You prove my thesis right, again and again.
You use labels and place your own meaning to them and then ask me why “my comrades” don’t think like I do. Only a certified moron resorts to this strategy of forcing guilt by (accusative) association.
My opinions stand by their own merit. Since you obviously couldn’t dispute the arguments I made to support my views, this is in itself a proof of their absoluteness. Hence you resorted to the cheap (but failed) trick of trying to pigeon-hole me into labels to hide your failure. The reasons I gave are not out of whim. The point is, if you can’t dispute them, there is inherent truth in them. You repeatedly mention that the truth to me is anything I may reason for my own fancy. The problem with this silly excuse for reasoning on your part is that you’re unable to prove me wrong. You keep missing the point that this failure (of yours and any one else who tries, for that matter) is proof of the absoluteness of my claims.
What nonsense is this? I was not trying to dispute your reasons on why fornication is wrong, as the issue was not whether an atheist can argue for his moral views but that another can atheist can support opposite views based on his own reasoning, and thus atheism is unable to consistently provide a consistent moral standard.
But this is what you keep avoiding, and instead try to make the issue about your reasoning and conclusions, when it was not. Give it up.
In addition, the fact that one person cannot prove you wrong, which i did not do as i affirmed your reasons, does not make you indisputable.