The Belief in atheist Dogma is a Mental Disorder

Someone wrote: "I was merely pointing out that his definition of insanity was conflated with deviancy, and further that insanity is an obsolete clinical concept." You were wrong on both counts, though. "Pro says that they did not make a claim that the failure to account for objective morality translates into a clinical issue." No, I never said that -- stop lying. " However, this is implied." No it isn't. " Pro argues that the atheist cannot account for objective morality, which in turn degrades moral character which produces immoral acts that therefore are deviant, or insane per pro's nomenclature; ergo, the failure to account for objective morality entails a clinical disposition; this is entirely sequitur." I never made the statements you claimed I made above -- that is yet another straw man logical fallacy on your part. 3.Pro says: "Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between better and worse." Finally, you actually quoted me correctly -- one time -- out of all the other ones that were merely straw man logical fallacies on your part! Congratulations! Maybe this means that you'll actually become an honest person one day. "4.To my claim of better being a pain-pleasure dichotomous function, pro states:" "No it isn't" "This, again, is not an argument." It is a response to your non-argument, for which you offered exactly zero evidence. "To my claim that I shall argue objective is not transcendent, pro states:" "I didn't make such a claim either, so again, straw man on your part." "Once again, implicitly pro did." No I didn't: Stop lying. " The statement that without God there is no objective distinction between better and worse, is an appeal to transcendent." I never made that statement, so that is yet another straw man on your part. You're really bad at this! "...remember the onus is on pro...." In actual debate, the onus for evidence is equally on both sides. You are obviously unfamiliar with actual debate, however, so I will forgive your ignorance of that fact. Besides, no evidence from you = good news for me! =) "...if pro wishes to assert that atheism is a mental illness...." Again, not what I said, so again, straw man on your part. "so, to me this creates a translation to pain or pleasure." That is your subjective opinion, not an objective fact. "to me," you said. LOL SMH =) "All things that exist because they are experienced are ontologically subjective, thus sense morality only makes sense in mental context, it is ontologically subjective." Oh, you poor kid -- you don't know what the word "subjective" means! LOL get a dictionary maybe? "Hence, the equation: 2+2=4 can only exist in the context of mind; it is not ontologically objective." Actually, the statement 2 + 2 = 4 is objectively true. "What had a mindless entity ought to do? The question is incoherent." Well, it is your question, not mine, so there's no surprise that it's incoherent -- so is the rest of your ridiculous and sophomoric drivel. "Now, if one says 2+2=5, this is objectively wrong." Yes: It is objectively wrong because 2 + 2 = 4 is objectively right. "Likewise, to say an act wasn't wrong isn't merely opinion; this is because it is a function of pain and pleasure" No it isn't. You lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)