No I didn't, you just missed the point; that being that people who get their moral bearings from god and those who don't more often than not arrive at the same conclusion about right and wrong, and have been since the beginning of human history.
You and an atheist could stand side by side and witness someone get murdered and both be equally called to action.
The only difference is that you're inserting an extra, unneeded step by saying that the only reason you find this appalling is because your imaginary friend said so.
The whole point of morality is submission to the Creator's will. The smooth functioning of society, far from being the main purpose of morality, is merely a side-effect.
You've got it backwards.
A creator's will erases morality, since you're just doing a cost benefit analysis as to what will get you better rewards in heaven.
In your world, there's no reason to be good for goodness' sake, or to do the right thing when no ones looking, since, in your eyes, someone is ALWAYS looking and keeping tabs on you.
You are moral because you expect an everlasting reward for it.
We "know" they exist? How?
Because we can witness and read about goodness, evil, sacrifice, and all of the other eccentricities of mankind in civilizations, peoples, and groups who never knew, do not know, or choose not to follow a Judeo-Christian creator.
Ayn Rand was a miserable human being, the foundress of a bizarre cult centered on herself...
I'm not the biggest objectivist in the world, but she was far from a cult leader. She rejected collectivism in all forms, and whether or not she was miserable is conjecture on your part, unless that is your way of saying that you just don't like her, which is fine.
She was certainly more right about economics and philosophy than Marx though.
You and an atheist could stand side by side and witness someone get murdered and both be equally called to action.
That's not objective morality. That's hang-ups. Everyone has hang-ups. Without G-d there's no difference between distaste for mass murder and a distaste for stepping on cracks in a sidewalk. I keep saying this, you keep ignoring it.
The only difference is that you're inserting an extra, unneeded step by saying that the only reason you find this appalling is because your imaginary friend said so.
My "imaginary friend" tells me the difference between what is objectively morally wrong and what is a mere subjective hang-up, however universal.
The whole point of morality is submission to the Creator's will. The smooth functioning of society, far from being the main purpose of morality, is merely a side-effect.
You've got it backwards.
A creator's will erases morality, since you're just doing a cost benefit analysis as to what will get you better rewards in heaven.
In your world, there's no reason to be good for goodness' sake, or to do the right thing when no ones looking, since, in your eyes, someone is ALWAYS looking and keeping tabs on you.
You are moral because you expect an everlasting reward for it.
First of all, all your arguments are based on a rejection of chr*stianity. I am not a chr*stian.
The purpose of morality is not reward. The purpose is submission to and obedience of the Creator. Period. End of discussion. Judaism (and Noachism) is far less dogmatic about the afterlife than chr*stianity. Its stress is on obedience to Divine commandments in this world. In fact, the only reason the world was created was so Israel could obey the Torah. And the point of Torah is not following one's instincts to do good but to obey G-d.
And even many chr*stians (the antinomian Protestants) completely disconnect behavior from one's fate after death, saying instead that this depends solely on whether or not one is "saved." So even there your argument is fallacious.
We "know" they [good and evil] exist? How?
Because we can witness and read about goodness, evil, sacrifice, and all of the other eccentricities of mankind in civilizations, peoples, and groups who never knew, do not know, or choose not to follow a Judeo-Christian creator.
That's exactly it! They're eccentricities! And whether some appeal to you and others appall you, or many, or all, has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of objective good and objective evil. All that "goodness, evil, and sacrifice" is meaningless in a meaningless universe. A meaningless universe cannot be given objective meaning no matter how much you pretend your hang-ups and eccentricities matter!
G-d is the Creator. Among the things G-d creates (by His decrees) is good and evil. Without G-d neither objective good nor objective evil can exist. So the "problem of evil" is not a problem for Theists as many think it is, but for atheists, since it is G-d who makes objective evil possible and without Whom it cannot be said to exist.
Is there any need for me to continue repeating these points?