[quote]But that has no impact on the logical progression of anything because they are isolated, irrelevant, and [b]have no bearing on the course the world around us takes[/b].[/quote]

This would be the exact part that I needed clarification for. Do you mean material as in having no [b]direct physical effect[/b] on the world or none at all?

I didn't express myself correctly on the last question from my previous post. I knew you believed that I didn't believe on evil/good but I still couldn't see how anarchy was better on a logical sense. 
As for having no governmental ruling organ being the best logical way things should work on a society of naturalists because it "requires the fewest possible non-logically based assumptions, beliefs, agreements, etc. when compared to other systems of governance."
In the parts that you covered you are right on having more freedom and being less restricted by the ruling organ but what is all that worth when everything is in chaos? You could be stabbed in the street just because the other person felt like stabbing someone that day. Your whole building could be bombed just because there were no laws to prevent for such a thing to be made. If you take everything into consideration besides the positives of having no government you come out at a loss.

From the start I was of the belief that morals and such did not physically exist. Just my way of expressing my argument could have led you to see it otherwise. We are on the same page there. 

My argument on the initial subject was over when you said:
[quote]I can answer this rather succinctly. No human decides what is moral or amoral. If you want to go down the road of Christian theology, then the answer of "who goes to Hell?" Is "Anybody who does not ask God for forgiveness and do good as defined by him."[/quote]

So basically no one really knows what is good or evil, they just follow a set of morals which they attained through their lives to make that judgement. All the other things I've mentioned were to clarify some other points that you made.

[quote]Words are real because we can write them.[/quote]
I'd also like to argue otherwise. Words, writings, words, noises, they are just forms, sounds that we have attached a subjective value to. Take that subjective value and meaning away and these "Words, writings, words, noises" lose their value and become just that, scribbles and random noises. "Words" is just another name we have attached to something. So aren't they all abstract? Why should they be considered to "exist"?