A Dark Apologetic

Where to begin. First, let's tackle the claims you make with absolutely no evidence. "Existiential [sic] and moral truths are objective, which means mind-independent, existing metaphysically, eternally." Really? Name some of those objective moral truths. Because, again, Tyler - I reject your nonsense about these metaphysical truths existing. I reject that there is a "mind outside of ours" that... judges human moral claims. Minds require brains or some other temporal, physical framework. We have no evidence that there are any other intelligences in the universe, much less those that judge us, MUCH LESS, magical ones that judge us. You keep attempting to set up this argument that the human capacity to cooperate in the establishment of moral codes based on some objective principle is impossible and ridiculous because... it fails IN COMPARISON to the make-believe fantasy ingredient that, IN YOUR OPINION, is required to actually do that: god. And then in a stunning (but unsurprising) exhibition of intellectual dishonesty and cowardice, you insist that you're not making ANY claim like that. So your argument is: an objective moral code requires some... mind outside of our own - god - and that god's endorsement and presumable imparting of that moral code. Atheists fail at the establishment of an objective moral code because they don't have this god to lend their code objectivity, so it's all just subjective opinion on their part and they can't say that ANYTHING is truly (objectively) wrong because of that. Inevitably, when you are asked for ANY evidence that this objective morality-sharing god exists, or to provide ANY evidence of this objective moral code, AGAINST WHICH YOU'RE JUDGING THE GOD-FREE MORAL CODE, you cop out: "I am not trying to prove the existence of God or objective meaning, purpose and morality. That is never stated in the argument." Except that it is. Again, this is a fantastically dishonest attempt on your part to use your god-based moral code as the standard against which a non-god-based one fails, require that I provide evidence to the contrary, with absolutely no obligation on your end to provide ANY EVIDENCE that your standard even exists! The problem is, Tyler, YOU are the one who INTRODUCES GOD INTO THE CONVERSATION IN THE OPENING OF THIS DISCUSSION! You're the one who LISTS GOD AND FAITH AS THE ALTERNATIVE to "nihilism" and "irrationality". Here, I'll show you: "You are left with three options, nihilism, irrationality or faith. Either you will find yourself with a noose around your neck, living in the worldview of theism without justification or putting your trust in God." SEE THAT? In THE CONCLUSION of your... dark apologetic, YOU INSIST that god and faith ARE THE ALTERNATIVE to the subjectivity of the god-free moral code. And the ALTERNATIVE to our necessarily subjective, opinion-based, god-free moral code MUST BE an objective moral code, OR IT WOULDN'T BE THE ALTERNATIVE TO SUBJECTIVITY! Please stop being dishonest here. This is YOUR CLAIM. That is the CONCLUSION of the argument YOU OPENED WITH. SO provide evidence for that. Also, you apparently have these copy-pasta blocks that have nothing to do with what I said. In response to my assertion about the drive to preserve and perpetuate life being an OBJECTIVE, scientific, fact-based, and opinion-independent established reality, and the OBJECTIVE BASIS for a god-free moral code, you paste, "An atheist will resort to two areas for a source for objective morality, society and empathy." How fun! You make up your own version of the debate you're having and then respond to that! Except, I am an atheist and I didn't cite either society or empathy as the source of objective morality, DID I, TYLER? Try to respond to what I said, rather than your strange misunderstanding of what atheism is, what atheists believe, and how you've decided they should answer to make your argument more convenient for you. You've decided that a society is "nothing more than a collection of subjective opinions concerning our meaning, purpose and morality." Again, Tyler, it'd be nice if you'd read the words I'd written and respond to them rather than relying on your own misunderstandings. So no. That's not all a society is. There are BILLIONS of animal societies on this planet, and most of those societies HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH A "collection of subjective opinions concerning our meaning, purpose and morality". The EVOLUTIONARY DRIVE FOR SURVIVAL has dictated how these societies operate. Is it because of their... subjective opinions that piranhas don't eat each other during those blood-soaked feeding frenzies? Is it because they have "emotional or cognitive empathy", Tyler? No, it sure isn't. It's that evolutionary drive that determines the BEST WAY FOR SOCIAL ANIMALS TO SURVIVE IS WITH A BASIC CONSTRUCT OF RULES DICTATING INTERACTION AND COOPERATION. Human beings are animals. Our animal societies are more complex than other animal societies, but an animal society is NOT whatever nonsense you've imagined it is involving subjective opinions on meaning, purpose and morality. As animals, human beings are obviously party to and actively manifest that OBJECTIVE drive of preservation and perpetuation of life. According to all of the EVIDENCE, not subjective feelings or opinions or... faith in a magical being, Tyler, but actual facts that are identifiable and manifest in the real, adult world, the happier, safer, healthier, and more content a society is, the less dangerous, unstable, and threatening to that preservation and perpetuation of life it is. You say, "Nothing outside of our minds says that we must put ourselves in the shoes of others or care about the laws and opinions of society. Absolutely nothing." Riiiight - nothing except... the understanding of whether or not the situation of other people and/or the laws and opinions of a society contribute to the health, safety and stability of a society and, consequently, the preservation of the human species. Slavery, for instance, was a destabilizing influence that resulted in the societies practicing it being far less healthy, content and optimal for the survival of those societies' members. So disobeying and fighting against those laws was the moral thing to do. SO, according to that objective standard, fornication is not objectively immoral because consenting adults having sex is not a threat to a society's health or stability. Rape, however, IS. So it is OBJECTIVELY immoral. People being sexually assaulted against their will destabilizes a society and makes it less healthy, which is why rape is used as a tool for exactly that purpose in many places. As for the cowardice in war thing - war is necessarily destabilizing and runs contrary to the objective perpetuation and preservation of the species. Whatever the individuals involved in that war did to either aid in the perpetuation of and preservation of our species and human societies or hinder it would determine the morality of that act. And real quick - confusing and disappointing as this may be for you... RationalWiki is not the end-all be-all crowning arbiter of all atheists or their opinions. Beyond REJECTING GOD CLAIMS, atheists' opinions are just as diverse as everyone else's. OK, and you are REALLY stuck on this "Atheism necessarily leads to nihilism" nonsense. No offense, but it's laughably stupid in so, so many ways. For one - as fond as you are of your god belief, it's not necessarily, objectively, the best, defining, and only supernatural belief that exists or matters. You have failed to provide ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that your god even exists, that this god has a moral code, that this moral code is objective, that this moral code exists, or ANYTHING about what this moral code says. As such, rejecting a belief in your pet myth does not mean that we have to reject all objectivity. Or, based on the evidence you've so far entirely failed to provide, to reject ANY objectivity. Provide evidence that of ALL the possibilities in the universe, the ONLY one that offers an objective moral code is your god. Or any god. Provide evidence that refusing to accept your claim about a god can ONLY lead to nihilism and... suicide...? Even if atheism DID inevitably lead to nihilism - atheists are NOT so cowardly that without some magical being or its rulebook we might as well just end it all. And as mentioned - if this is all we have, WHY THE HELL WOULD WE END THE ONE AND ONLY EXPERIENCE WE'D EVER KNOW?! Why would not having an objective "purpose" suddenly make the amazing things we learn and experience, and those we will in the future, suddenly such a horrible prospect we'd... kill ourselves?! Again, that says SO MUCH MORE about how desperately you need this god fiction and how empty you are without it than it does about atheism. "God doesn't exist? Really?" *Sigh* Oh, Tyler. That's not atheism. Atheism is, "God exists? Really? Provide evidence. Because until I see evidence, I'm not just going to take your word for it." Atheism is NOT an assertion that your god absolutely doesn't and can't exist. Just like it's not an assertion of the nonexistence of magical fascism fairies, which are responsible for making fascists confused and upset and not sure why. And based on the OBJECTIVE standard of perpetuation and preservation of life - the Bible is a hysterically immoral, hilariously inaccurate, and unbelievably useless relic that should be ignored by anyone with a pulse. Kidnapping "young girls who are virgins" to enslave and rape after slaughtering entire populations; and smearing the blood of a sacrificed bird on your skin, stripping naked, circling a tent seven times, and chanting magic words to some invisible being to cure infectious disease.... would you say, Tyler, that those things (and SO MANY OTHER equally insane "lessons") do or do not contribute to the health, happiness and stability of human societies and, consequently, the human species?