If there's no God, nothing is right or wrong

[The Grand Nudger]

It's likely this would have its origins in our early evolution, I mean instincts or the ability to understand that limiting harm among animals that were evolving to live in societal groups has a survival advantage.

Sure. There are alot of good things™ that are good-for-us. OFC…There are a lot of good things that aren’t, too. Same with bad. Which is why I don’t personally think that morality is a matter of our evolutionary biology explicitly or exclusively.

It is pretty lucky (or unlucky depending on how we look at it) that our dinner seeking apparatus has other uses. Can tease out other relationships that…again in my opinion, are just as real.

[Ravenshire]

 Jimmy Saville was a Catholic, he received a Papal medal, so he wasn't bound by theistic morals, and what's more, according to your religion he could still have been saved and spend eternity in Heaven. Now it's just my opinion of course, as are all moral claims, but I find that idea morally repugnant.

You really don't understand logic or the argument. This is just foolish. I will give you one last chance to answer the first question. If you can't respond properly, we're done:
Under atheism, is anything right or wrong or evil? If Yes, what standard are you appealing to? After you answer that, I can engage with other topics if you're interested

Under atheism (whatever the fuck that means since atheists can barely agree on anything) things are just as right or wrong as they are in society in general. Evil is more a creation of the church, used by the church to control people. It's also a word used to allegorically describe something we consider especially bad. Personally I don't believe that "evil" is an actual force in the world.

[The Grand Nudger]

…but what if there were a walrus in your garage? What then? Would evil exist if there were a walrus in your garage?

Or would that only rise to the level of mischief?

[Ravenshire]

…but what if there were a walrus in your garage?  What then?  Would evil exist if there were a walrus in your garage?

Or would that only rise to the level of mischief?

Dunno. Is that walrus invisible? Pink? Both?

These things matter!

[AngelThMan]

A lot of people, atheists and theists alike….across time and cultures, have used something like a help/harm standard.

As in-  don’t harm, do help.  In that order most of the time, too.  As in we always have an obligation to minimize harm but we don’t always have an obligation to help.  Or that succeeding at harm is worse than failing to help.

Jimmy Saville never signed that contract. Neither do serial killers and rapists. So they saw no obligation to minimize harm. Therefore, it's not objective morality, just the opinion of some. I do appreciate your willingness to engage honestly. You're the only one so far.

[AngelThMan]

Without God, there are no moral obligations. There is no standard anyone is required to follow. So as long as a serial rapist gets away with it, like Jimmy Seville, there's no obligation unless there's an objective standard, which there is with God. That's my argument. Now address my argument and stop deflecting. Is there an objectively moral obligation under atheism?

Your argument fails at it's first premise. There are any number of moral and ethical obligations that come from society, no gawds required. You were sold a bill of goods by your local shaman and you bought without thinking. Of course, from your "arguments," you seem to do a lot of not thinking.

Like what? From the right or from the left? Magas or liberals? Who dictates morality? But even if every person on the planet had the same moral values, what obligates a dissenter to follow it? What if he wants to destroy the world and succeeds. What has he done wrong from his point of view? Not your point of view, from his. It was always his wish since he was a kid. Get it. Nothing binds him to your preference.

[Sheldon]

A lot of people, atheists and theists alike….across time and cultures, have used something like a help/harm standard.

As in-  don’t harm, do help.  In that order most of the time, too.  As in we always have an obligation to minimize harm but we don’t always have an obligation to help.  Or that succeeding at harm is worse than failing to help.

Jimmy Saville never signed that contract. 

That's fucking god botherers for you.

[AngelThMan]

You really don't understand logic or the argument. This is just foolish. I will give you one last chance to answer the first question. If you can't respond properly, we're done:
Under atheism, is anything right or wrong or evil? If Yes, what standard are you appealing to? After you answer that, I can engage with other topics if you're interested

Under atheism (whatever the fuck that means since atheists can barely agree on anything) things are just as right or wrong as they are in society in general. Evil is more a creation of the church, used by the church to control people. It's also a word used to allegorically describe something we consider especially bad. Personally I don't believe that "evil" is an actual force in the world.

Let me get this straight. Nothing is evil objectively? Nothing is bad?

[AngelThMan]

Jimmy Saville never signed that contract. 

That's fucking god botherers for you.

That's a stupid argument. You're dismissed.

[Sheldon]

Under atheism (whatever the fuck that means since atheists can barely agree on anything) things are just as right or wrong as they are in society in general. Evil is more a creation of the church, used by the church to control people. It's also a word used to allegorically describe something we consider especially bad. Personally I don't believe that "evil" is an actual force in the world.

Let me get this straight. Nothing is evil objectively? Nothing is bad?

You haven't got that straight, the first one is very different from the second for a start.