Ditto okinrus. Laws can only tell you what you can do wrong, they can't tell you what you have to do to be right.
I would substitute 'emptiness' for 'nonexistence' -- empty of an impermenant and separate self. The atheist would be saying that he is nothing more than the sum of all his parts, which does not necessarily imply that he does not exist.
Nonexistence is a colder, starker reality that is truly equivalent with empty. A buddhist monk can get away with "to be empty is to be full" but not nonexistence. Thus, the meaning behind "you not existing" is that <em>you</em> as a person do not exist. But a atheist, really a materialist, must believe that <em>you</em> is made up of a number of parts having no will, the sum of which having a predetermined path. But the mystery of will is that billions of living cells nonetheless know what concept of one, the individual is.
Ahh yes, what is consciousness or will? Do cells, that have no will on their own, create will? Maybe. We're still finding that out. But cells do indeed play a part. Take away these cells, like a lobotomy, and will slips away too. An athiest is not cold or empty. On the contrary, his mind is full of curiousity and awe as he opens it to other possibilities of existence of himself and the universe. Just because he is not satisfied with religion, which is just basically words, it doesn't mean that he will never accept a reason for being. An athiest is like a scientist. And scientists can be a happy bunch on their quest for quantitative truth.
