A Dark Apologetic

Response to... "A Dark Apologetic, V.2" Premise One: There is as much objective meaning and purpose for someone who rejects supernatural claims as there is for someone who arbitrarily chooses to believe in one of the hundreds of thousands (or millions) of magical, supernatural fable-beings. That all supernatural beliefs are comparably useless, however, is entirely true. There's no more evidence for the Abrahamic god than there is for Tiamat or Hanuman or a collection of sentient, all-powerful clumps of moss cooperating to create everything and monitor human sexual activity. Atheists absolutely can accept and conform to an objective moral code, though; because I do. Premise Two: Tyler, establishing a premise based an inaccurate definition makes this much easier for me. "[T]he intellectual affirmation in [sic] the non-existence of God is not the end of atheism". That's right, nor is it the BEGINNING of atheism. I'm not sure how the purification of a mind works, but atheism is the rejection of god claims (and usually, all supernatural claims), NOT the "intellectual affirmation" of anything. Unlike theism, atheism doesn't involve any positive claims. Atheism is, again, the rejection of the baseless assertions of theists. And atheism doesn't involve the... "purification" of any words. whatever that means. I don't know any atheists who refrain from mentioning supernatural claims. Again, Tyler, a basic understanding of the subject matter generally results in a sturdier base for the building of arguments, or apologetics, light or dark. Premise Three: Tyler, as an atheist, the world I "find [my]self in" is no more depraved (utterly or no) or "void of substance" than the world of any theist. Particularly since atheists require actual, practical, legitimate, reality-based evidence for the features of existence we accept, atheism is nothing BUT substance. Theism involves the denial and ignoring of evidence in favor of comforting fictions. And considering that atheists are, per capita, considerably less likely to commit crimes, particularly violent crimes, than Christians; atheists get pregnant out of wedlock and as teenagers less often than Christians; atheists are less likely to get divorced than Christians; and atheists are far less likely to commit crimes that send them to prison than Christian [citation can be provided for all of that], atheism obviously isn't some shortcut to depravity. Considering those statistics, in fact, belief in a god is apparently a surer path to immorality than a rejection of one. Conclusion: "Atheists, practice what you preach." Tyler, we "preach" a rejection of god-beliefs because the burden of proof for those gods have not been met. We "practice" that by... being atheists. So - done. How you get from your flawed, poorly defined, and muddled premises to "atheists should commit suicide" is really, really not clear. However, since atheists believe that this one life is our sole window of existence, why would we purposefully cut it short because we choose not to lie to ourselves about the existence of a Hebrew war god? And you consider... "faith" as an ALTERNATIVE to "irrationality"? Is that a joke, Tyler? Faith is the belief in something despite a LACK OF ALL EVIDENCE and/or EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY - that is the DEFINITION of irrationality. How is "faith" EVER an effective path to truth. After you fail to provide evidence that faith effectively leads to the truth of a deity's existence, name another facet of life in which faith is more effective for establishing truth than evidence is. Tyler, your "dark apologetic" says a lot more about the sad, superficial, hopeless state of your inner-world than it does the existential void you claim atheism is. Apparently, your subjective choice to worship a tribal Hebrew war god from the Bronze Age, is everything to you. Because you've fallaciously decided that the only alternative to that fiction is nihilism. To atheists, the arbitrary worship of a god is nothing and this incredible universe we inhabit is everything. Atheism is a rejection of gods, not every single other thing ever. Before I get into an actually objective framework for morality, Tyler: I do not believe that theism provides an objective moral code. I reject that premise entirely. So please provide evidence that theism DOES establish that moral code and outline that moral code. As a theist and the author of your dark apologetic, you obviously believe YOU have an objective moral code established by your belief. So, again, please provide any evidence that this objective moral code even exists and outline it here. Because without evidence that moral code exists - what this objective moral code IS - your assertion is entirely moot. So, until Tyler provides evidence that a belief in a magical being is the ONLY way someone can conform to an objective moral code, I reject that absolutely evidence-devoid supposition. How can the SUBJECTIVE AND ARBITRARY SELECTION of a supernatural being for which there's NO EVIDENCE magically imbue someone with an objective moral code? Unless that moral code was established by some communication from that being which both provided compelling evidence that the being existed AND outlined the moral code, believers can (and constantly do) manufacture their own subjective and arbitrary moral code and then disingenuously, irrationally, and often dishonestly simply assert that it's objectively supported by the deity they've subjectively adopted. In fact, that's PRECISELY what Tyler Newkirk is doing here. Unless he can provide evidence to the contrary. However, a practical, effective, realistic, and objective moral code absolutely CAN be established without a belief in any magical, mythical being. What objective standard is this moral code based on? The objective and absolutely unequivocally existent drive of living organisms to preserve and perpetuate itself. That is the chief and primary compulsion that unites all life: to keep living. That drive is obviously present in human beings, since we're living organisms. Homo sapiens sapiens are a social species. The VAST majority of human beings live in human societies. According to all the evidence, the healthier, safer, and stronger a society is, the healthier, safer, and stronger the members of that society, and therefore, the better their chances of survival - all of their survival. The best way to KEEP a human society healthy, safe, strong, alive and therefore able to perpetuate life (by reproducing) is the establishment of the most comprehensively beneficial societal moral code. The greater the percentage of a society's members abiding by a moral code that requires they treat their peers with respect, doing the most good and/or least harm, generally, to the fellow members of their society - the healthier, happier, and safer a society is. Which, consequently, optimizes everyone in that society's chances for self-preservation and perpetuation.