Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Mudhammam]

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

Yessir. 

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.

Nah, not really. We may have to appeal to abstract notions of value that are attributable merely to our feelings about experience rather than some objective "good" that exists "out there" in which everyone who perceives the same data will form a similar consensus, though the commonality of our language and experiences can allow us to develop a framework for reaching agreement. The difference between myself and someone who appeals to divine powers is, as I see it, one in which I find definition and demonstration sufficient for establishing a moral standpoint, and deity at best to be redundant, at worst superfluous.

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

If by lowering your "threshold of proof" you simply mean that human beings employ concepts derived from both the intellect and the senses, affirming that validity is not located in the external world, then I would contend that "personhood" is a product of language that is useful in describing veritable phenomena, and not imaginary in the same sense that "Godhead" is.   

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...

We don't have to stop at "homunculus." I'm more than happy to acknowledge that as a theoretical matter the distinct identity conceived as "I" in thought doesn't really exist in the sense that it appears in any given moment. It's more of a practical convention, and one that works at the level of consciousness which our brains evolved to process the environment and to operate as a most critical function within certain spatially separated organisms.

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.

Untenable? I would rather think the reality that we in fact find ourselves in is quite tenable, even necessary as a consequence of perceiving subjects who interact with one another in a world consisting of both objective and subjective components.

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?

I wasn't making a statement as to whether or not we should stick to those biases. I was just recognizing that we understand them to exist and that much inquiry remains to be taken further.

Oh!!!  I love this game... Yes.

By all means, please feel free to define my options as you see fit! Just don't expect to always find your opponent in the box you've constructed for your convenience!  

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

Do you mean that if I had read past the first ten pages I would have found an argument of yours that was more compelling?