Arguing with an atheist about politics

You don't even know what an ad hominem is, and you want to convince others that evil isn't real?
kek

Evil doesn't exist.
Some psychotic meth head might just decide you're evil for eating ice cream one day and you'll never convince him otherwise.
It's not a real thing, it's just monkey brain doing monkey thing.

Everybody, he's tripling down on his dumbass opinions
Let's all point and laugh
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHA

Calling someone's ideas evil as if that's an argument is adhom.

Of course not, he was Catholic and loved animals and was based.
It's a damn shame they killed him before he could reveal the whole thing was a prank for his youtube channel.

Calling someone's ideas evil as if that's an argument is adhom.

Lmfao it's literally not. Ad hominem is an attack on their person, not their idea.
I just can't believe someone THIS stupid decides to open their mouth at all. You're telling me you've never been humbled in your entire life?
Philosophy is for Whites anyway. gtfo nigger

"I like red shoes better than blue shoes"
"That is EVIL"
the obvious implication being that you too are evil and thus your idea is not worth arguing against.

based muzshit slayer

he literally can't understand it

Anyway, how would you feel if you didn't have breakfast this morning?

Evil doesn't exist

It's subjective, like good

That's what makes modern politics so polarizing. Everything is infantilized into good vs evil because it makes propaganda easier to understand.

So you don't think jews are evil

If you don't recognize good or evil, how then can you recognize an ad hominem? How then can you differentiate between what is an attack and an argument? If you can at all, why is ad hominem bad?
You literally cannot answer this quesiton, fuckin commie nigger faggot midwit. THAT"S an ad hominem.

you're not even a real person, just a collection of Anon Babble memes virtue signaling retardedly.

yerp

nope, evil doesn't exist. it's a trick of the mind and very monkey brained.

you have to label everything as "good" or "evil" or it can't be observed!

lol
is a pencil good or evil?

Holy shit is this Ken M? You're a master troll.
You may actually be this stupid, but I don't know how someone this dumb could figure out the computer.

arguing with women

LOL

So a dude who shotguns babies in the face isn't evil. Got it.

Everything? Really?? I am labelling EVERYTHING? Or am I honing in on one ontological principle? Am I using the Socratic method to see if your ideas are sound?
I have just figured out what your problem is! You're a woman, aren't you? You argue like one. I am certain you're a foid.

is a pencil good or evil?

Nope. Is shoving a pencil in the neck of a child an evil act?

You may not consider it evil but can you understand why others would?

blatant strawmanner complaining about the "ad hominem"

wewlad, please just put a helmet on at all times and wear grippy shoes when you're poolside.

Depends entirely on the opinion of the observer.
What if the babies have extremely painful incurable aids and it's the only way?

You asserted that I can't recognize ad hom because I must necessarily put a good or evil value judgement on it to know it.
I used an example of a pencil to prove that assertion illogical.

Sure, but that doesn't make it so. Consensus opinion is not objective truth, it's just more likely to be truer than subjective personal opinion in most cases.

hur dur a pencil is the same as the most classical, timeless conversation in ontology

hahahahaha you're really just too stupid to talk to you know?

Sure, but that doesn't make it so

But it does. Not to you but to them. That's what subjective means

Consensus opinion is not objective truth

Depends on the topic. But it's irrelevant if we agree evil is subjective.

evil now depends on circumstances

Man that was easy to get you to move your goalposts.

He's unironically advocating for labelling baby-murder as subjectively good on the most spurious, ad hoc hypotheticals. This is a sure sign of his utter midwittery, and honestly I'm so embarrassed for ever having replied to his posts.

Even as a Christian myself

relative morals

You're not fooling anyone

I'm not them. Only my truth is experienced by me, their truth is irrelevant.

You just misunderstood what I said.
We define what is evil.
Nothing actually is.
But like I said before, a meth head might decide you're evil for eating ice cream.

I'm actually seething rn xD
Do you think anon is ebin trollan or is it serious?
It HAS to be a troll or a woman.

I'm not them. Only my truth is experienced by me

Right. I've already acknowledged that. Just like you acknowledged

Depends entirely on the opinion of the observer

So evil does exist. It just depends on the observer and in many cases there are multiple observers

their truth is irrelevant.

To you. But not to them and if there are more thems than yous then it's no longer irrelevant

Nope.
People just decide something is evil almost arbitrarily.
You can make a case for almost anything being evil, so long as you believe it, it'll be true for you.
But it's meaningless.

While you and I are likely more closely aligned on many ideas, he's got you on this one.
He is saying that good/evil/morality is not objective, that it doesn't exist outside the mind. Rather that it is a "trick" of the mind, you know?
Of course, you and I see how this argument spirals into intellectual chaos until it inevitably hits self-contradiction. And for most of us, this understanding is instinctual, and for others it must be beat into them (the beating helps them to recognize what is evil)

Let's take a hypothetical.
Little grey men came to me and said "We exist and you need to not eat for seven days to ascend to a higher dimension."
The entire world would disagree with me, wouldn't matter. I'd be right to believe what I believe. It comports with my perception of reality and is not delusional and is based on observable fact ie the little grey men only I saw.

And for most of us, this understanding is instinctual

exactly my point. It's monkey brain.
beating someone until they agree with your morality could be seen as good or evil as well.

what if I made up a scenario that proves I'm right?

You've never taken a debate or philosophy class in your life, you've not sat down to read some classics of the Western canon.
It really must be hard being you.

People just decide something is evil almost arbitrarily

Again, yours words

Depends entirely on the opinion of the observer.

You can make a case for almost anything being evil, so long as you believe it, it'll be true for you.

Thus making evil true, to them

But it's meaningless

Unless they enact their will on you.

You stabbing a child in the neck may not be evil to you but enough people will disagree an enact that on you. Which is no longer irrelevant

He is saying that good/evil/morality is not objective

I agree they aren't but you get enough people in a society and that changes
This is the same hypothetical I gave above

The alternative is that morality is decided by popular vote.
Do you really believe that or are you just buttfrazzled?

Of course the tranny would use the solipsistic "nothing is real" delusion. There's a very real expression of good in the cosmos seen in harmony and creation. When people follow that ideal we have morality. That which doesnt harm or oppress others. Its not some fantasy made up thing.

monkey brain

kek what happened to being a Christian? We're made in the Image of Christ Himself. He has given us a divine mind capable of theosis, deification. We don't have monkey brains, you fucking midwit.

If I do something others see as evil and they punish me but I never actually agree that the thing I did was evil, then it's not evil, they're just wrong.
It's the nature of morality that it's entirely subjective.

evil doesn't exist

except when we define it

Damn you sure are dumb as fuck. The nufag memeflag makes sense.

You are dumb, you only used Ad hominem and didn't know how to answer what is good and what is evil.
Evil is everything that destroys, corrupts and degenerates. Good is a social construction that came after evil to maintain order and serve the interests of civilizations over time.

no man is good, wide is the path to destruction, etc etc.
humans are monkey brained.

It is, that's why you had to define it.
Others would disagree on what "it" is.
because it's not a real thing that can be measured.
Total waste of energy.

If I do something others see as evil and they punish me but I never actually agree that the thing I did was evil, then it's not evil

Not to you. But to them it is. So much so they subdue you and seek justice. You cam keep saying you don't believe them but it's irrelevant when you're behind bars

It's the nature of morality that it's entirely subjective

Morality is subjective on a macro scale but becomes more objective on a micro/societal scale. Just look at laws that get codified

I use the rainbow flag because the kingdom of God is my nation and deus vulters are not the kind of Christian I want to associate with.

Nope.
What do you believe in the most?
Imagine if that thing you believe in the most was illegal and seen as evil.
Say religion or a personal philosophy.
You're saying that because a mob decides to punish you, it doesn't matter what you believe to yourself (the only one experiencing your reality).

Everybody thinks you're a faggot who shoves dicks up your ass though.

That's fine, Jesus Christ said not to judge and that's why. It's a teachable moment.

Then you shouldn't mind living in favelas
You're non-Christian because you're non-Orthodox.
But even the most liberal of heretics recognize evil. Satan is literally referred to as "The Evil One". fucking kek how are you even real xD

Nope

You demonstrate the opposite though. If you can define what isn't evil then thay means there's a definition of evil. And as you said, it'd based on the observer or observers

You're saying that because a mob decides to punish you, it doesn't matter what you believe

We see this now. People want to belive a man can be a woman. That isn't true but they want to believe it. Their beliefs are irrelevant to everyone else.

(the only one experiencing your reality).

Not really a thing when your reality can and is influenced by others.

It's like using the silly term "my truth"

I am as God made me.
I'm not of this world, I am a paranormal entity, a spiritual bean.

w said not to judge

But your argument is that evil is subjective (judged)

You really suck at this whole logic thing.

Unironically, thank you for signaling to me you're trolling. I was actually seething. You're a good troll.

No man is good; no man is evil.
Simple as.
What is, is by the will of God.
As for people "influencing your reality", destroy this temple and God will rebuild it in 3 days.
Material punishment has zero effect on belief.

which is why I don't judge anything as evil

You see what you needed to see, doesn't make it true. Have a good one.

No man is good; no man is evil

Again your words

Depends entirely on the opinion of the observer

You aren't the only observer

Material punishment has zero effect on belief.

Until it does

You said evil doesn't exist.
Now you say it's subjective.

Things that don't exist aren't subjective.

Anon, it's time to stop.
He's literally just stupid, too stupid to talk to.
You don't go on and try to explain these things to children, right? That's because they're stupid, even if it's not their fault.
We're asking a monkey to stop throwing his shit around because it's disgusting and the monkey doesn't recognize hygiene at all.

Mob rule isn't proof that morality exists.
Changes with time.
As for no man is good, that's the Bible.
The inverse is implicitly true since to break one law is to break them all, none more evil than another.

It exists to you, if you believe it to exist. Doesn't mean it really exists or exists for others.

it exists, but also doesn't

This is what they teach in public schools?? lmao

I never made the argument that evil doesn't exist. You did.

You are extremely dumb.

pain is evil, relief from pain is good, simple as.

I'm explaining to you that just because a person believes evil (or anything) exists, doesn't make it so for others or for objective reality itself.

Why do you think that a belief in good and evil is dependent upon a belief in god? Morality can and does exist outside of Christianity, and outside of religion in general.

weight lifting is painful, heroin is relief from pain

weight lifters are evil, heroin addicts are saints

Mob rule isn't proof that morality exists

It proves it becomes more objective the more societal people get

Changes with time

Correct. New mob new rules

As for no man is good, that's the Bible.

Jesus was a man and fully good, no?

The inverse is implicitly true since to break one law is to break them all, none more evil than another

Society isn't run like that though

No, this is hedonism.
Throughout time, the West has well-established that self-indulgence and hedonism is not good, that it is rather evil. If you'd like to argue with that, take it up with nearly every philosopher of the Western canon, not me.

If the whole world believed the world was flat but it was round, it would still be round.

He said something like "Why are you calling me good? Only God is good."

As for society and how it's run, not my problem. I'm a spiritual bean, not of this world.

Cool

robs you

kills you

rapes your female family members

Might makes right you stupid goy, I am Good and you are Evil.

If the whole world believed the world was flat but it was round, it would still be round.

This isn't a moral concept though

He said something like "Why are you calling me good? Only God is good."

In what ways is Jesus not good then?

As for society and how it's run, not my problem

Thats not true. You abide by the laws/morales of society regardless

hur dur empiricism is le stupid! only rationalism makes sense! huh?

you mean to tell me rationalism is rooted in ontology? pfft, I don't even know what ontology means, bro stfu

of course the world is round! we can measure it!

It applies to morality as well as anything else. Popularity is just shorthand for truth, not a replacement.

As for Jesus, the Father was greater than him. My interpretation is he recognized that when a human says "I am good" then they become prideful and start pushing others around and ironically acting like the devil (the accuser). Humility serves it's practioner; pride harms it.

You'd be surprised how much of society you can get away with ignoring/not participating in.

wouldn't that mean red isn't red because diffrent people percieve it diffrently and some are even unable to see it.
Don't talk about wavelengths, diffrent cameras have diffrent sampling criteria

I know what ontology means, I read the memes.

How much does the truth weigh?
What does it smell like?
There are things that are not material you dumb fuck

That's a great example, color.
It's also subjective.
Hard to believe but apparently, in the ancient world, the sky wasn't considered to be blue, because blue wasn't a color yet.
I can't remember what they considered it, I think a shade of green. Water the same way.
I can't be arsed to look it up right now but it's an interesting idea.

No human being can ever know the truth truly.
We have a vague idea that there must be a true truth and we can approximate truth. That's it.
We can never have it, that requires omniscience.

It applies to morality as well as anything else.

Not really..how people treat others based on it is though

Popularity is just shorthand for truth, not a replacement.

And how do you determine truth in morality?

As for Jesus, the Father was greater than him

What has Jesus done for you to not recognize he is good? Or that his acts aren't good?

You'd be surprised how much of society you can get away with ignoring/not participating in.

You're participating in it now. And either way, you're still bound by thise societal rules. Even the bible says to obey the laws of the land .

John 10:30 - "The Father and I are one"

You try raising yourself from the dead.

in the ancient world, the sky wasn't considered to be blue, because blue wasn't a color yet.

This is a misconception. While ancient languages often lacked specific terms for "blue," this doesn't mean they couldn't see or experience the color. Instead, the color might have been grouped with other related hues, or language differences led to different color perceptions

its funny that athiests do not realize that religious belief is a human instinct as impossible to avoid as hunger or thirst. they implicitly follow some religion while pretending they don't. well, pretending might be the wrong word, they believe in ignorance. there is no helping these people; athiesm is a keystone to their identity, oftentimes.

>robs y-

shotgun blast

You should have started with kills you. Turns out you can be an atheist and still live in a party of the country where fucking bears live outside and you need a gun.

its funny that athiests do not realize that religious belief is a human instinct as impossible to avoid as hunger or thirst

Religion is a tribal instinct

they implicitly follow some religion while pretending they don't.

Atheism is just a lack if belief in God or gods

No humans can ever debate the "Might makes Right" mentality.
To me. That's the absolute Truth.

You will go to Hell because you are weak.

I still can't understand how, on atheism, things can be called 'evil' without objective evil exist?

This is all just your opinion? An opinion about what if there is no moral dimension?

Robs you with your own shotgun

Starves you with the holodomor

Continues Atheist-rooted genocides against your people

Atheists are the most retarded subroach mongrels on this planet and deserve to die.

An opinion about what if there is no moral dimension?

We are the moral dimension. We give rise to what is and isn't moral

“Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.”

God in a human body can't hear what's happening on the other side of the planet.
Pretty simple. God's got more power in Father form like anime.

you did not say anything in your post. nor did you correctly read what i said.

its hilarious everytime

you did not say anything in your post

Anything you can refute that is.

nor did you correctly read what i said.

What did I get wrong exactly?

Philippians 2:6-8 - 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,[a] 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,[b] being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

It's why it's important to read things in context.

In His human role, the Father is "greater" in terms of authority and position, not essence or nature.

Jesus Christ "lowered" himself into OUR position, as humans.

Do you actually want to understand and learn something new and have the humility to accept the opposing worldview or are you just asking rhetorically and wanting to feel validated in your beliefs by random anons?

no, i mean there is no real content to your post. saying something is a "tribal instinct" isn't an argument. it is, to quote Pauli, not even wrong.

What did I get wrong exactly?

that's a good question, you quoted something i said and then stated some definition of atheism with the implication that it's a response to what i said when it doesn't relate at all.

It's really not an important issue if he had full God mode power or not.
I still remain unconvinced, but that's beside the point.
I'm of the mindset that the entire Bible could be a parable and it would still be true, for the work's sake.

Might makes right has been superseded by will of the people. It's still essentially might makes right, but recognizing that a single asshole, no matter how strong, still loses to a large enough group of individuals that are sick of his shit.
Every society and structure of authority must have an answer to the question of physical violence and be willing to enforce it. This is as unavoidable as those societies needing to have solutions for food, water, and shelter. But in the same way that people generally agree that they are better off not having to forage for their own food or gather their own water, people lean towards the creation of stable societies where violence does not rule them on a day to day level and attempts to do so are punished under the law.
Human history is a long, slow rebuke of "might makes right" anarchy. Its why I can sit here, confident that if you attempted to kill me you would have to hide your actions and flee law enforcement or face the consequences. Even if you succeeded in killing me no one would consider you 'right', they would consider you scum and hunt you for it.

ontology is a meme

but take my opinions on morality seriously

turbokek

Might makes right
Will of the people
Mandate of Heaven <---correct

saying something is a "tribal instinct" isn't an argument

Religion is taught, you're not born with it.

>What did I get wrong exactly?

that's a good question

Ok, let me know when you figure it out champ

Materialist moral frameworks exist. They're usually utilitarian and made to optimize things like lack of suffering.

Divine command theory isn't the only moral system in town.

he's denying the light spectrum now

Holy shit lmfao kill yourself promptly

a single asshole, no matter how strong, still loses to a large enough group of individuals that are sick of his shit.

A single hacker is enough to mogged all of you.

Yeah this guy i killed was a pedophile, he was molesting my kids

kids agree that you're a rapist

"Yeah that faggot definitely deserved death, good work getting rid of that atheistic scum, anon."

And you can't say shit cause you're already dead you retard. Your family will be silenced & ostracized by the rest of society. I've easily destroyed your bloodline for laughs.

You are foolish to believe that humans are innately good, any one of them are ready to destroy you to get ahead in life.

christchud too retarded to fathom morality existing outside the scope of man in the sky

Dialectical materialists trying to argue for moralism in ANY facet, in the negative or positive, are imminently if not immediately self-contradicting. Not that you know the true difference between imminent and immediate.

I already did lol
You know you can kill yourself without dying right?
How else can you be reborn if you don't die first?

Humans don't have to be innately good to not want a psycho running around killing people at random. All they have to want is not to be killed themselves by some rampaging schizo, and support the removal of said schizo for their own benefit.

A pseud AND a heretic, and ostensibly a faggot as well.
Bravo, anon. Easily the most incredulous nigger ape I've encountered on this website.

hur dur nothing is real

except for the things I arbitrate

no. he doesn't deny that. What he does deny is existence of color red? juat cause its not a concrete concept. And he might be right.

Can you describe the mechanism? Like in Warhammer, the orcs' technology works because they believe it works?

That's the unfortunate thing about these retards, they're too blind to realize just how retarded they are.

1 Corinthians 1:18-21 - For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who [a]are perishing, but to us who [b]are being saved, it is the power of God. 19 For it is written,

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.”

20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased, through the foolishness of the [c]message preached, to save those who believe.

And considering just how much of an insufferable faggot that you are, a mob will easily lynch you for your retarded pride & belief system.

OP's point is retarded, and so is yours
typical low-IQ subhuman mutt behavior is resorting to violence when encountering difficult concepts
you are no different from the animals on north sentinel island

its like abstract algebra really, except without any heirarchy of concepts

Imminent = about to happen
Immediate = right this second
Both are relative discussions of time and don't really describe how someone is self contradicting.

Religion is taught, you're not born with it.

so do you not understand the difference between religious thinking vs. religious institutions? or are you purposefully misunderstanding what i'm saying after abandoning your previous dumb take?

Can we stop pretending that Marx invented materialism and that all atheists follow in his beliefs? You keep calling out Dialectical materialists specifically, and I doubt there is a single one in this thread.

Enlightened atheist redditard who needs an authority figure to tell him truths instead of figuring it out himself

Can you describe the mechanism?

Empathy

Like in Warhammer, the orcs' technology works because they believe it works?

Pretty awesome lore. But if enough people agree that X thing is wrong and build a society around it then it becomes true for that society

so do you not understand the difference between religious thinking vs. religious institutions?

Define both religious thinking and religious institutions.

your previous dumb take?

What was dumb about it?

You're implying religion is inherent and that atheism is a religion. Both wrong

No, that's the colloquial understanding of the words. They describe causal relationships, not time. Fucking midwit.

notice how you had to specify "atheist" because your comment perfectly describes christchuds and has nothing to do with atheism

I want to understand what people who don't believe in evil think when they call something evil.

I'm trying to understand how people who don't believe in the existence of evil can still call something "evil." It's like having an opinion about whether a unicorn's horn is smooth or ridged, while denying that unicorns exist in the first place.

They de-facto are and do. So I'm not pretending anything.
And in any case, I'm not talking about Marx or Marxism.

i posit nothing, but it's because everyone else is stupid

wow real fucking high IQ on this pajeet. the eternal fence sitter is worse than a communist faggot. kill yourself post-haste

They de-facto are and do

I don't follow Marx

Empathy what? Describe how people's mental efforts create the existence of something in the world, such as good and evil.

Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who advocates for any political, social or economic reforms from dialectical materialism is a de facto Marxist.
He was the first one to pave this road, and you walk it whether you realize it.

pick up any textbook on morality and point out where it says you to have to believe in sky man for good and evil to exist

Exactly, you have the keys to escape the matrix now. Use them wisely, or don't, it's whatever.

i said athiests follow some religion, not that atheism itself is a religion. and they DO follow some religion, because ultimately they fall in line with purely symbolic beliefs and values, which is all that religions are, systems of wholly symbolic beliefs. they'll often couch their beliefs in terms of materialism or science in an attempt to christen (see what i did there?) their beliefs with sensations of objectivity, but ultimately they're behaving in a way that is not visibly different from someone following a religion, e.g. pursuing goals and beliefs ad hoc.

Empathy what?

The ability to understand someone's plight having experienced my own.

Describe how people's mental efforts create the existence of something in the world, such as good and evil.

I just did

But if enough people agree that X thing is wrong and build a society around it then it becomes true for that society

It's that simple.

It's also peoples mental efforts that observes and determines good and evil.
Again, pretty simple

dialectical materialism

Can you define this?

atheism and moral realism is compatible

im not evil because this jewish book says so!

there are atheists who are idealists, see schopenhauer

Thanks for doubling down on your incredulity, arrogance, self-worth, and self-aggrandizing pseudo-philosophies.
It's honestly exhausting being this right all the time, but somebody has to do it.

Anyone who endorses anything related to politics is evil. For politics to exist at all, there has to be a bunch of people going wah wah reality is bad and people suck so lets control it all. Its why all lefties are ok with russias getting their heads blown off and righties ok with ukraines getting bombed on hd drone footage. Whoever entertains politics for a second is evil

killing you would be animal abuse, but you are a threat to actual members of society
a human zoo sounds like the most moral option

i said athiests follow some religion

How exactly?

they fall in line with purely symbolic beliefs and values, which is all that religions

Give an example

pursuing goals and beliefs ad hoc.

How is me setting goals religious in nature exactly?

2 step process.
First, morality is contextual. You can't separate yourself from the historical/social/cultural etc moral context in which you exist today. So when I say "X is evil" I'm appealing to this moral context and the common experience we share.
Second, the origins of morality are based on strength and weakness. That which makes your tribe strong is good, that which makes it weaker is evil.
My view of morality as an atheist is more "objective" than your view as a religious person who is taking it from a made-up conception of "God" which is entirely subjective to begin with.
Hopefully you understand now.

I don't need books to tell me what I should believe, books can inform me about this and that, but I leave the decision of what to believe to myself. Lol?.

Good and evil are societal constructs. They are a meaning that we create, and cannot exist as concepts without man to conceive of them.
For them to function in their role, we need to treat them as immutable truths. But it is important to remember that at their most base level, they are not. If they were actually the immutable truths that we assume them to be, there would be no room for argument. No one contests that the sky is blue and water is wet, they are self-evidently so. This is not the case for good, evil, and justice. As evidenced by the fact that different societies and cultures often disagree on the finer points of each of those three.

Sure, there are some things that are almost universally accepted as good or evil across cultures. There are not a lot of people out there that are pro-murder as a societal good. But once you get beyond the big stuff, things get hazy both across cultures and across time.
For example, the people of Rome would have considered the killing of Christians to be morally good for hundreds of years. Then they converted to Christianity. Their definition of what was right and wrong shifted with the pressures of time and culture.

I am BEYOND good and evil

Can't relate, a perfect person I exist in a state of near constant bliss.
I think the Buddhists called it Nirvana.
I just call it heaven on earth mode, it's pretty dope, highly recommend.

ok so you don't see how good and evil can exist without sky man
you refuse to read material giving you an explanation
you think your gut feeling is the only correct way to frame it

that makes you retarded, not everyone else

Whatever cope helps you get by my friend

argue with a christian

he tells me jews are gods chosen

I wouldn't have any opinions on what is good or evil without a magical jew in the sky telling me

You cannot have idealism without realm of ideas, which inherently and essentially recognizes the eternal soul. This, I would think should go without saying, but clearly it doesn't, necessarily rejects atheism.
Without Googling and in my own words:
Materialism - The rejection of anything and everything divine. The assertion that all of the observable universe is just that, the observable universe. A claim that nothing exists outside of the physical-material universe.
Dialectics - comparing the truth of things by discourse, debate, logic, Socratic method et al, and by using categories
And therefore Dialectical Materialism would be - discussing truth of the world from a purely materialist perspective, though specifically as it pertains to politics, economics, and social issues, as per Marx and Engels
Oxford defines it as: the Marxist theory (adopted as the official philosophy of the Soviet communists) that political and historical events result from the conflict of social forces and are interpretable as a series of contradictions and their solutions. The conflict is believed to be caused by material needs.
Yeah, so like I said, ANYONE who advocates for any political, social or economic reforms from dialectical materialism is a de facto Marxist

When I wrote "Empathy what?" I didn't ask what empathy is. Are you autistic? I was expressing my confusion about your answer and then clarifying my question.

Are you planning to answer me how people's mental efforts can give existence to something real in the world such as good and evil?

muh good and evil is informed by god trust me bro

why does this even matter? let's say god is 100% real and created some kind of objectively morality. nobody believes in the same sky god daddy anyway and you get wildly different morality depending on the culture. so in real life practice, it's no different than everyone thinking morality is subjective

he claims to be a Christian

he posits perennial truisms exist between Christianity and Buddhism, specifically in the field of soteriology

Holy fucking heretic, Batman.

You cannot have idealism without realm of ideas

no you do not understand, idealism is the mere idea of mind over matter. consciousness and minds exist in atheism as well. and so idealist atheism can be a thing. the only difference is that physicalist atheists simply say that the consciousness and mind arises from physical process.

any athiest that claims to follow some value system (which includes, btw, "there are no morals or values") is living a religious life, because they're choosing at any given moment to follow a value system that is, ultimately, vacuous.

How is me setting goals religious in nature exactly?

why do the things you value have value? an athiest won't be able to answer this question because they won't be able to admit that, on some level, they're doing things "just because". the act of behaving at all implies some value system, and no value system has their basis in the world. this is basic stuff, we understand this on a folk level: "one man's trash is another man's treasure". you can only represent abstract ideas using symbols, and symbols necessarily imply religion.

Philosophy has to be one of the biggest blights on mans progression, look at all you monkeys arguing over language while reality is happening right now for everyone. What is there really to talk about

the concept of evil existed well before christian

It's ok, you'll have your own Dark Night of the Soul some day, it's all love.

In this case, it is both subjective AND objective.
Morality is subject to Christ, while it is objective for created beings.
Like gravity. We are subject to it, and relativism shows this. Yet it exists in and of itself, per mere scientific understanding.
Of course, I would posit all things exist due to Christ, including especially natural forces. But I make this analogy about general relativity so you know what I'm talking about.

Do your proposals involving hurting large numbers of people for your personal gain or the gain of your in-group?
If so, you are probably evil.

The rejection of anything and everything divine.

Define divine and why should anyone consider your subjective interpretation on it?

The assertion that all of the observable universe is just that, the observable universe.

Well the universe is pretty big, we haven't observed it all.

A claim that nothing exists outside of the physical-material universe

Metaphysical is a thing. It's how ideas become physical aka reality

ANYONE who advocates for any political, social or economic reforms from dialectical materialism

I don't think anyone does this though

Are you planning to answer me how people's mental efforts can give existence to something real in the world such as good and evil?

For a third time, I have

But if enough people agree that X thing is wrong and build a society around it then it becomes true for that society

What's the malfunction for you here?

Dialectics aren't merely a discourse. It is more of a universality of :struggle: where many things are in competition and something arises from it. The materialist argues for things like class consciousness - consciousness being a complete contradiction to the material.
Other than that, nice post.

mind over matter

Bitch, atheism rejects the mind. It's ALL matter, all physics with materialists. How do you not get it?

religion makes you le good!

NOOOO ALL THOSE HYPER-RELIGIOUS THIRD WORLD SHITHOLES DONT COUNT

so? explain why this hypothetical objective morality existing has any real life impact on the day to day activities of human society. it's not like fucking gravity where its effects are obvious and observable.

God made me strong.

arguing with a Christkike on politics

he starts talking about the transcendental argument for God

something created by a Eugenicist Hellene

your story is fake. and almost as gay as (you).

they're choosing at any given moment to follow a value system that is, ultimately, vacuous

That's your opinion though. I don't find setting goals to be vacuous. We just disagree on which goals to follow is all.

why do the things you value have value?

Depends on the goal. If I make a goal to lose weight and achieve it then.most onvious value is better health.

an athiest won't be able to answer this question because they won't be able to admit that, on some level, they're doing things "just because".

And you were just proven wrong

Bitch, atheism rejects the mind.

as i said, atheism is the disbelief in god, what youre referring to are physicalists.
you need to stop mistaking two terms and conflating them.

Dark Night of the Soul

hur dur muh emotionalist sensual platitudes

Arguing with anyone about your political opinions is retarded. Maybe I'm getting old, but I just don't give a shot about convincing people to see things my way. None of us hold the reins of society in our hands anyways.

and symbols necessarily imply religion.

Nope. For you maybe

Strong enough to make me declare myself the Supreme Absolute.

Can I give you an example? Unpack for me the statement "I say that Russia's attack on Ukraine is evil, and my friend argues with me and says that it's actually good." What are we even talking about?

that you follow any goal at all, though, is religious in nature because whatever utility you're maximizing is purely symbolic. address my actual arguments or fuck off.

Sounds like a Pizza Hut special.

But that's a political opinion and the methods of control and how much and how little we have is important to know and explore. If you can identify the issues, what made things worse, you have hopes of getting back control.

It's like how seeing the problem as money in politics is basic and intuitive. You can point to policy and cases like Citizens United to trace what happened and have a plan to correct it.

What are people here trying to say? 'my view of reality that someone elses books made me believe in is correct and your incorrect'? Like go join the army or something you coflict oriented insects

You are also too stupid to talk to. It's like explaining calculus to a child who hasn't even begun the basics of algebra. He just can't compute, and it's not his fault.
Dialectics is explicitly and in no uncertain terms a discourse.
Well that's what I'm saying to you, it's NOT hypothetical. You're free to reject it, but it's real.
No, you just aren't familiar with the concepts and verbiage you're referencing.
Fucking midwits abound ITT

Well, reading these books didn't help you understand how evil and good can exist without God. I'm not smarter than you, and I don't think it will help me either.

that you follow any goal at all, though, is religious in nature because whatever utility you're maximizing is purely symbolic.

What's symbolic isn't exclusive to religion. Having better health is a symbol of a better life.

address my actual arguments

I am. Not my problem you don't like the answers

You've lost when you're only reply is personal attacks

Have a nice day

should my remission of autoimmune disease make me believe in a higher power?

I think only you can answer that question

No, you just aren't familiar with the concepts and verbiage you're referencing.

you clearly dont understand philosophy in the first place, otherwise youd known what the terms im referencing are.
you still fail to face the main point which is that atheism (disbelief in god) and moral realism (that morality exists) are both compatible, in both a physicalist and idealist worldview.

atheism rejects the mind. It's ALL matter

empathy

The ability to understand someone's plight having experienced my own

Philosophy has to be one of the biggest blights on mans progression

I exist in a state of near constant bliss

There is no greater Master I can ask than the supreme God.

christcuck morality

kikes just have to commit a genocide against Amalek because reasons

If a man is good let's destroy his life over a bet

Yeah. It's totally not a system made up by kikes after they encountered neoplatonism

Ditto, still sounds like pizza though

Well that's what I'm saying to you, it's NOT hypothetical. You're free to reject it, but it's real.

Why does it matter if it's real or not is my entire question. People can't observe it. There's no way to measure it. And real life society completely ignores such morality.

So why am I surrounded be a bunch of humans telling me what to believe, and you are doing that too in your debate with the other guy. The only reality i see is the wind blowing, this cake costing 3.50. What is the point of all this philosophical musing

All that's left are personal attacks. You people are utterly beneath me in terms on understanding, dialogue, empirical knowledge, rational knowledge, education, discourse, everything.
Like when I discipline my child with corporal punishment because he cannot understand in-depth instruction yet, and he cries because I'm "mean". I'm not mean, I simply have to stoop down to his level and use the tools he can interpret.

I've read a huge portion of the Western canon, and so I'm 100% confident that you're wrong.
Oh, I see what you're getting at. Because you go to Hell for rejecting Christ and not partaking in theosis.

You argue with the mad and the wilfully ignorant?
Misplaced kindness. Leave the pigs to their filth.

So why am I surrounded be a bunch of humans telling me what to believe

Because you choose to?

and you are doing that too in your debate with the other guy.

Be specific please

All that's left are personal attacks.

For you maybe

boohoo intensifies

OK bud

OP is either implying that the concept of "good and evil" require faith to establish or that an atheist is evil by default and that much is intuitive and does not need explanation. Possibly a combination of both. That's because faith and rightwing ideology often doesn't invite or need higher thought beyond discussing anecdotes, vibes, and what they feel is intuitive.

never said symbols are exclusive to religion

Because you go to Hell for rejecting Christ

But you can't prove that or meaningfully demonstrate it. You can't expect people to operate their daily lives based on that assumption. So again, I say the question is basically meaningless.

partaking in theosis

Arseholics. No.
But yes Jesus will judge you and you will end up in the lake of fire or simply not getting into the kingdom of heaven, the minority make it in THE END. The universe is a creation and that is what is happening. Babbling words won’t change this fact.

The command of a proper higher moral authority is still a better basis for morality than atheistic magic, where people somehow just imagine morality into reality and can now universally refer to it, lol.

I've read a huge portion of the Western canon, and so I'm 100% confident that you're wrong.

and yet you cant explain how that is so.
youve read so much but cant tap into it and bring forth some arguments.
first look up moral realism and moral naturalism, then come back. atheism does not automatically mean moral relativism or immorality.

Good. Then there's nothing religious about setting a goal to lose weight and achieving it

There is no good and evil in politics (realpolitik). Everything a nation-state does should be seen merely through a self-interest dimension. The discussion should be centered around the fact that being attacked is not in Ukraine's self-interest so the weakness that allowed them to being attacked is what's "evil" (for the Ukranians).
For example I can see a Russian arguing that the attack was "evil" because it weakens Russia's position in the worldstage (what makes you weak is evil) but I can also see a Russian arguing that it was "good" because allowing the West to take over Ukraine would make Russia weaker.
Using good and evil in politics is probably always retarded, I agree to that. I don't see why an atheist would use those arguments but even if it comes from a religious person that's just as bad.

I’m arguing with the mad and wilfully ignorant aren’t I?
Dang.

where people somehow just imagine morality into reality and can now universally refer to it

religion does that too

The problem with that kind of arguments is that they ignore all kinds of faith that's not religious.
For example a person works because he has faith in that it will help him.
This has nothing to do with the supernatural but it is an act of faith.
Almost every action a person does is born out of faith on previous experiences, in what others do or in sheer probability

which would be true, except that you're (religiously btw) following wholly abstract goals

except that you're (religiously btw) following wholly abstract goals

How exactly? Losing weight isn't abstract. It's very real and so are the effects of it.

I don't need to. You can picrel for a generic, sweeping demonstration. If you don't read it or something similar, then shut the fuck up about things you don't understand.
I CAN and DO expect people to live in accordance with Christ, and so does Christ Himself.
I should have to agree with the sentiment in regard to how many people make it to heaven. I likely will not.
I already have, but it was a waste of time. Read the thread, if you like, but I again equate you people to my 4 year old son who does not understand anything, and so I do not bother. I talk to him like he's 4, and I talk to you people like you're stupid.

why lose weight?

My bad, picrel

I CAN and DO expect people to live in accordance with Christ,

You're welcome to your personal feelings and opinions

I've already answered this

Having better health is a symbol of a better life.

and why acquire a symbol of a better life?

Yeah, no shit I'm welcome. Don't need you to tell me that.

I already have, but it was a waste of time. Read the thread

no one brought up moral realism before me.
just say you have no argument and fuck off retard

Religion does not differentiate itself by any means from any organization that shares a system of beliefs other than in having a doctrine based around the supernatural.
Imagination it's inside reality and has it's base on the material world you can literally measure brain activity. It is part of reality and our way of interacting with the rest of reality.
This is why any concept imagined has to excuse itself within reality but reality just is without need for justification.

Okay, let's take your example. Now I say that making Russia weak is good, and my friend says that making Russia weak is bad. What are we even talking about? Stick to this example since you set it yourself.

If you actually had a thorough understanding of these things, you could read the thread and see that those of my position accept moral realism, and we wouldn't need to discuss is explicitly.
But you lack instinct and discretion, and so you must be spoon fed. What EXACTLY do you want to say about moral realism? That morality is objective? Wow, hot fucking take anon. Nobody but you said this.

Essentially you're why does losing weight equate to a better life?

Yeah, no shit I'm welcome

What's funny is you share the same mentality as a tranny

I CAN and DO expect people to live in accordance with my gender ideology!

Just different words

A religious book is not a scientific experiment or observational data. You cannot in good faith seriously claim this is a demonstration of "you'll go to hell without Jesus". Any honest Christian would simply say this is faith and not a science. Which, again, loops back to my point. The world is not going to revolve around your personal faith nor what you believe objective morality to be if there are no actual real-life consequences or observable effects. So I say that it doesn't matter.

you're

You're asking*

Christianity is the same as trannyism

This is why I cannot wait for Fascism to come to America. People like you are utterly incompatible with functioning, polite society.

In Warhammer? Yes, there the power of existence of gods directly depends on the faith of rational beings.

But I don’t think that in reality it works, otherwise an atheist would probably have to admit the existence of some of the especially strongly believed gods.

ive already said my position, you keep claiming all atheists are moral subjectivists/relativists and i am saying that im atheist and a moral objectivist so your words are retarded.

>Christianity is the same as trannyism

How you make demands is.

People like you are utterly incompatible with functioning, polite society

Says the guy who.leaps to constant personal attacks. You're a hypocrite like a tranny too

no, i'm asking this: why pursue a better life at all?

why pursue a better life at all?

What answer would you give?

She is right

What? No. The spanish anon already explained it better than I could but every religion is just people imagining morality into reality. Even if you believe one to be absolutely/mostly right, say orthodox Christianity if we go by your flag, that just means that literally every other religion is making up shit so there's no difference. And of course it goes without saying that orthodox Christianity, like any human institution, isn't perfect and is full of people who also just use it as a tool to "imagine morality into reality".

Semantic. Do rights exist? Does your consciousness exist? Does France exist? Does love exist? Everyone collectively hallucinates these things and bring them into existence. What one meth head decides is evil and what a culture collectively deems evil are completely different things. Then again if you claim things like "responsibility" don't exist because they are just like concepts and words man whoa it means you don't have to bathe.

That makes sense, but the framework a lot of these conversations work under slants language into a game of semantics in an attempt to elevate faith above typical forms of reason, or at least keeps it at the same level, legitimizes it. That's because what's truly intuitive is working with what we can see and measure. Christian faith works outside that, but many Christians would like the legitimacy to apply their Christian faith as national policy. What results is a stronger assertion of Christianity as the only guiding light of right and wrong in policy and now you're arguing with people who can't ever budge from that. If they do, the whole thing falls apart.

The true Christian Faith, which is Orthodox Christianity, whose goal is theosis, is indeed a science. It is empirical, and is made to be partook in, like an experiment. That's more or less the whole thesis of the book.
Again, either read it or shut the fuck up about it. I read Das Kapital and Communist Manifesto twice so I could know what the fuck I was talking about, so I wouldn't be like you.
Except if you look at what I ACTUALLY said, you're wrong. I said >ANYONE, who advocates for any political, social or economic reforms from dialectical materialism is a de facto Marxist
Do you get it yet?

inb4 but I don't claim to be Marxist

Look up what de facto means and get back to me
They're not my demands, they are God's. Don't shoot the messenger, faggot, and deal with the message itself.

Going to Hell isn't scary. Going to Hell without God is scary.

Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort

do you not have an answer?

They're not my demands, they are God's

You mean your subjective interpretation of what you think God is.
Do you?

Do you get it yet?

atheists are not dialectical materialists once again, if you went through my posts you would understand that.
in fact atheism has nothing to do with dialectics or hegel at all, hegel was an idealist that believed in god (altough slightly different from the christian god)

i do. but this is orthogonal to your answer. do you o don't you have an answer?

Again, either read the book or shut the fuck up. The book is very authoritative within Orthodoxy. And so if you want to make comment on Orthodoxy, you should educate yourself on the basics. Like I did with Communism and Marxism. Fuck me it genuinely feels so good to be THIS right and knowing you're SO wrong lmao

and deal with the message itself

I deal with it as I do a tranny. No thanks, I have no interest in playing along with your delusion

The true Christian Faith, which is Orthodox Christianity, whose goal is theosis, is indeed a science.

It's not. It's a completely untestable hypothesis. If you believe it, that's cool but don't pretend it's something that it's not. Nobody needs to read a book to understand something this basic.

Hell is just another amusement park to me if I can be with God.

atheists are not dialectical materialists

Yes they are, especially when they want to talk politics. I'm directly and immediately refuting your argument. See the top of the pyramid.

i do

And they would be some of the same answers I'd give. Which is my point

do you o don't you have an answer?

I have several, some, if not most would be the same as yours.

Again, either read the book

I have :^)

Yes they are, especially when they want to talk politics

Give an example

Then don't be surprised when others write you off as well.

It's a completely untestable hypothesis

But it's not. That's the entire point. YOUR western understanding of Christianity is the untestable, untenable, unsound hypothesis, and you have the Franks to thank for it.

Nobody needs to read a book to understand something

omegakek

Then don't be surprised when others write you off as well.

Troons unironically give the same answer lol

Stop no. In Christianity, people's moral convictions can either correspond to an objective moral standard set by the highest moral authority, God, or not.

We don't imagine anything into reality, we assume that our moral convictions correspond to the realuty if God, we can be wrong.

For atheists, their own fantasies are what ground morality, lol.

Yes they are, especially when they want to talk politics.

they are not, first explain what you think dialectical materialism is.

Yes they are, especially when they want to talk politics.

thats not what refuting even means, refuting is when you give a proper counter argument, right now youre just talking

well i personally am religious, perhaps you are too, it doesn't matter because it all leads to the same thing regardless of whether or not you identify as athiest, and that same thing is religious in nature. it really is simple as.

For atheists, their own fantasies are what ground morality, lol.

look up moral naturalism

Atheists are evil.

For atheists, their family, friends, colleagues and neighbors are what ground morality

Ftfy

>Again, either read the book

I have :^)

ZOZZLE I'm not being grandiose when I say I have enough insight, knowledge, experience, and intuition to know you're lying. And yes, this is an appeal to authority fallacy. I'm saying you're lying because I'm smart enough to sniff it out.

Give an example

What do you mean "example"? You want an "example" of "atheists are dialectical materialists when they talk politics"? You realize that's a rationalistic position, and not an empirical claim? I can literally make up an example of an atheist saying homosexuality is wrong, and there's your example. Do you see how what you asked for doesn't make sense.

well i personally am religious, perhaps you are too

Not anymore

and that same thing is religious in nature

What is religious about setting a goal to lose weight and achieving it?

*zxhis

I'm not being grandiose when I say I have enough insight, knowledge, experience, and intuition to know you're lying

Again troons do exactly this when I tell them a man can't give birth. Lol

I'm glad that you're proud of your religion but theosis is not an observable or testable phenomenon. This isn't just a matter of an opinion. And some book existing or not doesn't change that. If you can't explain it in your own words, you don't truly understand it.

you are not an interesting troll

first explain what you think dialectical materialism is.

Like I said, read the fucking thread >refuting is when you give a proper counter argument
No, its' not, not per Graham's Hierarchy, which is generally accepted as sound per Western ideals. Refute Graham, not me, then get back to me about what you think it means to refute a central point.

Again,

What is religious about setting a goal to lose weight and achieving it?

?

But I respond to those anons here who claim moral subjectivism, that judgments about good and evil are subjective.

The position from which to make moral judgments, I argue, is not at all possible rationally. It's like having an opinion about the shape of a unicorn's horn when you deny the existence of unicorns at all.

hur dur you're like a troon

You're the one lying
Again, either read the book or shut the fuck up. It is empirical, there is nothing rational about Christianity. It is the very definition of taking your rational ego and marrying it to the irrational divine infinity which is Christ Himself.

rusnigger

not ontologically evil

You're the one lying

So a man can give birth?

You completely missed the argument. It's twofold here.

1. For every non-Christian religion, they also make up shit so it's not any different than the atheist.
2. Not every Christian is perfect (duh your own religion even says we're all born sinners), so therefore is a corruptible institution just like any others where people pervert it to push their own agenda.

In conclusion, it's completely indistinguishable, in practice, from any one else because it's a moral system governed by man.

you clearly dont know what it is, youre assuming that all discussion from a materialist perspective is dialectical materialist, which its not.
its not just a mere combination of two words, it's its own separate thing.
as i said atheism is only physicalist, there are atheist idealists.
by nature all politics is physicalist because its a secular framework that deals with the human world, not the world beyond.

Refute Graham, not me

except what im saying is that YOU have not done what graham said which is refute, but instead have merely disagreed.
he is right but you have not refuted anything, in fact youve hardly made an argument.
well not all atheists are subjectivists

There's nothing empirical about this. If it was, you wouldn't keep telling me to read some random book but just link me some measurements or something.

Even worse in that it not critical of it's own premises
For example universalism

Europeans found niggers

Euros realized it

Racial theory surges to explain reality

christcucks start a centuries long journey to denny it cause we're all sons of God

You are literally too stupid to insult. I hate German philosophy so much. Everyday I wonder why God allowed you to lose WW2, you were almost saved from your own autism.

Kek like clock work.

Says the guy who.leaps to constant personal attacks. You're a hypocrite like a tranny too

Hahaha

I DID give you a link, it's called read the fucking book. That has the very basics of what you need.
You want immediate, hard empirical proof? You can look up any Orthodox Saints within the Synaxarion. Oh but not THAT kind of empiricism, right? You want the ones where you can sit in your gooner cave and rationally explore positions within your own mind.
Hey retard, you have to actually WORK to get empirical data on your own. You wouldn't understand anything I showed you.

You are literally too stupid to insult

youre an emotional neurotic retard, all youve done so far is ad hominem with no proper counter argument.
first assuming all atheists are physicalists, then not understand what moral realism is. youre not smart.
you have no arguments, you have no understand of anything. youre an arrogant dunning kruger retard that is self hating. your own self hatred turns into hatred of others. because (You) cannot explain things you assume others also cant.

German

german philosophy is greatest in the world, french and greek is not comparable.
german idealism is one of the top philosophical systems, your inability to understand hegel is proof of your own idiocy, not proof of hegel being bad.

Remain incredulous, then. Have zero positions other than "Nuh uh, you can't tell me I'm wrong, HMPH!"

Have zero positions other than "Nuh uh, you can't tell me I'm wrong, HMPH!"

Nice projection. It's what you literally did here

"uhhhh, you're not smart!"
"uuhhh, german philosphy is gut'
"uhhh, uhh uhh even though I don't believe in anything truly objective, I'll keep using the word and insisting you're using it wrong"
lmao shut up kraut. You people are all fucking stupid.

I assume that is a book detailing the purported lives of various saints. Even if I assume every single word in there is 100% true and completely accurate, that's still not empirical evidence.

there was nothing in your reply to counter, so i started explaining my own understanding of you.

uhhh, uhh uhh even though I don't believe in anything truly objective

as i said, im not a dialectic materialist. im just a physicalist.
i do believe in objectivism, you clearly dont know my opinion on things. if you dont even know what moral realism/naturalism is then you cant insult anyone.
maybe take a trip to plebbit r/askphilosophy and educate yourself

I don't understand why you keep imposing on me beliefs that I've already said I don't have. I don't believe that good and evil are made up things, I believe that good and evil are real around me. Atheists, on the contrary, believe that good and evil do not exist in the world, but are only imagined by people. This makes any considerations about good and evil absurd, it's like considering what shape a unicorn's horn is.

Atheists, on the contrary, believe that good and evil do not exist in the world

Incorrect

but are only imagined by people.

Not imagined. They are real and it's the people that acknowledge and define evil and good.

I did not say anything about what you believed in that post. I don't know how to simplify it even further because it's evident that you still don't understand the argument from my post. I'll try once more. For the sake of argument, I will pretend there is an objective Christianity morality that exists. However, I will assert that it DOESN'T matter. Because mankind is inherently flawed, ALL religious institutions are subject to corruption and perversion for immoral. All moral beliefs will stray away from whatever the correct answer is, esp. any non-Christian system. The conclusion is that there is no inherent superiority in a god-based morality system because there's still the same factor that always inevitably fucks it up: humans.

Atheists, on the contrary, believe that good and evil do not exist in the world, but are only imagined by people. This makes any considerations about good and evil absurd, it's like considering what shape a unicorn's horn is.

They do believe that good and evil, right and wrong, exist. The premise you're working from is faulty from the start. You're saying you can't conceptualize these concepts outside of a narrow context you selectively apply.

This anon gets it

mingling with a wrongdoer

he tries to manipulate you

color me surprised