You're open to concepts outside our perception but you will reject them if there is no perceivable evidence to support them.
what are you even saying? what are these "concepts outside our perception" you keep referring to? i accept the most plausible explanation. i reject the belief in things that lack a plausible existence.
it sounds like you are saying, "well...its possible there is some stuff out there that has zero evidence of existence because it completely operates outside of our perception, but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist." thats really just a god of the gaps argument, which is really just a lazy cop out.
You want to find answers but have all ready taken a stance on the subject by defining yourelf as an atheist.
did you even read my last post? you missed my whole point. atheism isnt really "taking a stance". the only "stance" i am taking is on the side of rational thinking. im not going to blindly accept ANYTHING, that includes believing in some deity, or anything else. again, you have ascribed your own definition of what it is to be an atheist, and now you are trying to define me by your definition.
You sound confused, good luck my g
sure, i'm confused. we're all confused, then. no matter what we think. difference is i accept i am confused. i accept man doesnt know everything. and i search for the answers. while others will just sit there and say, "must be god" or "must be a concept outside of our perception" which sounds ridiculous.