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

[Sheldon]

It is obvious. Not his problem it flies over your head. That is an answer. The only one here who states dumb stuff is you. The only thing in this thread that's mind boggling is how clueless you are ...lol

Really? So you think saying "obvious" is a logically sound argument? What if a theist said the existence of God is "obvious." Would that be satisfying?

The idea that atheists are more capable of critical thinking than theists is laughable 

So a straw man and a false equivalence in one sentence, tell us again what you imagine logic is, and its purpose. No need for laughing emojis, yours have caused an irony overload.

[The Architect Of Fate]

It is obvious. Not his problem it flies over your head. That is an answer. The only one here who states dumb stuff is you. The only thing in this thread that's mind boggling is how clueless you are ...lol

Really? So you think saying "obvious" is a logically sound argument? What if a theist said the existence of God is "obvious." Would that be satisfying?

The idea that atheists are more capable of critical thinking than theists is laughable 

It would be perfectly on brand for theists and their endless stream of baseless assertions. The only difference is that God is not obvious, while Paleophyte's statement is, though perhaps not to you, as you seem a bit slow. Also, it’s not just an idea—it’s a fact, and you keep proving it throughout this thread.

[Sheldon]

You really don't read for comprehension, do you? I never said nothing is bad. Perhaps you can re-read my post and comment on where you missed what I was saying.

Or, are you just trying to build a straw-man army?!?

You said evil is not a force in the world. What does that mean?

Which word is tripping you up?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Evil isn’t a force; it’s not like gravity or electromagnetism.

[Sheldon]

It is obvious. Not his problem it flies over your head. That is an answer. The only one here who states dumb stuff is you. The only thing in this thread that's mind boggling is how clueless you are ...lol

The idea that atheists are more capable of critical thinking than theists is laughable 

FYI, your strident unevidenced claims, dishonest evasion, and vapid irrational responses, are not representative of critical thought, anymore than your blind adherence to archaic superstition. 

Lets dumb it down for you then...."Polly put the kettle on" is not an argument, let alone critical thought, it is merely repeating something you've heard, but clearly don't understand, but don't be too upset, that's exactly what religions want, blind unquestioning adherence, from closed minded people incapable of doubt.

[AngelThMan]

"It is obvious. Not his problem it flies over your head. That is an answer. The only one here who states dumb stuff is you. The only thing in this thread that's mind boggling is how clueless you are ...lol"

To show you how dumb you are, I pasted your answer on ai to see if it's logically sound. Here's how I phrased it:

is this a logically sound argument: The question was: What objective standard determines something is good or bad.
The answer: "It is obvious. Not his problem it flies over your head. That is an answer. The only one here who states dumb stuff is you. The only thing in this thread that's mind boggling is how clueless you are ...lol"

AI's assessment on the logic:

[b]No, this is not a logically sound argument.[/b] In fact, it fails to qualify as a logical argument altogether, as it contains multiple logical fallacies, offers no structural validity, and lacks any evidence or verifiable premises.
The response breaks down logically as follows:

1. Serious Logical Fallacies

• [b]Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning):[/b] The phrase "It is obvious... That is an answer" attempts to prove the conclusion simply by asserting that the conclusion is already true and self-evident. It bypasses the need for an objective standard entirely by claiming the standard is just "obvious," providing no actual reasoning.
  
  
• [b]Ad Hominem (Personal Attack):[/b] Phrases like "The only one here who states dumb stuff is you" and "how clueless you are" attack the character and intelligence of the person asking the question rather than addressing the substance of the question itself.
  
  
• [b]Shifting the Burden of Proof:[/b] Saying "Not his problem it flies over your head" is an evasion tactic. When someone makes a claim (implying there is an answer or standard), the burden of proof rests on them to provide and explain it, not on the interlocutor to guess it.
  

2. Failure of Structural Validity
For an argument to be logically sound, it must first be [b]valid[/b], meaning the conclusion must necessarily follow from its premises.

• [b]Premise 1:[/b] The standard is obvious.
  
  
• [b]Premise 2:[/b] You are clueless and stating dumb stuff.
  
  
• [b]Conclusion:[/b] Therefore, the question has been answered.
  

Even if both premises were completely true, the conclusion does not logically follow. Insulting someone's understanding does not structurally construct an objective framework for morality ("good or bad").

Summary
The provided answer is a [b]rhetorical evasion and a defensive outburst[/b], not a logical proof. It completely fails to provide a sound argument.

----

You're an idiot, so get lost 

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It is obvious. Not his problem it flies over your head. That is an answer. The only one here who states dumb stuff is you. The only thing in this thread that's mind boggling is how clueless you are ...lol

Really? So you think saying "obvious" is a logically sound argument? What if a theist said the existence of God is "obvious." Would that be satisfying?

The idea that atheists are more capable of critical thinking than theists is laughable 

Let’s try to keep this on an adult level, Mister Poopy Pants.

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

"It is obvious. Not his problem it flies over your head. That is an answer. The only one here who states dumb stuff is you. The only thing in this thread that's mind boggling is how clueless you are ...lol"

To show you how dumb you are, I pasted your answer on ai to see if it's logically sound. Here's how I phrased it:

is this a logically sound argument: The question was: What objective standard determines something is good or bad.
The answer: "It is obvious. Not his problem it flies over your head. That is an answer. The only one here who states dumb stuff is you. The only thing in this thread that's mind boggling is how clueless you are ...lol"

AI's assessment on the logic:

[b]No, this is not a logically sound argument.[/b] In fact, it fails to qualify as a logical argument altogether, as it contains multiple logical fallacies, offers no structural validity, and lacks any evidence or verifiable premises.
The response breaks down logically as follows:

1. Serious Logical Fallacies

• [b]Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning):[/b] The phrase "It is obvious... That is an answer" attempts to prove the conclusion simply by asserting that the conclusion is already true and self-evident. It bypasses the need for an objective standard entirely by claiming the standard is just "obvious," providing no actual reasoning.
  
  
• [b]Ad Hominem (Personal Attack):[/b] Phrases like "The only one here who states dumb stuff is you" and "how clueless you are" attack the character and intelligence of the person asking the question rather than addressing the substance of the question itself.
  
  
• [b]Shifting the Burden of Proof:[/b] Saying "Not his problem it flies over your head" is an evasion tactic. When someone makes a claim (implying there is an answer or standard), the burden of proof rests on them to provide and explain it, not on the interlocutor to guess it.
  

2. Failure of Structural Validity
For an argument to be logically sound, it must first be [b]valid[/b], meaning the conclusion must necessarily follow from its premises.

• [b]Premise 1:[/b] The standard is obvious.
  
  
• [b]Premise 2:[/b] You are clueless and stating dumb stuff.
  
  
• [b]Conclusion:[/b] Therefore, the question has been answered.
  

Even if both premises were completely true, the conclusion does not logically follow. Insulting someone's understanding does not structurally construct an objective framework for morality ("good or bad").

Summary
The provided answer is a [b]rhetorical evasion and a defensive outburst[/b], not a logical proof. It completely fails to provide a sound argument.

----

You're an idiot, so get lost 

Congrats, you didn’t show anything here, and nope, I’m not going anywhere.  But your free to leave at any time and spare yourself further embarrassment ....Idiot 

Its also very telling you require AI to think for you 

[The Architect Of Fate]

This guy is so funny.

Why AI Can Be Unreliable for Assessing Logical Arguments
AI systems can produce fluent, well‑structured reasoning that is still fundamentally flawed — making them unreliable for evaluating logical arguments without human oversight.

Even AI does not trust AI

[Sheldon]

"It is obvious. Not his problem it flies over your head. That is an answer. The only one here who states dumb stuff is you. The only thing in this thread that's mind boggling is how clueless you are ...lol"

The provided answer is a [b]rhetorical evasion and a defensive outburst[/b], not a logical proof. 

----

You're an idiot, so get lost 

I must have missed where he claimed it was? Also the response wasn't initially his, and did not only claim the answer was obvious, but offered an exapansive explanation, so you're lying again, and using a straw man again, and using ad hominem again. 

FYI ad hominem and straw manning are irrational by definition, and trolling is not debate.