Why Should Murder Be Wrong?

[Loismustdie 0]

To all of the atheists- if we have no soul, and are nothing but electrical pulses inside a shell of some sort with a life span determined by time and chance but nothing else, and once it's over it's over, then why is it immoral to kill? Those being the circumstances what have I done really? I ended a life- but what did that life mean exactly, what was it's worth if there is nothing else?

[Filesharer 0]

To all of the atheists- if we have no soul, and are nothing but electrical pulses inside a shell of some sort with a life span determined by time and chance but nothing else, and once it's over it's over, then why is it immoral to kill? Those being the circumstances what have I done really? I ended a life- but what did that life mean exactly, what was it's worth if there is nothing else?

There's no such thing as right and wrong everybody knows this. Which is why homosexuality isn't wrong

[screech 0]

To all of the atheists- if we have no soul, and are nothing but electrical pulses inside a shell of some sort with a life span determined by time and chance but nothing else, and once it's over it's over, then why is it immoral to kill? Those being the circumstances what have I done really? I ended a life- but what did that life mean exactly, what was it's worth if there is nothing else?

I have never said we have no "soul". I don't know. I certainly feel moral obligations, but that isn't a proof that god exists. You don't have to be religious to have a strong sense of morals.If there is no after life, doesn't that mean that a life is extremely valuable? If this is it, ending someones time prematurely is denying them one of the most precious things concious beings are given - that is tools that enable us to sense and interact with the things around us. So to answer your question, it is obviously immoral. Being the most concious beings on the planet (the ones with the highest developed brains), we, either consiously or subconciously, recognize life as tremendously valuable because we recognize that death is inevitable.

[kidprodigy08 0]

because life can be enjoyable, and if u kill you are ending some1's enjoyment

[LongLiveYorke 38]

To all of the atheists- if we have no soul, and are nothing but electrical pulses inside a shell of some sort with a life span determined by time and chance but nothing else, and once it's over it's over, then why is it immoral to kill? Those being the circumstances what have I done really? I ended a life- but what did that life mean exactly, what was it's worth if there is nothing else?

Good question. It's a difficult answer, and here's how I come to grips with it:Interpretation #1Just because we are nothing more than electrical impulses and massive quantum mechanical systems doesn't mean that there is no meaning in life. It only means that there is no intrinsic meaning outside of the meaning that we as humans give to it. Life is meaningful because we give it meaning.As humans, we can agree that life (in general) is enjoyable and worth saving. We enjoy it, we savor it, so therefore it is meaningful to us. Even if consciousness is only an illusion, it is still an illusion that is meaningful to those who are totally unable to escape the illusion. Humans are very good at attaching emotion and meaning to many things that are not at all worthy of it. Heck, people cry at (fiction) movies. So I would argue that the meaning of life comes from the fact that it is meaningful to us as humans. I enjoy my life and even if my enjoyment is nothing more than an emergent behavior brought about by neurons and chemicals doesn't mean that I, who is totally stuck within my own illusion of consciousness, would soon give it up. If everything is intrinsically meaningless, but I find enjoyment (even if it is fake enjoyment) then there is no harm in living my life. It is valuable to me. Therefore, killing another is destroying what is valuable to them. Interpretation #2:There is an arrow to history. Humans in general are building toward an intimate goal of achieving total enlightenment through technological and mental evolution. In order to continue along this road, we much (for the time being) exist as a society of individuals. In order to survive and eventually achieve the ultimate goal of history (enlightenment, whatever that means, or whatever else the ultimate goal of history may be) we must prevent ourselves from killing ourselves. Therefore, under the system of justice that ensures the survival and advancement of human kind, murder is clearly unjust because it damages society in general.So, in summary, my arguments are1) Happiness and life, if not inherently good, are good under the illusion of consciousness2) Murder hurts society and reduces the chances that human beings will live out to achieve our ultimate goal/purpose in this universeOf course, this is all philosophy.

[Loismustdie 0]

I have never said we have no "soul". I don't know. I certainly feel moral obligations, but that isn't a proof that god exists. You don't have to be religious to have a strong sense of morals.If there is no after life, doesn't that mean that a life is extremely valuable? If this is it, ending someones time prematurely is denying them one of the most precious things concious beings are given - that is tools that enable us to sense and interact with the things around us. So to answer your question, it is obviously immoral. Being the most concious beings on the planet (the ones with the highest developed brains), we, either consiously or subconciously, recognize life as tremendously valuable because we recognize that death is inevitable.

If there is no consequence for our actions- if when it is all said and done, nothing happens- there is no reason why life should not be just a free for all- kill em all, and let nobody sort out the bodies, because nobody truly cares, at least no one of consequence, because consequence does not exist. We don't recognize life as truly valuable- don't equate an unwillingness to die as being giving life the due it should be given, as a race we don't even come close. We have an inate sense of caring about ones self and one owns interest but I would dare say that at this point in history for the majority life is less than valuable. Guys, if I sound a little not like myself it's because for the past like 24 hours I have been reading Ann Coulters book "Godless" and just letting my mind consider different things, one of them being the true value we put on life as a society or even more pinpointed as Americans.

Good question. It's a difficult answer, and here's how I come to grips with it:Interpretation #1Just because we are nothing more than electrical impulses and massive quantum mechanical systems doesn't mean that there is no meaning in life. It only means that there is no intrinsic meaning outside of the meaning that we as humans give to it. Life is meaningful because we give it meaning.As humans, we can agree that life (in general) is enjoyable and worth saving. We enjoy it, we savor it, so therefore it is meaningful to us. Even if consciousness is only an illusion, it is still an illusion that is meaningful to those who are totally unable to escape the illusion. Humans are very good at attaching emotion and meaning to many things that are not at all worthy of it. Heck, people cry at (fiction) movies. So I would argue that the meaning of life comes from the fact that it is meaningful to us as humans. I enjoy my life and even if my enjoyment is nothing more than an emergent behavior brought about by neurons and chemicals doesn't mean that I, who is totally stuck within my own illusion of consciousness, would soon give it up. If everything is intrinsically meaningless, but I find enjoyment (even if it is fake enjoyment) then there is no harm in living my life. It is valuable to me. Therefore, killing another is destroying what is valuable to them. Interpretation #2:There is an arrow to history. Humans in general are building toward an intimate goal of achieving total enlightenment through technological and mental evolution. In order to continue along this road, we much (for the time being) exist as a society of individuals. In order to survive and eventually achieve the ultimate goal of history (enlightenment, whatever that means, or whatever else the ultimate goal of history may be) we must prevent ourselves from killing ourselves. Therefore, under the system of justice that ensures the survival and advancement of human kind, murder is clearly unjust because it damages society in general.So, in summary, my arguments are1) Happiness and life, if not inherently good, are good under the illusion of consciousness2) Murder hurts society and reduces the chances that human beings will live out to achieve our ultimate goal/purpose in this universeOf course, this is all philosophy.

As always, I enjoy reading your take on damn near everything. Well put.

[mrdannyg 274]

Good question. It's a difficult answer, and here's how I come to grips with it:Interpretation #1Just because we are nothing more than electrical impulses and massive quantum mechanical systems doesn't mean that there is no meaning in life. It only means that there is no intrinsic meaning outside of the meaning that we as humans give to it. Life is meaningful because we give it meaning.As humans, we can agree that life (in general) is enjoyable and worth saving. We enjoy it, we savor it, so therefore it is meaningful to us. Even if consciousness is only an illusion, it is still an illusion that is meaningful to those who are totally unable to escape the illusion. Humans are very good at attaching emotion and meaning to many things that are not at all worthy of it. Heck, people cry at (fiction) movies. So I would argue that the meaning of life comes from the fact that it is meaningful to us as humans. I enjoy my life and even if my enjoyment is nothing more than an emergent behavior brought about by neurons and chemicals doesn't mean that I, who is totally stuck within my own illusion of consciousness, would soon give it up. If everything is intrinsically meaningless, but I find enjoyment (even if it is fake enjoyment) then there is no harm in living my life. It is valuable to me. Therefore, killing another is destroying what is valuable to them. Interpretation #2:There is an arrow to history. Humans in general are building toward an intimate goal of achieving total enlightenment through technological and mental evolution. In order to continue along this road, we much (for the time being) exist as a society of individuals. In order to survive and eventually achieve the ultimate goal of history (enlightenment, whatever that means, or whatever else the ultimate goal of history may be) we must prevent ourselves from killing ourselves. Therefore, under the system of justice that ensures the survival and advancement of human kind, murder is clearly unjust because it damages society in general.So, in summary, my arguments are1) Happiness and life, if not inherently good, are good under the illusion of consciousness2) Murder hurts society and reduces the chances that human beings will live out to achieve our ultimate goal/purpose in this universeOf course, this is all philosophy.

i've taken philosophy classes that were less interesting than some of your posts. two additional questions:1 - what do you do for a living?2 - can i hire you this saturday for a party? there's going to be a bunch of artsy chicks there and i could use a speechwriter.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

i've taken philosophy classes that were less interesting than some of your posts. two additional questions:1 - what do you do for a living?2 - can i hire you this saturday for a party? there's going to be a bunch of artsy chicks there and i could use a speechwriter.

1) Physicist2) lol

[Loismustdie 0]

i've taken philosophy classes that were less interesting than some of your posts. two additional questions:1 - what do you do for a living?2 - can i hire you this saturday for a party? there's going to be a bunch of artsy chicks there and i could use a speechwriter.

You will need me at the party to ask dumbass simple minded questions, and maybe a little CrowTrobot for questions that go nowhere. Lady killers all 3.

[crowTrobot 2]

and maybe a little CrowTrobot for questions that go nowhere

nowhere but over your head usually

To all of the atheists- if we have no soul, and are nothing but electrical pulses inside a shell of some sort with a life span determined by time and chance but nothing else, and once it's over it's over, then why is it immoral to kill? Those being the circumstances what have I done really? I ended a life- but what did that life mean exactly, what was it's worth if there is nothing else?

read any dostoyevsky lately lol?

[reverbse 0]

If there is no consequence for our actions- if when it is all said and done, nothing happens- there is no reason why life should not be just a free for all- kill em all, and let nobody sort out the bodies, because nobody truly cares, at least no one of consequence, because consequence does not exist.

i´ve heard that being brought up by religious people in discussions several times and i really don´t get it. i don´t fear any divine consequences for my actions, yet i´ve never killed someone, never wanted to and am fairly certain that i never will. now you seem to propose that the reason people don´t just shoot the guy who found the parking spot 5 seconds before them is that god would write them a ticket. now, what i´m gonna write now may sound mean, but i´m actually just curious as to where you get the idea from. are you deriving this from yourself? if someone somehow could prove to you that god didn´t exist, would you think to yourself "cool, tomorrow i´ll go out and kill someone for a mp3-player and a happy meal."? can´t you value other people´s lifes so you need a omnipotent figure holding you under its thumb to prevent you from doing nonsense?like i said, i´m not trying to offend you, i´m just wondering where the idea stems from.also, i don´t think this repression theory works. religion is as effective in preventing violent crime as is the death penalty. if people, for whatever ****ed-up reason, have a desire to hurt/kill other people, then they´ll find a non-religious way to legitimize it in case they don´t believe in god and they´ll find a religious way to legitimize it if they do believe in god.

[mrdannyg 274]

You will need me at the party to ask dumbass simple minded questions, and maybe a little CrowTrobot for questions that go nowhere. Lady killers all 3.

what is this, humility? i thought i was supposed to not like you?

nowhere but over your head usually read any dostoyevsky lately lol?

you really know how to push my buttons. which one did you have in mind?

[crowTrobot 2]

moralistic social behavior is the result of natural selection

[Loismustdie 0]

what is this, humility? i thought i was supposed to not like you?you really know how to push my buttons. which one did you have in mind?

Humility comes from being awesomely wrong quite a bit, which I own up to. As far as what Crow said, which books should I be reading by this whoever the heck it was you said I may be reading right now? Quite honestly,though, I have been reading that one Ann Coulter book I mentioned and it has sparked some thought process that has been fun to think about. I was thinking along the lines of truly valuing life, and what that would consist of. I think right now in my mind I see a clear line between enjoying living and actually valuing life, and that could be from the extreme( I really like where I am at right now so this fetus has got to go) to the more simple( I realize these cheeseburgers are slowly killing me and diabetes is tommorows fate but damn extra cheese tastes good.) We do so many things that show a blatant disregard for life, and suprisingly the one we show the least respect for many times is our own.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

To all of the atheists- if we have no soul, and are nothing but electrical pulses inside a shell of some sort with a life span determined by time and chance but nothing else, and once it's over it's over, then why is it immoral to kill?

Well, my answer to this question is Mu. Since I don't believe in an objective right and wrong, or morality, asking me if something is mornal or immoral is a nonsensical question. I don't think it's "wrong" to kill someone, because I don't believe in "wrong". I do think it's to a societies distinct advantage to make murder illegal. If murder is legal, then the society is apt to be bloody, choatic and short lived. Making Murder, and other violent crimes illegal is a social stablizer. So what's stopping me from killing someone, you ask? Risk to reward ratio. The risk (IE life in prison and/or death penalty, or losing my life in my attempt to commit the crime) far out weighs any sort of reward thus far in my life. There are a couple of people I would actually like to kill, who have wronged my friends and family, and if the risk wasn't so high, I would. So, you ask, could the reward was raised high enough to outweigh the risk would I be willing to commit murder? Yes, it could, and yes I certainly would. But since I don't think anyone is going to be offering me a million dollars to kill you anytime so, I don't think you have anything to worry about.

[timwakefield 68]

Well, my answer to this question is Mu.

MU!

[screech 0]

there is no reason why life should not be just a free for all- kill em all, and let nobody sort out the bodies, because nobody truly cares, at least no one of consequence, because consequence does not exist.

Are you saying that if it wasn't for your belief in consequences for you actions in the afterlife, you would go on a murderous rampage?Anyway, there are consequences in this life, that's why we have laws. If you kill somebody, chances are you will either be killed yourself, or end up rotting away in prison. This is neither good for the believer nor the atheist (although some believers don't mind the death part, and would actually be discouraged in killing if they believed nothing awaited them afterwards).

We don't recognize life as truly valuable- don't equate an unwillingness to die as being giving life the due it should be given, as a race we don't even come close. We have an inate sense of caring about ones self and one owns interest but I would dare say that at this point in history for the majority life is less than valuable.

We do assign a high value to life. Maybe not as much as it should be, but we do. Engineers always design for low occurence events. They sacrifice a bit of safety for economy. Indirectly, this puts a price on human life. But as a whole, we don't put that great a price on other humans lives, especially when we don't know, or will never meet these people. I think you hit the nail on the head with the inate sense of caring about ones self. For most people, killing someone will cause them huge emotional distress, because they think of what it would be like if someone did that to them, or that they killed someones son/don, etc. Obviously, most of us (who don' thave children anyway), cherish our own life as the most precious thing on earth. This is why it makes it hard for us to kill people. This is where or sense of "morals" about killing our whatever you want to call it comes from. It all relates back to the golden rule. When we know we wouldn't want something to happen to us, we usually don't do it to others (or if we do, we know it's wrong deep down unless we have psychological problems - which not all atheists do ). So in a sense, this is where we derive our values from. And different values are assigned varying levels of meaningfulness, depending on our own outlook on life. But generally, the biggest ones are the same for all humans (don't kill, don't steal, etc), while the smaller ones are similar for most but become more and more blurred. Human law tries to define the blurriness of these values.

[mtdesmoines 3]

Good question. It's a difficult answer, and here's how I come to grips with it:Interpretation #1Just because we are nothing more than electrical impulses and massive quantum mechanical systems doesn't mean that there is no meaning in life. It only means that there is no intrinsic meaning outside of the meaning that we as humans give to it. Life is meaningful because we give it meaning.As humans, we can agree that life (in general) is enjoyable and worth saving. We enjoy it, we savor it, so therefore it is meaningful to us. Even if consciousness is only an illusion, it is still an illusion that is meaningful to those who are totally unable to escape the illusion. Humans are very good at attaching emotion and meaning to many things that are not at all worthy of it. Heck, people cry at (fiction) movies. So I would argue that the meaning of life comes from the fact that it is meaningful to us as humans. I enjoy my life and even if my enjoyment is nothing more than an emergent behavior brought about by neurons and chemicals doesn't mean that I, who is totally stuck within my own illusion of consciousness, would soon give it up. If everything is intrinsically meaningless, but I find enjoyment (even if it is fake enjoyment) then there is no harm in living my life. It is valuable to me. Therefore, killing another is destroying what is valuable to them.

What about those who live lifetimes of pain, or those for whom their objective is to inflict pain on others?

[screech 0]

What about those who live lifetimes of pain, or those for whom their objective is to inflict pain on others?

There are a lot of people that live lives of pain that have it great, and vice versa. Anyway, people have to learn from themselves to appreciate life. If they have nothing but misery (or choose to see things that way), well that is their bad luck. They can keep up the struggle and hope things pan out, try to find a better alternative, or kill themselves if they can't cope. Sounds harsh, but that's life.As for the latter, that it why we have created laws, prisons, etc.

[fckthis 0]

Good question. It's a difficult answer, and here's how I come to grips with it:Interpretation #1Just because we are nothing more than electrical impulses and massive quantum mechanical systems doesn't mean that there is no meaning in life. It only means that there is no intrinsic meaning outside of the meaning that we as humans give to it. Life is meaningful because we give it meaning.As humans, we can agree that life (in general) is enjoyable and worth saving. We enjoy it, we savor it, so therefore it is meaningful to us. Even if consciousness is only an illusion, it is still an illusion that is meaningful to those who are totally unable to escape the illusion. Humans are very good at attaching emotion and meaning to many things that are not at all worthy of it. Heck, people cry at (fiction) movies. So I would argue that the meaning of life comes from the fact that it is meaningful to us as humans. I enjoy my life and even if my enjoyment is nothing more than an emergent behavior brought about by neurons and chemicals doesn't mean that I, who is totally stuck within my own illusion of consciousness, would soon give it up. If everything is intrinsically meaningless, but I find enjoyment (even if it is fake enjoyment) then there is no harm in living my life. It is valuable to me. Therefore, killing another is destroying what is valuable to them. Interpretation #2:There is an arrow to history. Humans in general are building toward an intimate goal of achieving total enlightenment through technological and mental evolution. In order to continue along this road, we much (for the time being) exist as a society of individuals. In order to survive and eventually achieve the ultimate goal of history (enlightenment, whatever that means, or whatever else the ultimate goal of history may be) we must prevent ourselves from killing ourselves. Therefore, under the system of justice that ensures the survival and advancement of human kind, murder is clearly unjust because it damages society in general.So, in summary, my arguments are1) Happiness and life, if not inherently good, are good under the illusion of consciousness2) Murder hurts society and reduces the chances that human beings will live out to achieve our ultimate goal/purpose in this universeOf course, this is all philosophy.

I enjoy reading your posts.

[timwakefield 68]

Humans in general are building toward an intimate goal of achieving total enlightenment through technological and mental evolution.

As far as an enlightened humanity is concerned, I think we're going backwards.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

As far as an enlightened humanity is concerned, I think we're going backwards.

It depends on the scale that you are examining.

[Jerry 0]

To all of the atheists- if we have no soul, and are nothing but electrical pulses inside a shell of some sort with a life span determined by time and chance but nothing else, and once it's over it's over, then why is it immoral to kill? Those being the circumstances what have I done really? I ended a life- but what did that life mean exactly, what was it's worth if there is nothing else?

lol... to keep the society together... on another note... if there is a god and you're off to paradise why not kill yourself? and if you don't get to heaven by suicide (don't remember if suicide will send you yo hell) why don't you join OUR TROOPS IN IRAQ and die with some glory?????EDIT: I didn't really answer the question but it's hopeless (read: impossible and pointless) to argue with a certain type of religious people anyway...

Good question. It's a difficult answer, and here's how I come to grips with it:Interpretation #1Just because we are nothing more than electrical impulses and massive quantum mechanical systems doesn't mean that there is no meaning in life. It only means that there is no intrinsic meaning outside of the meaning that we as humans give to it. Life is meaningful because we give it meaning.As humans, we can agree that life (in general) is enjoyable and worth saving. We enjoy it, we savor it, so therefore it is meaningful to us. Even if consciousness is only an illusion, it is still an illusion that is meaningful to those who are totally unable to escape the illusion. Humans are very good at attaching emotion and meaning to many things that are not at all worthy of it. Heck, people cry at (fiction) movies. So I would argue that the meaning of life comes from the fact that it is meaningful to us as humans. I enjoy my life and even if my enjoyment is nothing more than an emergent behavior brought about by neurons and chemicals doesn't mean that I, who is totally stuck within my own illusion of consciousness, would soon give it up. If everything is intrinsically meaningless, but I find enjoyment (even if it is fake enjoyment) then there is no harm in living my life. It is valuable to me. Therefore, killing another is destroying what is valuable to them. Interpretation #2:There is an arrow to history. Humans in general are building toward an intimate goal of achieving total enlightenment through technological and mental evolution. In order to continue along this road, we much (for the time being) exist as a society of individuals. In order to survive and eventually achieve the ultimate goal of history (enlightenment, whatever that means, or whatever else the ultimate goal of history may be) we must prevent ourselves from killing ourselves. Therefore, under the system of justice that ensures the survival and advancement of human kind, murder is clearly unjust because it damages society in general.So, in summary, my arguments are1) Happiness and life, if not inherently good, are good under the illusion of consciousness2) Murder hurts society and reduces the chances that human beings will live out to achieve our ultimate goal/purpose in this universeOf course, this is all philosophy.

I'll join in with the others and say: well put, this is my final answer...

[RodReynolds 87]

Good question. It's a difficult answer, and here's how I come to grips with it:Interpretation #1Just because we are nothing more than electrical impulses and massive quantum mechanical systems doesn't mean that there is no meaning in life. It only means that there is no intrinsic meaning outside of the meaning that we as humans give to it. Life is meaningful because we give it meaning.As humans, we can agree that life (in general) is enjoyable and worth saving. We enjoy it, we savor it, so therefore it is meaningful to us. Even if consciousness is only an illusion, it is still an illusion that is meaningful to those who are totally unable to escape the illusion. Humans are very good at attaching emotion and meaning to many things that are not at all worthy of it. Heck, people cry at (fiction) movies. So I would argue that the meaning of life comes from the fact that it is meaningful to us as humans. I enjoy my life and even if my enjoyment is nothing more than an emergent behavior brought about by neurons and chemicals doesn't mean that I, who is totally stuck within my own illusion of consciousness, would soon give it up. If everything is intrinsically meaningless, but I find enjoyment (even if it is fake enjoyment) then there is no harm in living my life. It is valuable to me. Therefore, killing another is destroying what is valuable to them. Interpretation #2:There is an arrow to history. Humans in general are building toward an intimate goal of achieving total enlightenment through technological and mental evolution. In order to continue along this road, we much (for the time being) exist as a society of individuals. In order to survive and eventually achieve the ultimate goal of history (enlightenment, whatever that means, or whatever else the ultimate goal of history may be) we must prevent ourselves from killing ourselves. Therefore, under the system of justice that ensures the survival and advancement of human kind, murder is clearly unjust because it damages society in general.So, in summary, my arguments are1) Happiness and life, if not inherently good, are good under the illusion of consciousness2) Murder hurts society and reduces the chances that human beings will live out to achieve our ultimate goal/purpose in this universeOf course, this is all philosophy.

As everyone does, I appreciate your well thought out replies. Now, deal with this! Counterpoints!A.) Let's assume both of your points are approximately correct. Humans are building towards total enlightenment. As we progress along 2) though, towards total enlightenment, we will begin to understand more and more the intrinsic meaninglessness of life. Will we not gradually begin to escape the illusion of meaning, assuming it is an illusion? I guess my only point is that 2) and 1) are in a sense diametrically opposed, as I see it. I think I can make this point better in the future.B.) I'm just dealing with your first point here. We have meaning because we create our meaning, our life is enjoyable under the illusion of consciousness. I don't believe it follows that we shouldn't end the lives of others. If ending my friends life somehow increases the quality of my life, adds to my enjoyment, I should probably do it. I have no access to his consciousness, there is no good reason for me to accept that he even has one. I have direct access to mine, and my life will be better if he is dead, probably because he has a mango that I want to eat. Even if I am convinced that he is consciouss (I hate this word, I never know if I'm spelling it right..), why should I be concerned about his emergent mental states? If I truly understand that that is all he really is, how can it be wrong to snuff out these chemical reactions and whatever else is going on. Even if they are meaningful to him, I understand that the "him" is just an illusion, and my illusion is not concerned with aiding his illuision. It seems clear to me that my emergent mental states should only be concerned about my emergent mental states, which will improve if I have his mango. I owe fundamentally meaningless emergent mental states nothing.I hope I am somewhat clear at least, and if I'm not, I'm sure you'll be gracious enough to pretend it was. I may set up an AntiRodReynolds account to argue myself, as I've thought up counterpoints to my counterpoints. As an aside, where are you a physicist? Student, or full-fledged? I used to be on that road also.Welcome to Religion Forum RodReynolds. Thank you, glad to be here.

[Loismustdie 0]

That's a discombobulated train of thought worthy of, well, me Rob. Welcome to the religous forum. That being said, I understood whre you were going with it and it's along the lines of the conclusion that I came up with if in fact there is no post life recompence for ones actions. Put it this way- if in fact we find out life is utterly meaningless, and any meaning we give it is inherited, created by peers and self taught illusion, than it would be the truly enlightened ones who decide to take the step to just do whatever it is that they please, because they see above the illusion. I want that mango- bye bye. Now, let me extrapilate this a little- this is already being done in corporate america, where decisions are made by people we never meet that benefit the company and that's it- corporate america gets away with atrocities every day that you and I would be lynched for, but that's the way it is and for the most part when these atrocities are brought to light we recognize it for what it is, and how inherintly wrong some of these decisions are because they take no consideration for the greater good. But, ultimately if atheists are right than corporate america is right the **** on, and should be recognized for it's brilliant proggressive ways.