Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Anima]

Postulating realism does resolve the issue.  Under realism the object exists independent of the subject.  As such it may be said that the object effects the subject rather than the subject effects the object.  Thus we may now say that any given perspective of the object is indeed a perspective of that self same object, since the object is independent of the subjects.  Thereby any given perspective is a subjective observation of the independent object.  Now we may make summation of those perpectives to account for every possible observable perspective to gain a pure objective observation of the object.  We may only do so because the object is not changed by the observes.

Let's take an ordinary pencil, dipped partly into a bowl of water.  From the side, it looks like the pencil is bent.  Viewed from overhead, it appears straight.  Viewed from directly behind it, it appears to be little more than a dot of eraser.  All three perspectives yield perceptions of an objective fact, yet there is no way to create an objective view that is merely a summation of the independent views.  That all three are perceiving the same object does not remove the obstacle of the independence of each perception.  Postulating realism simply asserts that there is a fact of the matter as to which is the 'real' object being perceived; it does nothing to reconcile the divergent subjectivities.

Realism resolves the problem because the object is not longer in flux, but is now made fixed. Since the object is now fixed the variation is subjective perspective of that object now lies solely with the observer in terms of mean of perception or orientation of perception. Under the pencil example you give the first is a means variation (medium of air vs medium of water), the next two are orientation variations (from above vs behind). By extension it may then be said if observation may be made in accordance with every medium from every orientation and that information could be coalesced (or summed up) the information would be objective.

Under idealism the object is defined in terms of the subject. Given the uniqueness of the subject it may not be said that the object observed is the same object by different medium or orientation because the object is defined in terms of the subject and not fixed. Since there is no fixed point to approach objectivity or to establish correlation between one observer or another the data may not be accumulated or summed up. The only way to resolve this problem is to say the observers are not unique. Thereby establishing both a fixed observer and a fixed object. In which case there can be no accounting for variation in medium or orientation.

Realism: Observers (A and B) each observe the same object (X).

A ==> X <== B

Such that X= Xa + Xb + Xn

Idealism: Observer (A and B) each observe their own object (X and Y)

A ==> X ; B ==> Y

Such that X = Xa and Y = Yb

---

There is nothing to stop an atheist having an imaginary friend, nor stating/believing their morality comes from that friend.

On this we can definitely agree. But, I would worry about the general accusation exhibited that it is foolish to believe in something without proof. That is the going criticism as I understand it.

I have read several times how theist have a bias because they choose to believe in one particular deity or deities rather than all the others. In the same manner would it be proper to say the atheist is bias because they are willing to believe in one imaginary friend and not all imaginary friends?

---

As such, under Atheism, any reference to the self, sentience, the conscience, or your person either directly or indirectly would be assertions that are not based on objective observations and thereby largely imaginary .

(emphasis mine)

There is no "under Atheism."  Atheism is not:  a philosophy, a religion, a set of principles, a political group, a social group, a movement, or anything else remotely organized.  An a atheist is quite simply a person who lacks a belief in a god or gods.  Atheist may be superstitious.  They may believe in all sorts of nonsense including:  UFO's, out of body experiences, life after death, ghosts, ESP, time travel, etc.  Buddhists are atheist and they believe in reincarnation.

Interestingly, the term atheist was first coined by the Romans to describe Christians and Jews, because they did not believe in gods, just a single god. You, as a Catholic, are atheistic about Zeus, Thor, Ra, Allah, and a whole plethora of other gods.  But I would not consider you monotheistic as you probably believe in angels, the devil, and perhaps supernaturally powerful saints, all of whom I would consider to be gods, just not a single all powerful god.

When you say "under atheism" you are really describing philosophies that lead to atheism such as skepticism.  But a person who does not believe in a god need not be a skeptic or a sophist, or anything else.

As previously stated. When asked why the belief is lacking it is assumed their answer is predicated on more than just because. So far the common reason I have read is lack of proof or personal experience. To which proof is taken to mean explicit empirical proof or direct personal experience.

Otherwise, as has been expressed a person may be Atheist and adopt any other number of metaphysical things as existing without explicit empirical proof, but not god or gods. It is stated when one of theistic tendency does not believe in all gods that they are being bias or bigoted for not accepting all metaphysical things without explicit empirical proof after accepting some. So may the same be said of an atheist that accepts some metaphysical things but not all?

---

As such, under Atheism, any reference to the self, sentience, the conscience, or your person either directly or indirectly would be assertions that are not based on objective observations and thereby largely imaginary .

Funny how the person that gets kicked in the nuts is the one that writhes in pain and not someone walking two blocks away. Care to guess which one recalls being kicked in the nuts the next day?

The Matrix 'what ifs' are no more sophisticated than the what if d-o-g really spelled cat nonsense in Revenge of the Nerds II. It's not philosophy, it's inanity parading as profundity. Imagining some super-reality in order to deny the reality of our experience is fiction. Our experience is reality. It's probably clear by now that I'm fond of Hume's bundled experience definition of self. Until we discover evidence of some super-reality that properly categorizes our universe as illusion, our universe and the means we have of engaging it is reality and objective.

Benny will hate to hear this, but if we're to believe The Matrix, it proves monism. The world in which we would then live would be artificial, but that reality being contingent on manipulation of sensory input to the brain makes the ruse possible.

Funny indeed how a dead body shocked writhes in like manner to a living one. Is the person in the dead body in pain? Or is the meat automaton making proper response to the given stimuli? All Hume's bundled theory the body may be said to consists of its ontological properties (weight, color, smell, etcetera). I doubt that any of us would assign sentience or personality as an ontological property of meat.