Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Anima]

If this is a subject you wish to pursue, you should start a thread in a more appropriate place: Atheism, Religion, or Philosophy.  This is the introductions place, and the rules governing this part of the forum prevent me from fully expressing how utterly moronic your so-called line of reasoning is. 

Okay first off. What about having an imaginary friend prevents moral utilitarianism? Also your example is wrong, under moral utilitarianism that is wrong because of the effect the society as a whole, the greatest number of people, as you would have to allow so that many can be skinned including people that enjoy it, so therefore since no one wants to be skinned it creates misery.

Having an imaginary friends allows for appeal to that friend as a trusted source of right and wrong that may contradict the argumentum ad numerum (argument to numbers) which utilitarianism relies.

Using the skinning example.  So long as the total pleasure derived (pleasure per person)(number of persons) exceeds the suffering derived (suffering per person)(number of persons) the act may be termed pleasure/good and should be done.

It then follows that my "person" (which is fictitious) does not find this answer pleasing even though this answer is pleasing to the most people.  As such we now pit aurgument ad numerum against argumentum ad autocratic (argument to authortiy) where the authority (in the atheist case) is the fictitious "person".

Naturally when what we BELIEVE is pitted against what we do not we tend to side with our own belief.  Ergo, we will choose to follow our own authority rather than utility.