Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[downbeatplumb]

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. 

---

I don't see the need for any imaginary agent in moral decisions. 

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."

---

[quote pid='948601' dateline='1432287355']
By using metaphysics you are attempting to move things out of the area of testable things. Metaphysical things can lead to interesting discussions like the nature of the mind which is currently filed under this BUT we know that what people refer to as mind exists. Even if it is only an impression. God however remains just speculation without any evidence for it or indeed any explanatory merit. It may be interesting to discuss but without any evidence it may as well be chatting about the nature of pixies.

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".

---

The theist position is accepting metaphysical things that their belief tells them to believe without evidence. You would not lower your skepticism for any other faiths evidence to the same level or you'd believe them all. All you have done is show confirmation bias. 

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.

---

I have an inner voice that tells me things, it is me, I am not imaginary this is a manifestation of my thought processes.

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?

Oh I understand why people choose to delude themselves to believe in gods. Either they just believe and have never really questioned it, they look at things with confirmation bias, belief may be part of the herd mentality or they may be mentally ill.(there are probably many other reasons that I've missed but they are never persuaded by evidence because there isn't any, in the end most believe because they want to.)

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.

Never with evidence which is what is required to have a proper debate. An argument is just that unless it is backed up.

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).

---

Are you on drugs?

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.

So you don't like your faith, interesting.


[/quote]