of protest to dictionary publishers.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I can say with a very high degree of confidence that I do not believe much of anything you say here. You don't speak for the majority of atheists, so your concept of what they think or discuss is irrelevant. Just in this forum, atheists make all kinds of statements about gods and religious matters. I have already talked about many properties that we associate with gods, so I don't need to elaborate further just because you haven't been paying attention. The word is defined in every single dictionary of the English language. If you think that it has no meaning, then I suggest you start writing angry letters of protest to dictionary publishers.

It's really a discussion about religious behavior.

A religious person does certain things that labels them religious. But if I know those behaviors aren't lucky, aren't making their lives any better than mine, and so I don't do them, don't believe they have any benefit beyond perhaps meditative and comfort value, then that's something I don't believe in. And I can engage in meditation and relaxation, do awareness exercises, that are not religious but that bring me the same or greater benefit.

Lots of religious behavior is nothing beyond the spoken word. If I don't speak the same words it's because I don't believe those statements.

The better question is to ask believers what they do not believe in. I think they'd really stumble, and do, when for example you meet a person who doesn't believe the earth is more than a few thousand years old. Weird non-belief stuff like that is what makes them religious.

 

[Copernicus]

I can say with a very high degree of confidence that I do not believe much of anything you say here. You don't speak for the majority of atheists, so your concept of what they think or discuss is irrelevant. Just in this forum, atheists make all kinds of statements about gods and religious matters. I have already talked about many properties that we associate with gods, so I don't need to elaborate further just because you haven't been paying attention. The word is defined in every single dictionary of the English language. If you think that it has no meaning, then I suggest you start writing angry letters of protest to dictionary publishers.

It's really a discussion about religious behavior.

A religious person does certain things that labels them religious. But if I know those behaviors aren't lucky, aren't making their lives any better than mine, and so I don't do them, don't believe they have any benefit beyond perhaps meditative and comfort value, then that's something I don't believe in. And I can engage in meditation and relaxation, do awareness exercises, that are not religious but that bring me the same or greater benefit.

Lots of religious behavior is nothing beyond the spoken word. If I don't speak the same words it's because I don't believe those statements.

The better question is to ask believers what they do not believe in. I think they'd really stumble, and do, when for example you meet a person who doesn't believe the earth is more than a few thousand years old. Weird non-belief stuff like that is what makes them religious.

I still think it fair to address the topic suggested by the thread title--that atheists attempt to "define" what they do not believe in. Atheism itself is, after all, defined as a negative belief. My consistent position has been that atheists and theists largely agree on what gods are, although not everyone will assign exactly the same meaning. The word itself does not belong to people who hold or reject beliefs, but to people who belong to a speech community. What defines the class of atheists is not atheists per se, but everyone who uses words like "god", "deity", "atheist", "theist", etc. What I think both threads are really trying to do is approach the public debate between atheists and theists as if they represented entirely different speech communities with different vocabulary that only appeared to be the same. I don't buy that assumption simply because the communities of believers and non-believers actually belong to the same speech community--that of speakers of English. What determines the community's meaning for a word like "god" is normative usage, and I just haven't seen any evidence or argument for making the case that atheists and theists apply different norms of usage to words like "god" and "deity".

 

[abaddon]

This is getting silly.
The majority of atheists I know doesnt have any particular image of what gods are other than the mythicsl ”bearded man above the clouds”, ”man with axe that noone else can lift” etc. thus more concepts of folklore. a lot like superman etc.
”Gods as real objects” doesnt come in to their minds as something to be believed in at all.
We believe in stuff that works, stuff that actually matters to us, as the IRS, the ground we walk on, the moon etc
The majority of atheists do not discuss religious matters.

Since you probably does not believe in Fjugkiv, please define what you dont believe in.

I can say with a very high degree of confidence that I do not believe much of anything you say here. You don't speak for the majority of atheists, so your concept of what they think or discuss is irrelevant. Just in this forum, atheists make all kinds of statements about gods and religious matters. I have already talked about many properties that we associate with gods, so I don't need to elaborate further just because you haven't been paying attention. The word is defined in every single dictionary of the English language. If you think that it has no meaning, then I suggest you start writing angry letters of protest to dictionary publishers.

About using weird names to convey that god's an inane concept... I've done that many times, maybe saying "Gargweezlebottom" or "Gawd" in place of "God".

It's not a disagreement with the dictionaries. When people say "God" I know in a generic sense what they mean, but it doesn't stop it from coming across as a silly concept to a person who thinks it names no actual thing. If a lot of people talked instead about Gargweezlebottom then that word would be in dictionaries. If there were a social convention regarding its generic meaning, it doesn't make it a substantive concept. It does nothing to stop it seeming ironic to some of us that a lot of people use a word as if they're discussing something momentous but they're not.

So goofy names are used to undermine how people assign a momentous significance to the concept, not to undermine whether the word itself is intelligible (in its rather vacuous way).

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I still think it fair to address the topic suggested by the thread title--that atheists attempt to "define" what they do not believe in. Atheism itself is, after all, defined as a negative belief. My consistent position has been that atheists and theists largely agree on what gods are, although not everyone will assign exactly the same meaning. The word itself does not belong to people who hold or reject beliefs, but to people who belong to a speech community. What defines the class of atheists is not atheists per se, but everyone who uses words like "god", "deity", "atheist", "theist", etc. What I think both threads are really trying to do is approach the public debate between atheists and theists as if they represented entirely different speech communities with different vocabulary that only appeared to be the same. I don't buy that assumption simply because the communities of believers and non-believers actually belong to the same speech community--that of speakers of English. What determines the community's meaning for a word like "god" is normative usage, and I just haven't seen any evidence or argument for making the case that atheists and theists apply different norms of usage to words like "god" and "deity".

Perhaps I was not clear. I disbelieve that going to a church building regularly is somehow better than not going into a church building. Is that fair? I disbelieve that singing songs to an undefined invisible space creature is a good thing. Fair enough? Is that along the lines of what Rhea asked?

When I was a kid I remember being told that the way to catch a rabbit was to sprinkle salt on its tail. I only had to hear it one time upon realizing that if I was that close to the rabbit I could in fact catch it, and that the saying was a wisdom teaching, not be taken literally, so no salt needed.

Going into that church building regularly and engaging in superstitious behavior meant to conjure up better personal luck with the invisible space creature is identical to continuing to believe that catching a rabbit involves salt and the rabbit's tail.

 

[skepticalbip]

I still think it fair to address the topic suggested by the thread title--that atheists attempt to "define" what they do not believe in. Atheism itself is, after all, defined as a negative belief.

Not at all. Atheism is defined as a lack of belief. That is very different from a "negative belief". A negative belief would be antitheism.

Maybe your misunderstanding of the meaning of atheism is your disconnect.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I still think it fair to address the topic suggested by the thread title--that atheists attempt to "define" what they do not believe in. Atheism itself is, after all, defined as a negative belief.

Not at all. Atheism is defined as a lack of belief. That is very different from a "negative belief". A negative belief would be antitheism.

Maybe your misunderstanding of the meaning of atheism is your disconnect.

Yes. Atheism could certainly be defined as the positive belief that there are not any gods.

Do adults have a negative belief about the Tooth Fairy or do they have a positive belief, knowledge, that there isn't a literal tooth fairy, but that the story still has teaching value?

 

[abaddon]

I still think it fair to address the topic suggested by the thread title--that atheists attempt to "define" what they do not believe in. Atheism itself is, after all, defined as a negative belief. My consistent position has been that atheists and theists largely agree on what gods are, although not everyone will assign exactly the same meaning. The word itself does not belong to people who hold or reject beliefs, but to people who belong to a speech community. What defines the class of atheists is not atheists per se, but everyone who uses words like "god", "deity", "atheist", "theist", etc. What I think both threads are really trying to do is approach the public debate between atheists and theists as if they represented entirely different speech communities with different vocabulary that only appeared to be the same. I don't buy that assumption simply because the communities of believers and non-believers actually belong to the same speech community--that of speakers of English. What determines the community's meaning for a word like "god" is normative usage, and I just haven't seen any evidence or argument for making the case that atheists and theists apply different norms of usage to words like "god" and "deity".

Perhaps I was not clear. I disbelieve that going to a church building regularly is somehow better than not going into a church building. Is that fair? I disbelieve that singing songs to an undefined invisible space creature is a good thing. Fair enough? Is that along the lines of what Rhea asked?

No. The OP Is about why nonbelievers don't need to describe the specific traits of God to theists when asking theists what their God's traits are.

There's no need to describe your beliefs at all. Unless you want to... but it's not requested in the OP. Which was split from another thread and then the original context was totally lost sight of. The context was a sophist-theist trying to get atheists to describe the God they don't believe in.

So atheism and the generic definition of "God" or "gods" weren't the original topic at all.

 

[skepticalbip]

I still think it fair to address the topic suggested by the thread title--that atheists attempt to "define" what they do not believe in. Atheism itself is, after all, defined as a negative belief.

Not at all. Atheism is defined as a lack of belief. That is very different from a "negative belief". A negative belief would be antitheism.

Maybe your misunderstanding of the meaning of atheism is your disconnect.

Yes. Atheism could certainly be defined as the positive belief that there are not any gods.

Do adults have a negative belief about the Tooth Fairy or do they have a positive belief, knowledge, that there isn't a literal tooth fairy, but that the story still has teaching value?

The idea of gods doesn't enter my mind unless approached by religious zealots trying to convince me of their TRUTH. At this point I figure it is their burden to try to make sense in answering my questions about their claims. I have no desire to shut down religions that don't actively try to convert others or to force their beliefs on others - the Amish for example. I figure this makes me an atheist, not an antitheist.

https://www.thoughtco.com/atheism-and-anti-theism-248322

Atheism and anti-theism so often occur together at the same time and in the same person that it's understandable if many people fail to realize that they aren't the same. Making note of the difference is important, however, because not every atheist is anti-theistic and even those who are, aren't anti-theistic all the time. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods; anti-theism is a conscious and deliberate opposition to theism. Many atheists are also anti-theists, but not all and not always.

Atheism and Indifference
When defined broadly as simply the absence of belief in gods, atheism covers territory that isn't quite compatible with anti-theism. People who are indifferent to the existence of alleged gods are atheists because they don't believe in the existence of any gods, but at the same time this indifference prevents them from being anti-theists as well. To a degree, this describes many if not most atheists because there are plenty of alleged gods they simply don't care about and, therefore, they also don't care enough to attack belief in such gods.

Atheistic indifference towards not only theism but also religion is relatively common and would probably be standard if religious theists weren't so active in proselytizing and expecting privileges for themselves, their beliefs, and their institutions.

..........snip........

 

[Copernicus]

I still think it fair to address the topic suggested by the thread title--that atheists attempt to "define" what they do not believe in. Atheism itself is, after all, defined as a negative belief.

Not at all. Atheism is defined as a lack of belief. That is very different from a "negative belief". A negative belief would be antitheism.

Maybe your misunderstanding of the meaning of atheism is your disconnect.

This is a popular position with many atheists, but it doesn't reflect how people normally use the word. TGG Moogly is right on this point. I'm quite willing to consider your sense of the word as a valid secondary sense, since so many people have bought into it in internet discussions, but it seems only to come up as part of the debate between atheists and theists, not ordinary usage as recorded in news sources and literature. The term "antitheism" is interesting in that it is also normally used just in these polemics over that divide between believers and nonbelievers. To me, an antitheist is just someone who dislikes or speaks out actively against theists and theism. Sometimes it is just a pejorative label for an atheist. Theists use it a lot as an excuse to dismiss atheists as belligerent and closed-minded.

 

[Copernicus]

I still think it fair to address the topic suggested by the thread title--that atheists attempt to "define" what they do not believe in. Atheism itself is, after all, defined as a negative belief. My consistent position has been that atheists and theists largely agree on what gods are, although not everyone will assign exactly the same meaning. The word itself does not belong to people who hold or reject beliefs, but to people who belong to a speech community. What defines the class of atheists is not atheists per se, but everyone who uses words like "god", "deity", "atheist", "theist", etc. What I think both threads are really trying to do is approach the public debate between atheists and theists as if they represented entirely different speech communities with different vocabulary that only appeared to be the same. I don't buy that assumption simply because the communities of believers and non-believers actually belong to the same speech community--that of speakers of English. What determines the community's meaning for a word like "god" is normative usage, and I just haven't seen any evidence or argument for making the case that atheists and theists apply different norms of usage to words like "god" and "deity".

Perhaps I was not clear. I disbelieve that going to a church building regularly is somehow better than not going into a church building. Is that fair? I disbelieve that singing songs to an undefined invisible space creature is a good thing. Fair enough? Is that along the lines of what Rhea asked?

When I was a kid I remember being told that the way to catch a rabbit was to sprinkle salt on its tail. I only had to hear it one time upon realizing that if I was that close to the rabbit I could in fact catch it, and that the saying was a wisdom teaching, not be taken literally, so no salt needed.

Going into that church building regularly and engaging in superstitious behavior meant to conjure up better personal luck with the invisible space creature is identical to continuing to believe that catching a rabbit involves salt and the rabbit's tail.

Fair enough, but I think you are focusing on cultural aspects that we associate with belief in, and worship of, gods. I don't think that it really gets at the question of what a word like "god" means to an atheist or theist. Bear in mind that atheism and theism are philosophical positions, not religious ones. One can be "religious" and still not believe that gods exist, although it is rare these days to encounter a religious person who genuinely disbelieves in gods. Perhaps American Buddhists come close to that type of religious person.

 

[Juma]

I still think it fair to address the topic suggested by the thread title--that atheists attempt to "define" what they do not believe in. Atheism itself is, after all, defined as a negative belief.

Not at all. Atheism is defined as a lack of belief. That is very different from a "negative belief". A negative belief would be antitheism.

Maybe your misunderstanding of the meaning of atheism is your disconnect.

This is a popular position with many atheists, but it doesn't reflect how people normally use the word. TGG Moogly is right on this point. I'm quite willing to consider your sense of the word as a valid secondary sense, since so many people have bought into it in internet discussions, but it seems only to come up as part of the debate between atheists and theists, not ordinary usage as recorded in news sources and literature. The term "antitheism" is interesting in that it is also normally used just in these polemics over that divide between believers and nonbelievers. To me, an antitheist is just someone who dislikes or speaks out actively against theists and theism. Sometimes it is just a pejorative label for an atheist. Theists use it a lot as an excuse to dismiss atheists as belligerent and closed-minded.

The only reason atheism is used in the meaning ”antiteism” is because of theists! I dont believe the earth is flat. So since If anyone comes by that thinks the earth is flat they will see mee as an anti-flat-earth-ist. But i’m simply not believing in a flat earth.

 

[Rhea]

I don't think that it really gets at the question of what a word like "god" means to an atheist or theist. Bear in mind that atheism and theism are philosophical positions, not religious ones.

Bear in mind that the question was not “what does the word god mean to you,” the question was “Atheists, define what you disbelieve.”

It’s okay for different people to read that differentlly and they are not wrong for taking the question differently than you do. So while it;s true that this person’s answer doesn’t get to the question you wish was asked, it remains likewise true that what you wish was asked is not what was asked.

You are free, however, to start a thread to ask people “what does the word god mean to you,” so that you can debate on that topic and not be burdened with people answering a different question.

I realize a thread can go any which way and the OP has no “control” over this, but you seem frustrated that people aren’t in the frame of mind you want, so I’m just suggesting a way to better set up for achieving that.

 

[Rhea]

The idea of gods doesn't enter my mind unless approached by religious zealots trying to convince me of their TRUTH. At this point I figure it is their burden to try to make sense in answering my questions about their claims. I have no desire to shut down religions that don't actively try to convert others or to force their beliefs on others - the Amish for example. I figure this makes me an atheist, not an antitheist.

https://www.thoughtco.com/atheism-and-anti-theism-248322

Atheism and anti-theism so often occur together at the same time and in the same person that it's understandable if many people fail to realize that they aren't the same. Making note of the difference is important, however, because not every atheist is anti-theistic and even those who are, aren't anti-theistic all the time. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods; anti-theism is a conscious and deliberate opposition to theism. Many atheists are also anti-theists, but not all and not always.

A common description of this is the sign on a college prof’s door

Theist: ................God Blesses you!
Anti-Theist: ........There is no god!
Atheist: ...............Office hours: 10:30am-noon


And this is what Lion does not get when he thinks Atheists should be going on about what they disbelieve

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

And this is what Lion does not get when he thinks Atheists should be going on about what they disbelieve

There are persons in my acquaintance that sincerely accept the existence of the Tooth Fairy. I have personally looked into the Tooth Fairy legend but am unconvinced that the Tooth Fairy is an actual entity that gives money to children in exchange for their teeth. But I have to question how the tradition and practice maintains itself for millenia if there is not something actual at its inception.

So I wish to know what Lion disbelieves when it comes to the Tooth Fairy, unless of course Lion believes in the Tooth Fairy.

 

[phands]

There is an entire, excellent book about the tooth fairy. Just like there is a book (not excellent at all) about jebus.

Many xtians take the existence of a book as proof of the deity's existence. Therefore the Tooth Fairy exists.

Lion is rather pathetic in his years-long, shallow and risible attempts to justify his wretched clinging to laughable ideas, but I can't see him changing his dreary tune.

 

[Random Person]

There is an entire, excellent book about the tooth fairy. Just like there is a book (not excellent at all) about jebus.

Many xtians take the existence of a book as proof of the deity's existence. Therefore the Tooth Fairy exists.

Lion is rather pathetic in his years-long, shallow and risible attempts to justify his wretched clinging to laughable ideas, but I can't see him changing his dreary tune.

Equating the Tooth Fairy to God suggests you have no argument against God. Or worse.

 

[Copernicus]

I don't think that it really gets at the question of what a word like "god" means to an atheist or theist. Bear in mind that atheism and theism are philosophical positions, not religious ones.

Bear in mind that the question was not “what does the word god mean to you,” the question was “Atheists, define what you disbelieve.”

It’s okay for different people to read that differentlly and they are not wrong for taking the question differently than you do. So while it;s true that this person’s answer doesn’t get to the question you wish was asked, it remains likewise true that what you wish was asked is not what was asked.

You are free, however, to start a thread to ask people “what does the word god mean to you,” so that you can debate on that topic and not be burdened with people answering a different question.

I realize a thread can go any which way and the OP has no “control” over this, but you seem frustrated that people aren’t in the frame of mind you want, so I’m just suggesting a way to better set up for achieving that.

Thanks for your perspective, Rhea, but it seems that you have some frustrations of your own to work on also. You are right that the originator of a thread has little control over the direction that a thread takes, because there will always be people who disagree with that person's take on the subject matter. This happens to be the case with my take on the OP. I don't begrudge others for disagreeing with me. That's what discussion forums are for.

Your original OP seemed to be a response to Lion's comment in your other thread, so it seems that you were taking this thread to address his concern, which you considered a derail. I think he and others have some standing here to pursue a discussion that you did not see relevant to your other thread. Just to refresh your memory, here is your OP for the thread we are now in:

In the thread "For Christians, Define God," Lion asked,

Now, when atheist proselytisers ask me to define God my first thought is...
Shouldn't atheists be the ones defining what it is they disbelieve?

The answer, of course, is "no, that would be ridiculous"
In good faith, Atheists provide an answer to why, so that Lion and others can understand why such a question is not a valid line of inquiry.

(Hoping Moderators can move those de-rail posts to this thread)

Just to be clear, I am explaining why I think that Lion's question was valid in the original thread. Posts were moved from that thread in deference to your wishes.