--- There is no meaningful concept of "right" and "wrong" apart from an authority able to impose such.
If enslaving you makes me happy, there's no meaningful sense in which you can say I'm "wrong" to do so. All you can do is squeal your disapproval.
Now you say:
Now we're faced with the fact that you appear not to know the difference between opinion and fact. Thus the reference to relativism above. Since you're positing relative reality, rather than just relative morality, I also mention solipsism--after all, the belief that each person's reality is unique, is equivalent to denying the existence of reality.
Your comment;
" --- There is no meaningful concept of "right" and "wrong" apart from an authority able to impose such."
-- Is a relativistic claim.
In effect YOU are now denying the existence of the reality of right & wrong.
. How so? What I mean is, no it isn't. If I say, "There is no such thing as morality," I am making an absolute statement. If I say, "Morality exists if and only if an ontological superior exists and imposes it," I am still making an absolute statement.
Big deal. You're making an absolute statement defending a relativistic claim. -- You're playing word games with the meaning of "absolute".
In one sense I'm making the absolute statement that if the atheists are right, then morality does not exist.
Atheists make no such claim.
Do you really think you're making valid points with such sophomoric comments? Grow up..
In another sense, I'm merely making the observation that no atheistic morality can conceivably exist, because it will depend on axioms that I'm free to reject.
You need some "axiom" rest. You can't fool all the people all the time by mouthing gibberish.