Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[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.