If one is an atheist, then one must logically have a case against the existence of God. It would not do merely to show that the arguments put forth FOR the existence of God are flawed. That would work for an agnostic but not an atheist. An atheist, by definition, would, I think, have to have some reason for not believing in God in addition to flaws he has noticed in arguments for the existence of God.
This is simply a category mistake.
A (without) theism (belief in God)
You're confusing atheist with antitheist.
As someone who (I'm assuming) doesn't believe in undetectable massless eternal swarms of pixies, do you really have a reason not to believe in such lovable creatures?
If these pixies are the creators of the universe, then they are just another name for God. Otherwise, they are a different kind of entity altogether and cannot be compared to the concept of God. They are extraneous.
They didn't create the universe. Whether or not they have a particular use is independent of their existence. Besides, how do you know they aren't the only reason God doesn't poof out of existence? Pixies sustain God; God sustains universe. If you believe otherwise, what reason do you have to do so? Do you have some sort of deductively valid proof that God can remain extant without my pixies?
This message has been edited by Chronos, 04-07-2006 12:45 PM