> perhaps you dont understand what a concept is, an idea.  thanks so much, you have no idea. also please think about the word concieve, it has the same root. concept is the obkect, conceive is the act that creates the concept. > it requires no equivalent existence in the objective world as it exists due to the workings of your cognitive abilities (you read the text or you see an image). //i did not say it did, you might have misunderstood me.// so then it is an imagination, a fantasy, not in the real world (objective reality). by definition, that is subjective not objective. but it is "real" to you because you have actively conceived it, it exists, if only in your mind. > even if god does not exist in objective reality, we can create a concept, an idea of him to talk about the idea whether that idea exists in reality or not. correct.  by that act, you are conceiving a concept of the thing, which thus far exists only in your mind (and others who may be in discussion with you), god or an unicorn or a flibbertigibbet. but it is "real" to you because you have actively conceived it, it exists, if only in your mind. > thus it is logical you can create a new concept, atheist in this example, that negates the former concept [god] correct. that is precisely my point. in order to negate a concept [atheist, minus 2], which concept was conceived chronologically second, you must first conceive the concept that is being negated [god, the number 2]. > principle a negation does not exist in reality, it is not an independent thing, it exists only as a concept (abstraction) and it is dependent on the thing it is negating.  > separate point for sanity reasons, the thing that is being negated has to exist in reality, otherwise you have two concepts neither of hich exist in reality, and discussing them is meaningless; insanity; mental masturbation. 1/2
Australia