A Dark Apologetic

I'm going to jump around a bit, but I like this, Tyler: "I've got two posts from you to respond to, and most of it seems to be belligerence, so forgive me for glossing over the nonsense." Of course, we wouldn't want belligerence and nonsense getting in the way of this debate. Because... "You're an arrogant, cocky, naive and deluded little atheist with no real clue as to how philosophy works. Practice what you preach, look within, self-analyze, be mindful, purify yourself of all existential and moral objectivity, become one with your rational truth and embrace [sic] suicide." Excellent. Objectively consistent philosophizing there. And, in your most recent attempt to assert that atheists are drafting off of the religious who have an objective moral code and because of this, in opposition to the religious and their objective moral code, atheists should just kill themselves because they don't have an objective moral code, you wrote this: "If you read the conclusion slowly, in conjunction with the premises, you will see that I say putting your "trust" or faith in God is an alternative, but nowhere do I state that God exists." Again, Tyler, I KNOW you really, really want to avoid taking responsibility for and the burden of your claims, but you do make those claims. Here's your conclusion: "Conclusion: 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 how god and faith there aren't "an alternative" to the relativistic, empty nightmare that is atheism? God and faith are THE ALTERNATIVE. The ONLY alternatives ever cited are: "nihilism, irrationality or faith". And you make it clear that it's faith in god. So... your conclusion is absolutely asserting that this god and faith in it are the ONLY alternatives. Anyway, that being said - obviously you are never going to provide evidence for your god or cite anything about this vaunted but nonexistent moral code of his, because neither of those things exist. So we'll stick with your premise. (Although I do like that my assertion that evolution and life's drive for self-preservation, both of which are the primary and objectively existent drivers of human morality, are "a fantasy", while your alternative - a magical tribal Hebrew war god from the Bronze Age that thinks rabbits chew their own cud, bats are birds, that the world and universe are the same age, 6500 years, that the world is flat, and that stars would fall out of the dome of heaven onto the ground if god ever shook the dome, is the... rational choice.) OK, so there's a huge problem with your assertion that to practice some objective moral standard (and avoid become suicidal for some reason), people need to believe in some magical being (beyond how objectively absurd just choosing some magical space man gives someone an objective moral standard is in the first place). Practically, that problem is: if there is an objective code accompanying religious fables, no one's found it. Every single human being is the arbiter of their own morality, regardless of their beliefs. Not only does religious belief not make people more moral, according to the evidence (which I can provide), it appears to contribute to them being less moral. Even people who ARE legitimately and earnestly attempting to abide by their objective moral code have to interpret that code for every action they take that has moral consequences. And then there is the fact that we are apparently not obligated to even care about your god, or any god, because... most of the world doesn't care about your god, at all. The lack of uniformity in god belief is compelling evidence that there is NO objective, transcendent moral standard out there. You have agreed that life's drive to preserve and perpetuate itself IS an objective fact, Tyler, although you don't believe it can be the author of an objective moral code. However, how many people, despite that objective reality existing, defy it and say... kill themselves? Or act in a manner that causes an avoidable death. So clearly - HUMAN BEINGS ARE PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF IGNORING OBJECTIVELY EXISTENT REALITIES! So if this objective moral standard DID exist, what outside of our own opinions says we "must" care about that moral code or follow it? Even if some god really wants us to follow its code, they're all apparently incapable of enforcing that desire. Why can't we be selective? You said, "And then there is the fact that we are not objectively obliged to even care about society, or about our species." Yeah, again, we're not objectively obliged to even care about this moral code-provider or its code. Because according to all the evidence, sets of rules (from whatever source) don't make people "care" about the rule-giver or the rules. And if this objective moral code did exist, why should I go by the dictates of that objective moral code and not my own? Does the threat of punishment or promise of reward from some space demon make following that demon's instructions "moral"? So if you want to rape a woman but don't do it because your god's objective rulebook tells you not to (not the Bible, of course, that god orders a number of kidnappings and rapes), are you MORE moral than someone who wants to rape a woman but doesn't because they know that rape destabilizes a society, making it less conducive to survival and has other temporal consequences? You said, " It's not true (objective) that I 'have to' behave in this way, only that in doing so the human species will be better off and flourish in a greater way. You seem incapable of understanding the difference." Great, well it's not true (objective) that I "have to" abide by some objective moral standard if it existed, only in doing so I curry the favor or induce the anger of some being. As someone CLEARLY far more erudite and well versed in philosophy, I imagine you're familiar with Plato's Euthyphro's Dilemma: is what the gods demand automatically, objectively morally right because the gods have decided it's right, or is it right because it just IS the (objectively) morally appropriate thing to do and the gods are just letting you know that? Because... if it's just right because it's right, then what the hell do we need some invisible, magical middle man for? If the god(s) is/are just DEMANDING that it is moral by fiat, then you're not making some moral choice, you're a dog following orders. You're also the limp, shackled amoral/immoral tool of some more powerful thing, not a moral agent exercising some caring code of conduct. And believing that you ARE just the moral servant and tool of some powerful being with an objective vision (moral and otherwise), as we have seen MILLIONS of times over, is one of the most dangerous and deadly beliefs existent. You said, "Heck, in your worldview, rape becomes a good and necessary thing should there ever be more good than bad, or even necessity, from the act." Right... Not sure how that could happen but it seems like an incredibly shortsighted condemnation of a naturalistic, humanist, "atheist" moral code considering the one you're pitching. The HUGE problem with your hypothetical objective moral code is: what the hell sort of assurance would any of us have that it was a legitimate one? How would us lowly, slavish, dog-like order-following human beings on the leash of your objective law-giver know if that law-giver was an omnibenevolent being doing the best for everyone... OR A DEMON DECEIVING US FOR ITS OWN AMUSEMENT?! When you bend over and grab your ankles for your objective law-giver and become its tool, LITERALLY ANYTHING could be given the moral stamp of approval by this being and, according to you, without any thought, consideration, discussion, context, history or say in the matter, IT SIMPLY WOULD BE MORAL! You cited the threat of rape somehow being asserted as moral in some naturalistic, humanist, atheist moral worldview with the group consideration, history, context, etc. that accompanies those decisions. OK... And to you, that's a GREATER threat than a bunch of mindless drones groveling to some more powerful, mind-independent code-giver just being TOLD that some horrific thing is perfectly moral and all of them agreeing unquestioningly? Your objective moral code giver, TOMORROW, could send down the orders that rape is great and anyone not white and straight was inferior. And to the followers, that would objectively be true. As mentioned, it's not like there's not a TON of precedent for this. Homosexuality, for instance. It's the 21st century and gay people were JUST NOW granted the same right that straight people have enjoyed for millennia BECAUSE so many fans of your objective morality decided that some arbitrary, subjective old myth was objective truth. Let me put it this way: if the naturalistic-cum-utilitarian, humanist, atheist moral code, or one similarly and rationally constructed to accord the most good for the most people and the least harm for the most people isn't "objective", then an objective moral code doesn't exist. Which is certainly not grounds for suicide. And you keep asserting that if an atheist "practices what they preach" atheism leads to nihilism. How is that? Atheism isn't a positive claim. I'm rejecting theistic claims about gods, but I CANNOT KNOW IF ALL THERE IS TO LIFE IS TO SURVIVE AND MAKE BABIES. Without evidence one way or the other, NO ONE CAN MAKE OR ABSOLUTELY REJECT THAT DETERMINATION. So deciding that WAS the case would be the OPPOSITE of an atheist practicing what they preached, since it would be making a positive claim about something for which there was insufficient evidence. Again Tyler, embrace a dictionary and familiarize yourself with these definitions. PS question: How would the follower of an objective moral code from some "independent mind" (god), know that code was from god and not the Devil?