(May 22, 2015 at 5:35 am)whateverist Wrote:(May 21, 2015 at 3:57 pm)Anima Wrote: I admit that any morality is based on an imaginary friend. Including those of an atheist. The difference being the theist imaginary friend is someone else and the atheist imaginary friend is their self.
Can you clear this part up for me? Are you saying the theist imagines their friend to be someone else while the atheist is restricted from doing so?
I am stating that in order for anyone to make moral decisions they must appeal to something which the atheist would consider imaginary.
(May 21, 2015 at 4:26 pm)Anima Wrote: 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.
By now it should have been pointed out to you, but this shows how far I've gotten in the thread so far. Atheists vary a great deal in their self concept as much as anything else. While the percentage that would agree with the part I've bolded is probably high, it is far from 100%. The only thing you can count on with atheists is that we don't entertain a belief in gods. Everything else varies
This was said earlier and is paradoxical to me. I understand an atheist position based on lack of empirical evidence or lack of personal experience. But if an atheist is willing to concede the existence of metaphysical things they cannot or have not experienced the Theist may then quote one CAPTAIN Jack Sparrow, "So we agree my theory is sound in principle and now we are just haggling over price."
(May 21, 2015 at 4:50 pm)Anima Wrote: 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.
Aren't you forgetting that for the theist there must be some self-centered justification for accepting a man in the sky? Don't theists feel it is important to heed the man in the sky? Is there any reason to think this feeling is any more durable than the feeling atheists have that harming another is repulsive?
I am not forgetting. However, the theist accepts the existence of metaphysical things with out empirical evidence or personal experience. The atheist does not (see portion above about haggling over price) and thereby may not contend "they" (something other than the physical being) exists or that "they" "feel".
(May 21, 2015 at 4:52 pm)Anima Wrote: Ergo, the need for an imaginary friend for moral conduct.
But which one? The one claiming to be the god of the bible - or the one that just keeps saying to kill them all? (Please choose carefully.)
A great question. For the theist the imaginary friend includes the self, the conscience, the voices, the personification of an inanimate object (think Wilson from Cast Away), and/or god(s). For the Atheist the imaginary friend is the same with the exclusion of god(s). Which again takes me back to the theory of the theist being sound in principle and now just haggling over price.
(May 21, 2015 at 4:55 pm)Anima Wrote: Might we say that atheism like evolution is comprised of sub elements to it?
Evolution maybe said to be the theory which arise out of chaos theory, naturalism, genetics, and natural selection.
As such we may say that Atheism is comprised of several sub elements.
Atheism seems to be comprised of realativism, empiricism/materialism, and skepticism.
The element which I am focusing on is the empiricism/materialism portion.
Nothing to stop you from saying it, but you'd be wrong. Atheism isn't a monolithic whole composed of essential stances. Atheism is simply the response "no, I don't think I do" to the question "do you believe in god(s)?" I've noticed theists have a hard time wrapping their heads around this point.
Invariably they do for the same reason the Atheist has a hard time wrapping their head around the yes response. When the theist states yes the Atheist asks why. In like kind the Theist recognizes the answer is no, but similarly wonders why?
Anyone who cares to debate with theists will draw from a number of disciplines in doing so. But he isn't representing an alternative theory of everything. Try to imagine what it would be like to be a thinking person with a variety of interests where theism is not one of them. No, try harder. We don't go around thinking "since the world had no creator .." or "since there is no holy arbiter of right and wrong..". Those elements are entirely missing from our psyches - unless we were raised with a religious mindset and have only mostly thrown it off.
Ha ha. Neither does the theist. We do not walk around thinking, "Lord; lordy; lord; lord! The lord! Lord knows, lord is, lord is why. Oh holy lord!!! In our common day today it does not cross our minds either (even in most of our moral decisions). God may never sever as the foundation of an argument (that would make it tautological), but god(s) may be the conclusion. Most educated theist will argue with drawing from various sources including philosohpy (primarily plato and aristotle), theology (mainly Thomas Acquinas and Saint Augustine), literature, science, and so forth.
The belief system which so structures your worldview is entirely unnecessary. It is possible of course. It can even be laudable or beautiful, at least to some. But it is entirely unnecessary. If you can't see that these alternative world-views have their own pros and beauty that is only a mark of your own ignorance or bias. If only the pious could avoid becoming pompous. True faith requires humility.
Pot meet kettle? I would contradict the statement that a belief system which structures your world view is unnecessary (as would plato, aristotle, kant, hume, locke, and nearly every other philosopher). Suffice to say that structure is what gives value to any given thing. If you do not believe me I have a bag of powder that used to be a top of the line TV worth $8k. Never been used. Let go of your belief system leading to world view of structure and buy the bag of powder for $4k from me (cause I like you). Works like a charm (some assembly required).
(May 21, 2015 at 4:59 pm)Anima Wrote: Simple answer - Pleasure. (Atheist = it does not please "me" to do those things. Theist = It does not please "me" or "Him")
Do you deny that it pleases you to please Him? Does it give you more pleasure to imagine you choose your actions to please Him for your sake or for His?
Indeed I may deny that it pleases me to please him. A religion that consists of only things you like is as useful as a diet consisting of all the foods you like. Just like you have to sacrifice what pleases you to please those around you, so to does pleasing Him not always please me.
I have added the answer in underlined italics above.
