Complete and utter crap. Just because you can imagine something, doesn't mean it can exist in reality. Nor does it mean your imagination was true. This thread isn't about "defining a god," its about paying attention to LG's imagination. I'm starting to see it straight now. I've accused you many times of using cowardly tactics and being intellectually dishonest, but, until now, I've not known the reason. You're just an attention seeker. The difference is, "conceptualizing" fairies doesn't make them present or real. We can all "conceptualize" a fairy, share our conceptions and arrive at a consensus of what the ideal fairy should be. We can even draw pictures and dress up like fairies from our "conceptualizations." But, in the end, the fairies are still among our imaginations. People have been doing the same things with gods for as long as there've been people. Not a single god has shown itself. Their just as imaginative as the fairies. Which brings us back to the difference: most people don't try to suggest fairies are real, and when they do, few object to the many who accuse them of being crazy. Why shouldn't theists be treated any differently? And, regardless of your opinions, the OP is utter bullshit and is now diverging. We're past your silly "requirements" and now we're offering our own. Get over it. You've demonstrated that your imagination is more active than mine, I concede. Now show us the evidence of your fairy. I mean god. More cowardly BS/intellectual dishonesty. An atheist has at least the understanding of a god that a theist has. Indeed, the atheist is more qualified to "conceive" of gods and work with definitions since most theists reject out-of-hand all versions of "god" that don't fit their own delusions. The atheist is far more qualified, in general, to discuss such things. Indeed, if anyone is unqualified, it is the credulous and deceivers such as yourself. Leave matters of belief and religion to the social scientists (anthropologists, psychologists, etc). The theists are obviously too wrapped up in their delusions to see the issue from objective position. The atheistic social scientists, however, are not clouded by such religiocentric views and seek only to find out what people believe. Moreover, the atheist, in most cases, need only remember when he/she was a theist. After all, many atheists are so because of their enlightenment through education, having been indoctrinated as children as theists. So you accept the validity of those that would consider themselves to be "fairyologists?" What are *your* qualifications, LG? Rather than address questions of evidence, it's much easier for the proponent of theistic superstition to shift the burden of proof or hide it altogether, eh? If you don't like being pinned down, just say, "oh, your not qualified to question me and mine, so bugger off." This, my friend, is the coward's way. No. Your intellectual dishonesty in this thread is 'straight out silliness.' The radiation is potentially detectable by anyone. I need only put the right instrument or meter in front of them; or show them the predictable results of longterm exposure; or any number of other methods. The fairy of your imagination has no such instrument, meter, or predictable results that exist to measure it -outside of your imagination. So you can "conceptualize" all you want, the only way to demonstrate the existence is through belief. Complete and utter bullshit. This is the main example of LG's intellectual dishonesty. Rather than hold a reasoned discussion with reality-based information, he retreats to the comfort of "ah, you're just not qualified to know." That he's eager to have discussions with those that are willing to assist in masturbating his ego, yet unwilling to address criticisms that are legitimate is evidence of this intellectual dishonesty. Before you can say that there are "transcendental" qualities that elude those without "special qualifications," you must first demonstrate that these "transcendental" qualities exist. The burden of proof is on you. And you most certainly *did* use the word believer. Only you spell it differently than I do. For, isn't "special or at least specific qualifications" just another way to say "believer?" if you want to label the high school drop out thing as a straw man or an eg. of intellectual dishonesty, you have to establish what is unique about the person who has ascertained knowledge by applying processes relevant to spiritual life that does not tally with a molecular physicist who has ascertained knowledge by applying processes relevant to molecular physics. Not at all. It *is* a straw man and it *is* intellectual dishonesty. You're mixing reality with fantasy and calling them the same. For those that don't know of the electron or radiation, it can potentially be shown or explained to them. There are no "special qualifications" beyond simply being of normal human intelligence. Your straw man was thoroughly debunked by one or more other members (i.e. Cris) in other threads. Yet you still bring it up as though it is a legitimate argument for your theistic delusions. The only hope another theist has of "observing" your "conception" is by believing in your imagination. This is called delusion.