Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[FatAndFaithless]

Yeah, you're going to need to do a... far better job of explaining your position before someone will agree to debate you on it.

As you wish:

I understand the atheistic position to not accept that which may not be empirically verified.  Therefore it may be said atheism does not recognize that which is metaphysical and cannot be verified empirically.  

I further understand atheism to contend that our sentiments, feelings, compulsion, instincts, and so forth are simply a result of of the chemical reactions in our brains.  Thereby rendering us as meat automatons which react to stimuli.

Being meat automatons that react to stimuli means there is no "person" and we are no different than a rock which reacts to its surroundings or bacteria which reacts to stimuli.

Surprised someone with a supposedly deep understanding of theology got atheism so wrong.

Atheism is literally one response to one question.

Do you believe in a god or gods? No. <----------That's all atheism is.

Any attendant ideas about metaphysics or empricism or rationality or anything else, are entirely separate from atheism and should be discussed on their own merits.

[Longhorn]

Uhhh...

Hi.

O_o

[TheRealJoeFish]

I'm still not sure what you're trying to debate; if I had to guess, it seems like you're trying to argue that moral relativism is illusory or inconsistent.

You should probably take a look at this thread.  As a general rule, if you have a question, theological or otherwise, feel free to ask it, but know that it's probably been discussed on this board in great detail already.

[Anima]

As you wish:

I understand the atheistic position to not accept that which may not be empirically verified.  Therefore it may be said atheism does not recognize that which is metaphysical and cannot be verified empirically.  

I further understand atheism to contend that our sentiments, feelings, compulsion, instincts, and so forth are simply a result of of the chemical reactions in our brains.  Thereby rendering us as meat automatons which react to stimuli.

Being meat automatons that react to stimuli means there is no "person" and we are no different than a rock which reacts to its surroundings or bacteria which reacts to stimuli.

Many atheists do feel this way, but those beliefs aren't synonymous with atheism.  The first - regarding the empirically verifiable - is empiricism.  The second part seems to be a subset of materialism.  The final one is similarly physicalism/materialism (and a rejection of dualism), except for the "no different than a rock which reacts to its surroundings" part (to which I'd ask first: different how? and second: what rocks react to their environments?).

Many atheists hold some or all of these beliefs.  None of them is required to be an atheist.  Atheism is the lack of belief in gods (or a belief in the lack of gods).  The definition doesn't reach why one doesn't believe in gods.  For instance, I'm an atheist, I'd say, as a result of the fact that I'm a materialist.  But there are many spiritual atheists, mind-body dualist atheists, and such.

Correct.  The argument is predicated on empiricism and physicalism(sub branches of idealism).

Regarding your question of the rock I would respond what rock does not react to its surroundings?  The rock weathers in response to the weather.  The rock falls in response to gravity.  The rock stops rolling in response to friction. And so forth.

Second.  My argument was not to deal with atheism.  As stated I wanted to talk about imaginary friends.  Though I must state I would find a mind body dualist atheist rather paradoxical.  As their lack of theistic belief logically stems from the lack of empirical or explicit evidence.  For them to willingly accept circumstantial or implicit evidence (which science for the most part does.  Think proof of a black hole) then I would be forced to defer to the statements of one Immanuel Kant, "There is no argument to prove the existence of god nor is there one to disprove the existence of god.  However, there is not more implied (circumstantial) existence than that of a god."

---

Uhhh...

Hi.

O_o

Hello.

[Lemonvariable72]

Let me be the first to say I highly doubt you have a degree in philosophy, as you are conflating atheism with methodological naturalism. Seems a rather elementary mistake for someone so educated. One does not necessarily follow the other. I can be a atheist and not a methodological naturalist and vice versa. I however personally do not see the need for a god in a discussion of morality as epicureanism is a far more flexible and effective system.

[Anima]

Let me be the first to say I highly doubt you have a degree in philosophy, as you are conflating atheism with methodological naturalism. Seems a rather elementary mistake for someone so educated. One does not necessarily follow the other. I can be a atheist and not a methodological naturalist and vice versa. I however personally do not see the need for a god in a discussion of morality as epicureanism is a far more flexible and effective system.

You would be correct sir.  I did not state I had a degree in philosophy.

Nor have I state that god is need for morality.  Rather I am stating an imaginary friend is needed for morality.  In the case of the theist that friend is external to their person and commonly referred to as god.  In the case of an atheist that imaginary person is the self and is commonly referred to in terms of the sentiment of the self or the conscience.

Otherwise the method of ethical conduct to be adopted is utilitarian and will lead to immoral situations.  For example skinning 10 kids alive because it makes 100 people happier than it make the 10 kids miserable.  While supported by utility we would argue this response is not correct.  

Our argument to the incorrectness of this response will be predicated on something other than utility.  For the theist it will be the imaginary guy in the sky.  For the atheist it will be that they do not "feel" it is right.  Which leads me to my initial meat automaton statement how there is no "person" to feel.  Thus the feeling is imaginary or fictitious.

[FatAndFaithless]

Then kindly stop conflating atheism with anything but...y'know, atheism.

[Cyberman]

That's easy - green.

Twit - the answer is clearly Bomb Iran.

Bugger. I forgot to carry the 1.

[Anima]

Ergo, the need for an imaginary friend for moral conduct.

[Iroscato]

Ergo, the need for an imaginary friend for moral conduct.

Simple question - what stops YOU from doing immoral things?