(May 22, 2015 at 1:03 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:(May 22, 2015 at 12:28 pm)Anima Wrote: [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.
I would point you Descartes (one of the most prominent of skeptics). He would agree with you regarding a metaphysical things existing even if it is only an impression. That is the same argument he makes for God existing.
However, I would like to hold Atheist to a higher standard than accepting the existence of something as existing if it is only an impression. Were I not to do so than I would be forced to argue (according to Euclid) that the imaginary voices in my head are as real as the imaginary voice from God in my head, which is as real as the voice from any other person or being in my head because I have an impression of them (at minimum) occurring in my head.
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.
I stated an imaginary friend. I did not specify who that friend was though I may specify that a person may decided to designate that friend under a specific moniker. He calls his god, He calls his Jimminy of Cricket fame, and He calls it his inner voice.
I have an inner voice that tells me things, it is me, I am not imaginary this is a manifestation of my thought processes.
Umm? To claim you have an inner voice telling you things and that voice is you, under Atheistic thought as I understand it, would be an unfounded assertion. Otherwise I may say, "I have an inner voice that tells me things and it is god. He is not imaginary, this is a manifestation of his being in conjunction with my own." Since he exists (at least in my mind) than he exists? I maybe a theist, but I am a realistic one and I do not believe that argument for an instant.
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.)
As I understand the common reason (though I confess there to be other reasons) for abandoning the existence of metaphysical things (including god) is to facilitate the doing of what we want as there is no longer a thing that we "should" (see Neitzche's ubermensch).
However, I should once again point out that your statement regarding evidence (which once again I take to mean explicit empirical evidence) excludes the existence of your own person (and any inner voice therein) as well as science as an entire field of knowledge (as science is deduction verified by induction. That is to say a metaphysical idea verified by circumstantial empirical support of a metaphysical relationship, but not of cause and effect).
Never with evidence which is what is required to have a proper debate. An argument is just that unless it is backed up.
Are you on drugs?
Nope!
So you don't like your faith, interesting.
I like it as much as I like learning and exercise to develop and maintain my mind and body. I am not in it for the excitement (you want that go watch a movie) or for the warm fuzzy feelings (you can get from oprah or you local house of exotic artistic expression of body glitter, bikinis, and pole acrobatics.)
[/quote]
