yes

is it immoral?

then you are an objectivist.

i don't consider morals to exist

but they do.

morals define ethics which defines what we consider as good and evil.

they don't, morals is just a word used by people to define the line they consider fine, and bad

they are subjective, I agree.

but they do exist.

what you consider good and evil doesn't apply to everyone else

and they are important

I consider religion to be evil, in any form

but what **they** consider good and evil makes all the difference in the world

it does not, what societies consider good and evil changes over time

The problem is that Kant undermined the enlightenment, and the validity of reason, with the explicit purpose of justifying faith.

this paved the way for Christianity.

and then, later, Marx and Nietzsche.

yes, and thats what the left is doing today

yes

now you understand.

i always did

but its not just the left

the right considers altruism to be moral as well.

I agree with the end, just not your ideals of an "enligthenment"

they consider capitalism as a necessary evil at best, and still consider selfishness as immoral.

The way i see it, modern society just replaced God with Socialism

yes

because they are equally valid

they are not

they're both lies told to people to control them

because there is no place for reason in society.

we ultimately have just given up ourselves to faith somewhere along the line.

reason gimps control

If a leader can't have people removed on a whim, but instead be faced with "but theres no reason for it" they don't have power

right

its just a power play

this is why progressives only value "power", they consider facts to only be what the person in power declares to be true

yes, but it is only sanctioned because the intellectual elite fundamentally believe in altruism

If i say the sky is blue, but a person in power says its green, to post-moderninsts the sky is green

today, they just take it on faith that we have no free will.

no

the sky is a social construct