[part 2] > Unless there is some ambiguity somewhere, "would be the way to go" doesn't bear much resemblance to "you will indeed attain". Seriously? You really

[part 2] > Unless there is some ambiguity somewhere, "would be the way to go" doesn't bear much resemblance to "you will indeed attain". Seriously? You really didn't understand that "would be the way to go" in this context means roughly "would be how they would reach their goal"? And that the implied goal in this scenario was not to die, but to attain wealth? Are you absolutely sure that you are not intentionally not understanding the obvious that you would understand in any other conversation that is not about a god belief? > You modified "then shooting yourself in the head would be the way to go" to say "you then shoot yourself in the head, [then] you will indeed attain maximum wealth", which seemed to become a line of questioning to determine whether I thought a person will get what is in line with their beliefs. It should be fairly obvious that I don't think that is the case, unless one's beliefs are in line with what is true. Have I established what I think is true: no. Which primarily means that you have just completely missed the point of that part of the conversation? > I acknowledged that I had not substantiated a convincing argument to care about morality (given my definition) when you highlighted that "'care' and 'listen to' are two different questions as well". Well, yeah ... so there is no reason to care about morality under your definition, then?