Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Mudhammam]

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.

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 stating an imaginary friend is needed for morality.  In the case of the theist that friend is external to their person and commonly referred to as god.

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

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?

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.

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.

---

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...

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.

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.