Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Anima]

Nestor huh? Would that be the Nestor of Homeric fame?

There is an "atheistic position" (speaking for myself) and it involves disbelief in your piety towards imaginary beings. It doesn't negate metaphysical possibilities. It merely views them with a mind open to admitting its fallibility.

As to your implied definitions, I find your notions of chemical reactions, meat automatons, and impersonality borderline impious ;-)

I am not say my imaginary friend is better I am simply saying that for us to make moral decisions we will each appeal to that which lack sufficient direct explicit empirical evidence to meet the general Atheistic requirement for existing.

Imaginary friends are by definition of "imaginary" not external... though you are absolutely capable of pretending they are.

I confess "imaginary" to be a misnomer. I do not contend ones person or God is imaginary in fact. But my threshold of proof is not direct explicit empirical evidence. As stipulate many times in this thread I am satisfied with the same level of proof which follows the scientific method (that is circumstantial implicit empirical evidence). When one speaks to the congregation (or the critic) they would be wise to tailor their more controversial statements in a manner they already accept

In the case of an atheist that imaginary person is the self and is commonly referred to in terms of the sentiment of the self or the conscience.

It's a remarkably puzzling phenomenon, isn't it?

Puzzling? No. Many theists do the same thing. Take the logic to the point you like and stop. Theists often do this when they attempt to argue intelligent design (which is predicated on the same logic as the homunculus argument leading to infinite regression). Atheist, so far, appear to do it in regards to "proof" (accepting as proven their own person and scientific fact, while subjecting what they do not wish to accept to a level of proof that even their own person and scientific facts could not satisfy.) No shocker there...

Otherwise the method of ethical conduct to be adopted is utilitarian and will lead to immoral situations.  For example skinning 10 kids alive because it makes 100 people happier than it make the 10 kids miserable.  While supported by utility we would argue this response is not correct.  

Agreed. That's a very unsophisticated utilitarianism you've conjured up.

I did not want to lose the forest for the trees.

Our argument to the incorrectness of this response will be predicated on something other than utility.  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.

I would rather imagine myself as one of those 10 kids.

You may imagine yourself as one of those kids. However, that would take you down the untenable path of subjective morality which is self contradicting as the other 9 kids and 100 people would opt to skin you according to their subjective morality.

I understand.  Which is why, by mean of philosophy, I have stated that adopting the position of disbelief without empirical evidence negates the existence of one's own "person".

So you've rejected the somewhat arbitrarily defined boundaries that your brain has recognized as advantageous distinctions between your biological composition and your environment... thus...

I am not sure if this statement was supposed to support any argument in your favor or not. I take it to mean that you are stating the brain has inherent bias in it that it considers advantageous, and that we should stick with those biases . This would be new to the argument, but short lived, as it leads to the argument that anything I have an impression of, whether imaginary or real, is a defined boundary my brain recognizes as advantageous and should be left alone. It sounds like an argument to remain ignorant. Did you intend it to mean something different?

Should any of us then hold that we will not engage in action based on utility, but rather upon the belief of our "person" we are forced two accept two things.   

1) We recognize the existence of metaphysical things without empirical evidence; in which case atheism is unfounded. 

No.

Oh!!! I love this game... Yes.

2) We accept that our moral conduct overrides our ethical conduct by means of an appeal to a metaphysical thing where:
A) Atheists hold the metaphysical thing as their person
B) Theists hold the metaphysical thing as something beyond their person.
]Hence, our morality (Atheist and Theist) requires an appeal to a metaphysical (fictitious/imaginary) thing.

No. Atheism allows you to discover or refine the metaphysical thing, theism requires you to accept something that doesn't make much sense but can be presented on simplistic but certainly mythological terms that are made to appear possible while accomplishing nothing and distracting from the issue.

It would seem that atheism does not allow you to discover anything due to requiring a level of "proof" that no knowledge seems to satisfy (for further details on that continue enjoying this thread of posts). I would state that you are oversimplifying theism, but then you oversimplified atheism in the beginning of your comments so...Hooray for consistency