Of an atheist in his own childish intellect. Kwazy Atheist writes:
Where did you get the idea anyone needs an objective (you mean universal?) standard with which to criticize another person.
Because you do if that criticism is to be any more meaningful to the other person than simply stating “me no likee”. This isn’t a Christian issue, every serious atheist intellectual from the philosopher Daniel C. Dennett on down recognizes this. That is why they are constantly attempting to invent an objective, universal moral standard out of thin air – usually some variant on humanism or utilitarianism – to serve as a substitute. Unlike you, they not only admit the existence and relevance of the objective, universal Christian standard, they recognize its necessity. As I told you previously, your thinking on this issue is literally two or three orders of magnitude below the level of that which is being discussed here; the amusing thing is that you still haven’t realized that you’re in over your head.
You certainly don’t have one that you can verify as the true objective standard.
>
The key word there is “verify”. The objective Christian standard cannot be verified to be true, certainly not by the method of objective data combined with subjective interpretation known as “science”, but it unquestionably exists. You, on the other hand, cannot even attempt to hold another individual to an alternative moral standard because it does not exist. This is the “warrant” issue upon which Doug Wilson hung, drew and quartered Christopher Hitchens in their debate. In Hitchens’s defense, he did know enough to attempt to evade the issue until he was cornered, you, on the other hand, have blithely stepped onto the gallows, wrapped the rope around your neck and hung yourself, all the while proclaiming the nonexistence of the rope. That is why everyone is so amused by you.
If I want to be just like the Kwazy Kwistians all I have to do is say, “And behold, here then is thy objective standard!!” And why you say, “where did that come from?” I’ll tell my it came from the same place yours came from.
There is an element of truth in that statement. Being an atheist and therefore lacking any claim to an objective and universal moral standard, you have irrationally latched onto the Christian standard still dominant in your culture as a moral parasite, sans only those aspects of it that most directly conflict with your momentary desires. None of this changes the fact that without that parasitism, you possess no basis to criticize the morality or immorality of another individual regardless of their faith or lack of faith.
The rational atheist never uses the words “evil” or “should”. They do not exist for him, all that exists for him is “do what thou wilt”. The irrational atheist like Richard Dawkins or little Kwazy here is are much less dangerous creatures, for as Michel Onfray rightly describes them, they are simply crippled Christians who have rejected their God while clinging to most of His values.