No, I'm saying I don't need a God to tell me a right and wrong where right is where I get to listen to harps forever and wrong results in accordions. Also the words "good" and "bad" are used at a more primitive level.
Personally, if I had no better arguments than to pretend to misunderstand what people are clearly saying I'd rather be thought a silent fool than a loud liar.
Harps vs. accordians forever is a straw man argument. But even with your own notions of good and evil the logical implication of an atheistic presupposition is that whether or not one thinks that listening to harps versus accordions forever is right, wrong or neither, there isn't any real moral, ethical or rational distinction between any such notions or their opposites. They are all equally evanescent epiphenomena of irrational physical forces, perhaps the result of eating too many crab apples last night. I am not pretending to misunderstand what you are saying. I understand it very well, and whether I am a liar as you insinuate, or not, is irrelevant to the point under consideration; namely, that under such a naturalistic philosophy you cannot formulate an argument that justifies an ethical objection to anything.
I'd rather be thought a silent fool than a loud liar.
Nice paraphrase of Proverbs 17:28
Cordially,