Atheist?
If you are declaring yourself an atheist and trying to convince a theist, you have already lost the argument. I read an article the other day, but I can’t seem to locate it. In any case, this is his argument, and I tend to agree:
Whilst the term does seem to make sense: a-theism = against-theism, it doesn’t make sense to couch your argument against their term. We don’t call people who do not believe in UFOs “aUFOs,” and we don’t call people who don’t believe in astrology a-astrologists—I guess I should have picked a word that didn’t begin with “a.” We call them rational, logical. Therefore, the correct characterisation of this argument is not theist versus atheist but irrational versus rational.
LVX
Thought that this being somewhat of a counter to your argument would at least be appreciated…
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1017/p09s06-coop.html
As you know, this is an age-old argument, but I appreciate your feedback. Of course, I could take a completely skeptical epistemological position on this and argue (or agree) that no one can know anything. Of course, whilst this does not progress my position, it also does not allow a theist to gain a foothold either.
But even if reason may not be the proper argument, it does not follow that falling into the a-theist trap is the right way to go. If you are trying to win a negative argument like this, you are in some manner conceding the positive.
So, as I said originally, I don’t need to take an a-unicorn position to argue against unicorns. Kant’s position says, too, that I cannot know that there are no unicorns based on the experience of never having seen one. I don’t buy it.
Of course, Kant is not far from my position as a Buddhist. Appearance is an illusion—samsara. This extends even to God and gods.
LVX
I simply meant to imply that the category of “rational vs. irrational” is equally inaccurate since logic too can point to the existence of God per Kantian metaphysics…