Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[TheRealJoeFish]

Yeah, you're going to need to do a... far better job of explaining your position before someone will agree to debate you on it.

[Iroscato]

Wait, is he saying Clive/Gary are imaginary?

[Anomalocaris]

Hello everyone;

I am interested in setting up a debate with someone regarding the need of an imaginary friend for morality.  Please let me know if anyone is interested in participating in this debate in accordance with the rules specified.  Thank you.

My pleasure.  My religious affiliation is Catholic (in which I am well studied in the theology).  I am subscribe to the philosophical school of realism.  I have numerous degrees in mathematics, engineering, business, and law.

What bring me to this sight is an interest in philosophical discourse and the subject of atheism which I wish to understand in greater detail.

---

So you admit your morality is based on the imaginary dictates of an imaginary friend.

I see,
Your imaginary friend tells you that he, whom You had imagined,  is better than the imaginary friend whom You had imagine that I imagined.   Therefore God.

And you are a realist.   Did your imaginary friend tell you that you had numerous degrees, and asserting would cause us to become impressed by your realism?

[LastPoet]

Heh, just noticed we are in the Intro area, better restrain myself, or the mods will jump in... Ooooooohhhhhh

new guy, feel free to jump into our lovely tank of sharks. Carefull, the water might be cold.

[Crossless2.0]

Anima: "My religious affiliation is Catholic (in which I am well studied in the theology). I am subscribe to the philosophical school of realism. I have numerous degrees in mathematics, engineering, business, and law."

Interesting. I didn't know Bob Jones U accepted Catholics. Ecumenicalism is a lovely thing, isn't it?

Welcome.

[Anima]

Yeah, you're going to need to do a... far better job of explaining your position before someone will agree to debate you on it.

As you wish:

I understand the atheistic position to not accept that which may not be empirically verified.  Therefore it may be said atheism does not recognize that which is metaphysical and cannot be verified empirically.  

I further understand atheism to contend that our sentiments, feelings, compulsion, instincts, and so forth are simply a result of of the chemical reactions in our brains.  Thereby rendering us as meat automatons which react to stimuli.

Being meat automatons that react to stimuli means there is no "person" and we are no different than a rock which reacts to its surroundings or bacteria which reacts to stimuli.

[Napoléon]

Isn't that the reason for an imaginary friend?  I am not aware of someone who makes an imaginary friend for the con's.

Ha Ha.  

[Crossless2.0]

Yeah, you're going to need to do a... far better job of explaining your position before someone will agree to debate you on it.

As you wish:

I understand the atheistic position to not accept that which may not be empirically verified.  Therefore it may be said atheism does not recognize that which is metaphysical and cannot be verified empirically.  

I further understand atheism to contend that our sentiments, feelings, compulsion, instincts, and so forth are simply a result of of the chemical reactions in our brains.  Thereby rendering us as meat automatons which react to stimuli.

Being meat automatons that react to stimuli means there is no "person" and we are no different than a rock which reacts to its surroundings or bacteria which reacts to stimuli.

Are you sure you didn't also get a degree in stuffing strawmen?

[Anomalocaris]

As you wish:

I understand the atheistic position to not accept that which may not be empirically verified.  Therefore it may be said atheism does not recognize that which is metaphysical and cannot be verified empirically.  

I further understand atheism to contend that our sentiments, feelings, compulsion, instincts, and so forth are simply a result of of the chemical reactions in our brains.  Thereby rendering us as meat automatons which react to stimuli.

Being meat automatons that react to stimuli means there is no "person" and we are no different than a rock which reacts to its surroundings or bacteria which reacts to stimuli.

Are you sure you didn't also get a degree in stuffing strawmen?

He definitely deserve many PhDs In stuffing his skull with straws. 

[TheRealJoeFish]

Yeah, you're going to need to do a... far better job of explaining your position before someone will agree to debate you on it.

As you wish:

I understand the atheistic position to not accept that which may not be empirically verified.  Therefore it may be said atheism does not recognize that which is metaphysical and cannot be verified empirically.  

I further understand atheism to contend that our sentiments, feelings, compulsion, instincts, and so forth are simply a result of of the chemical reactions in our brains.  Thereby rendering us as meat automatons which react to stimuli.

Being meat automatons that react to stimuli means there is no "person" and we are no different than a rock which reacts to its surroundings or bacteria which reacts to stimuli.

Many atheists do feel this way, but those beliefs aren't synonymous with atheism.  The first - regarding the empirically verifiable - is empiricism.  The second part seems to be a subset of materialism.  The final one is similarly physicalism/materialism (and a rejection of dualism), except for the "no different than a rock which reacts to its surroundings" part (to which I'd ask first: different how? and second: what rocks react to their environments?).

Many atheists hold some or all of these beliefs.  None of them is required to be an atheist.  Atheism is the lack of belief in gods (or a belief in the lack of gods).  The definition doesn't reach why one doesn't believe in gods.  For instance, I'm an atheist, I'd say, as a result of the fact that I'm a materialist.  But there are many spiritual atheists, mind-body dualist atheists, and such.