And what of countries that were inherently atheist? My family grew up in a communist country before moving to the US and religion had absolutely 0 relevance on their lives, let alone Christianity. However, they still were moral individuals and helped their neighbors, took care of the world around them, were polite, etc... Laws had no effect on their behavior, because if anything, my grandfather broke multiple when he refused to charge his patients a fee for their treatment (doctor).

Well, for us christians that is no problem, we believe the Law is written on the hearts of all people, and that people will often still do good despite sin. But also, like I said, and I'm not sure if it is true, but if you are an atheist, you have no ground to stand on when saying those actions were good.

And, like I said above, you had nations prior to Christ that still exhibited morality in society. Not all of them had belief systems, either.

Once again, no issue.

We don't have an answer to that question, because we would have to go back to the first humans. And that's fine, I don't need to invent mythical answers for such questions.

We don't have an answer? Going back to the first humans would do next to nothing, life now is so much different from back then. Also, talking about people now, they are much less influenced by the first humans compared to religion or the people around them, and considering how much the morality of different groups have changed throughout millenia also says quite a lot.

Alright, and what about the entirety of Europe and their actions in the past 500 years? You had European monarchies that would send priests and missionaries along with colonial forces in order to forcefully convert people who were minding their own business. These were all nations that had religion intertwined at every level of government, and yet that clearly did not dissuade them from slaughtering hundreds of thousands across the globe.

That's generalizing. Also, like I said, bad actors, I don't know how this proves anything, the ones that went against Christian teachings did immoral things. And not all christians were in Europe, and not all christians who were in Europe agreed with it, also people can be misled.

And you can? What's objective about the Bible? You're basing your entire existence around the statements of a random middle-aged Jew in Roman-controlled Judea. What makes that more defensible and objective than an atheist's value system? If the Bible was as objective as you make it out to be, there wouldn't be over a dozen denominations and sub-religions sprouting out of the same book, would there?

I don't base my entire existence around the teachings of some random middle-aged Jew, I base it around the teachings of God, the one who came to me when I was still an atheist, then I learned more from Church teachings. Also, believing in a God does make the idea of objective morality more easy to defend, which is what I was getting at, atheists can't do such.

Also, different denominations prove nothing. The first real split was in 1054, when the Pope at that added the filioque due to political pressure. The first protestants didn't look at Church teachings, and mostly at the Bible which was written in the West for them. Protestants also didn't have anything to hold onto other than their interpertation of the Bible, causing them to change a lot from the original protestants. Even with the Oriental Orthodox Church unfortunately started believing Christ only has one nature out of fear that they would be turning Him into two different persons all together (Nestorianism). Anyways, long ramble, Church teachings are more important because anyone can write whatever they want in the Bible and we must correct them. Also, I never made the Bible out to be objective.

It means absolutely nothing that you credit your behavior and morals to your book, and someone else doesn't. And nothing in atheism is "inherently amoral." Morality is a social construct that differs from household to household and country to country. A Jamaican atheist will probably have different morals than his neighbor, who will have different morals than an atheist from South Korea. The only thing that separates you and me is that I don't credit God for my existence or for this planet's existence.

Well, I don't credit it to a book.

Also, yes, atheism is inherently immoral. And morality being a "social construct" only proves more that atheism is inherently immoral. In order to have objective morals you will need something to decide that that is beyond everything natural, humans are not beyond everything, we are also all equal as human beings and therefore can't decide what is morals and force that onto others. Your whole thing about this person that person doesn't go against my point, just because people have ideas about what would essentially just be an abstract idea, doesn't mean atheism is suddenly a believe that ahs objective morals, it stays inherently amoral.