“I” is metaphysics.
No it isn’t.
Explain.
You made a lot of assumption. I have never stated what is good or evil. I have only stated what you have just agreed with. The only thing I added was you have to live with the consequences. Not stating which is right or wrong. Only that you are left with the consequences of your actions.
Consequences are arbitrary and inconsequential.
If I believe that what I have done is “relevant” for myself individually without the interference of others then such consequences are meaningless.
I alone make my fate. Noone else.
Everyone else is just competition in the way of my ego.
The next step of this thread is to show examples of child murderers apart from war in so called “civilized” societies.
Examples:
crimelibrary.com/notorious_m … index.html
For more information:
Look into juvenile homicide/pre-adolescent homicide
Why are you on this website if you only perceive value on a biological or survival level? What do you get out of it? Is it some other part of you? Is it not you? How do you explain these inconsistencies?
I think the consequence of destruction of your own life, such as jumping off a 30 story building are very important. I don’t see those consequences as arbitrary or inconsequential.
You statement about my religious beliefs and being a moralist and defining good and evil is thrown out the window to most when I state I am a Wiccan and practice witchcraft. Many automatically consider that evil through ignorance. You might want to read by signature if you want to understand my moral view. It is up to the individual, mine is if it doesn’t hurt anyone than I can do it. What determines “harm†is up to the individual to decide for themselves.
I get pleasure out of watching the insane frantic excuses of the so called “civilized”.
I bask in watching the hypocrisy of others which only re-affirms my own beliefs.
Finally I like stimulating conversation as it helps me become more consistently methodical in my own day to day dealings.
( Plus these conversations help me pass the constructs of time away from the misery of idleness and boredom.)
So yes I do indeed get somthing out of these philosophical conversations which stimulates my own mind of being.
Then you engage in valuation outside of the biological / survival level.
Do explain.
Back to the beginning:
You discern value and try to live according to your values. It is no different from what Demtri said, which you criticized as “sounds very religious”.
I live in accordance to egoism.
To embrace one’s owness is not a valuation. It is natural existential being.
When Demtri condoned her religious absurdities as universal absolutes I merely reacted.
Apart from this ongoing arguement I would like people to address the main subject of this thread.
ThankYou. 
](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
Sounds very religious to me.
Whatever it is you mean - yes it is.
Maybe. I don’t know what it means to “embrace one’s owness”.
Demtri explicitly denied good/evil as universal absolutes.
I model my belief in philosophical egoism on physical necessity.
By doing this I look at other biological animals in seeing how they react in existence.
If I am religious for merely preserving the ego that is the bodily organs that comprise my-self than all creatures must be religious too in comparison. 
You still haven’t told me how yet.
That is too bad. Your missing out…
Don’t worry about it. I am coming to grasp with this person and what is going on. You have shown how it wasn’t religious. The more telling fact was the following posts.
I said I was the exact opposite and the response completely ignored this and responded to religion. This is not about a philosophical debate. This is about anger and the desire to argue no matter the point. This is about frustration and the desire to release that anger. I do not wish to be part of such actions and will dismiss myself.
[size=200]Quoted post of Demtri[/size]
Demtri this is what we call a metaphysical religious absurdity in atheistic terms. Do not tell me that you did not make a religious post when clearly as seen above you did indeed post one.
Looks above* ( Smiles) 
For future posters in this thread I only ask one thing:
[size=200]Stay on the dam main topic![/size]
( Thank you.)
That is called a logical argument. You give the premise of a religion. Then you state your premise and how it differs from the first premise. If you want to have a philosophical discussion you must understand logical arguments. If you want to only argue, you dismiss logical arguments and interpret things as you desire. You are displaying the later quite effectively.
Welcome to the site Demtri. 
Anyway… Joker:
Why embrace one thing as opposed to another? It is because people in general and you also are always evaluating and valueing.
How do you know I’m missing out? I’m just not clear what you’re saying.
I thought I was on topic the entire time.