when i say atheism (or capitalism, or width, or harmony) is conceptual and not personal, i mean that atheism has no desires, like you or i or Darth Vader or Richard Simmons - persons - have desires and make decisions about what we should eat or which planet we should vaporize. Unless you interviewed Atheism at some point and i missed it. does that make more sense?

then say what you mean, not my fault you can't express yourself in your original tongue.

you mean to say it is not a person.

And i'm not telling you not to do anything

ORLY?

take it not upon yourself to speak for every non-believer (or the concept of atheism)

then you change your argument to:

i'm merely advising you not to go around speaking on behalf of the concept of atheism, or any concept for that matter ...

oh so now you're advising other people that they shouldn't speak on behalf of concepts and other people ?

while you're looking up 'atheism' in the dictionary, look up 'hypocrite' too.

...because one's stance on marriage equality or abortion can be irrelevant to their atheism or many other concepts that they consider.

they can, and they can not. what's your point ?

like i said, you must have a different definition of the words you are suing, because atheism is the personal choice, or 'concept' as you like to call it, of disbelieving gods and religions based on the current lack of empirical evidence.

that's why the word is "A-Theism" got it ?

there's no two ways about it, regardless of if you want to call atheism a 'concept', a 'choice' or a 'banana'.

the definition remains the same, and making false associations with other words does not change anything about the fact that atheism is very much concerns with gods and religions. which are the basis of the gay oppression topic at hand.

if you have anything solid to say about why atheism isn't concerned with gods and religions then i'm all ears, otherwise i'm going to stop here because you are repeating yourself with absurdities.