No. I'm not arguing that the nature of thought is dependent on our perception of it. I'm arguing that there are certain logical consequenses that necessarily flow from an atheistic premise, such as, if atheism were true then thoughts are nothing but matter in motion. If that were the case then you just have atheist chemical reactions of the brain and I have theistic chemical reactions of the brain. You can give no reason why one chemical reaction is better than another chemical reaction. To assign moral or rational values to your thoughts you have to claim for your reasoning a validity that is not credible if your thought is nothing but a product of your brain, and your brain a by-product of irrational physical processes. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true, but rather because of a series of chemical reactions. Thus, your atheism cannot account for rationality and morality.
Cordially,
Sure I can, and it's the same reason your toaster is an appliance, not furniture, the same reason a banana is a fruit, and not a vegetable, the same reason a Ford Mustang is a car and not a bus.
This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true, but rather because of a series of chemical reactions.
Nonsense. The only way that even remotely makes sense is if your next sentence is to claim that our perceptions tell us nothing about actual reality. That sort of dorm-room solipsism may be fun to contemplate, but you'll have a devil of a time proving it.