We do have a cure for angst; might I suggest watching Rowan Atkinson a
couple hours a day?
I suppose, memetically, I've been defending the idea of you being no
more than the drawing of a fanciful face over the interactions and
emergent patterns of a mass of meme-complexi. Does this make you feel
any better? It doesn't remove from you the burden of responsibility,
but it does give you some insight into the battlefield of mind you get
to float over, disembodied because there /is/ no Corpus of Self.
> wrong. Religion fails at this point: a clear-cut division between right
> and wrong, good and evil, is in itself immoral. It is unnatural for an
> individual to have to think like another (especially when that other is a
> god, who one cannot see and cannot exist in any of the 5 senses).
The cynic points out that you're making an appeal to morality in
regards to morality, using the idea of a `moral nature' to tell me
something is unnatural. You employ the very tools you denounce. You
tell me that to bifurcate good and evil is evil; do you see the irony?
> exist. Laws are based on the general morales, yet laws cannot impose upon
> the morales of any individual without being wrong.
Laws do not impose morals, they impose punishments. Every law
inhibits the behaviour of some faction or there'd be no /need/ for
law. Despite denouncing good and evil you have the cojones to call
this `wrong.'
I am much amused.
> If a system is .00001% wrong, it is onehundred percent wrong.
My lad, with an attitude like this you have two things to look forward
to: 1) A life of dissapointment, 2) A profound inability to get
anything done.
ObMemetics: Exercise for the reader: Break down the memetic basis of
the last quoted sentence above and explain why it provides itself an
ecological niche in the memeosphere and how it defends it.