The problem is I do enjoy discussions like this, so that's why I force myself into a leave of absence for a little while when assignment time comes up! Though that being said, these were my last assignments, so it's not too bad. All that's left now is revision for an exam on the 7th of June, so there may be the odd day or two of disappearing, but no week long sabbaticals!

I think for some religious people it is an imaginative way of looking at existence, but humans are complicated creatures so it's hard to make that generalisation for all of them. For some it's simply conformity, for some it's simply ego, for some it's what they're taught, and so on. But I find the same for many atheists since it's become a commercially viable stance. Atheism has become something that people identify with, rather than are simply identified by. Though few would ever admit that of course! Totally agree with you about puritanical thought in any form. It usually turns out tyrannical, and like you say, is often enforced using spilled blood.

I consider myself atheist, rather than agnostic. But I can understand the agnostic position and think it's an honest one. Like you, I try to be as peaceful and tolerant as possible. I'm not so much a utilitarian as I am a combination of various view points, though part of my ethical overview involves preference-satisfaction utilitarianism, which I feel is a slightly more refined and usable version of utilitarianism. I think ethics is far more complicated than simply 'this view' or 'that view'. Plus, I don't like associating with simply 'a label'. Identifying as a 'label' rather than with assimilating certain viewpoints can lead to some pretty bad ideological like thinking, and can cause people to become dogmatic without even realising it. And I try to avoid dogmatic thought as much as possible, like puritanical thought, it usually leads down a dark and dangerous path.

I kind of enjoy Singer's work to be honest, though often find myself disagreeing with many of his stances. But that's always been one of the beauties of philosophy, you can accept that some thought is good and some thought is bad. It all boils down to how compelling the arguments are, and idol worship of personalities is usually frowned upon, and quite rightly so!

I think you raise an excellent point about the monotheistic god, but I find that to be the case for pretty much all definition of gods. I'm left pretty unconvinced by most definitions, though have to admit that I do find certain forms of pantheism to be interesting. Not entirely convincing, but interesting none the less. I suppose you could call it one of the more imaginative ones that you mentioned!

The criticism of utilitarianism that you raise is a good one, and one I've often heard. Don't get me wrong, I actually think there are times when it may be acceptable to allow a child to die, but the ones you raise aren't amongst them. Have you also heard the 'punishment of a criminal' criticism? If utilitarianism is to be accepted, then it also follows that punishing an innocent person to appease a blood thirsty crowd also becomes acceptable. That it is unjust takes a back seat to appeasing the crowd, because the net worth of pleasure that would come from the appeasement of the crowd. This is one of the reasons why I think one ethical system can never cover the complexities of ethics, and can only lead to dogmatic thought.

Mackie and Moore are both excellent philosophers! Though admittedly I haven't read quite as much of them as I'd have liked to. Though now that I have much more free time I plan on catching up on a lot of stuff!

A friend of mine has joined Steemit recently, and it's someone else I really enjoy discussing philosophy with. He writes for another blog I also contribute to, and was my first choice as co-contributor for a podcast I recently started. I think you'd enjoy discussion with him as well if you feel like checking him out. He goes by @blauweranger on Steemit if you do feel like having a look!