A Dark Apologetic

Well, Tyler, that's a terrifically intellectually dishonest final post. I get the impression that, like your first post and big chunks of others, it's largely a canned response. I assert that because you've ignored virtually everything I wrote and responded to the argument you've decided atheists should make about society and empathy, rather than the one I actually made. Furthermore, despite insisting that atheists are being irrational and dishonest for not admitting we're emulating religion by pretending to have some objective moral code, because religion obviously does), you've declared, over and over, that you're not asserting religion has an objective moral code. You've insisted that you don't have to provide evidence for this moral code, that religion provides it, what this moral code is, or even that it exists. "I am not trying to prove the existence of God or objective meaning, purpose and morality. That is never stated in the argument." "As you can see, I have not argued for the existence of existential and moral objectivity, I have in fact done the opposite by declaring that it does not exist." And then... "Those lacking God already suffer from this, but in a more subtle way. " "It is absolutely necessary for God to exist to have existential and moral objectivity, and this is obvious by the fact that only we self-aware, thinking and intelligent beings are capable of considering these concepts in these concepts in the first place. A tree doesn't think about the meaning of life, neither does a dog or a monkey, so it logically follows that at the foundation of reality there exists a self-aware, thinking and intelligent mind necessary for it to be imbued with meaning, purpose and morality. Unless someone is able to provide an alternative that is, I have yet to encounter such a one." Apart from that being a fantastically absurd position, you just argued, RIGHT THERE, that god is necessary for your moral objectivity and that it "logically follows" that god must exist since humans... can think. Yeah. That makes... no sense at all. That's true, trees probably don't think about the meaning of life. However, human beings can't put down roots and survive on water and sunlight alone. So it logically follows that at the foundation of reality there exists a photosynthesizing, leaf-having, root-growing tree-essence necessary for that tree to be imbued with its photosynthesis, leaves, and roots. See how the human evolutionary adaptation for greater cognitive acuity that's engendered our self-awareness because of a brain that's evolved to be large, efficient, and featuring a neo-cortex of tightly-packed neurons (one we can watch evolve in the fossil record, DNA, comparative zoology and biology, etc.) is a feature of our biological existence? So... why would THAT feature of life require a magical "mind" that exists somewhere without any structure to provide a mind? It wouldn't, by the way, is the answer. Now let's consider Tyler's objective moral code and objective truth. In an amazingly unsurprising lapse, Tyler has failed to respond to the enormous flaws in his absurd argument that I pointed out. A few of the chief flaws are: ANYTHING this mind-independent "mind" or being that transcends human minds, that he's weirdly asserting must logically exist, declares moral just is moral, according to Tyler. So... it could declare that rape, incest, genocide, baby-cannibalism, orphan-torture, etc. is moral, and it absolutely would be. Because this being knows better. And, how exactly would human beings ever know that their "objective" moral code from this super-being is... actually moral? Again, if the universe's most evil demon lied to humanity and handed down his moral code, who would know better? Who could question this being? Tyler certainly wouldn't. He'd simply accept that it was OBVIOUSLY handing down an objective moral code. And there's nothing about Tyler's... "logical" evidence for god that suggests this god's character. Just that it thinks, and imbues life with morality and purpose. Great. So if it's a demon, it's morality is cruel anti-morality and the purpose its imbued on humanity is that we are horrific to each other for its amusement. Not to mention that simply following orders, as mentioned, is NOT moral! It's being a dog doing as it's told for a treat or to avoid being whipped. Perhaps my favorite thing about his OBJECTIVE moral and truth-imbuing god's existence and its code is that god is the ONLY objective law and morality-giver because: "Unless someone is able to provide an alternative that is, I have yet to encounter such a one." Keep in mind that Tyler is arguing for an OBJECTIVE morality here, and his objective path to this truth is... his opinion? Because he hasn't "encounter[ed]" another one? So based on Tyler's argument from ignorance fallacy regarding his subjective opinion about a GOD HE ALREADY WORSHIPS, we should accept that this... objective moral code TOTALLY exists and is so great that atheists should kill themselves for the lack of it? Someone choosing their own religion's god as the source of objective truth, in their opinion, with no evidence, is... an objective determination is it? It reminds me of my objective proof that my dad is OBJECTIVELY, without a doubt, the toughest, bravest, greatest dad in the whole wide world. See, he's the greatest, toughest and bravest dad because I know him and I know he is and I have yet to encounter another dad who's anywhere near as tough, great, or brave as he is. See? Objectively proven. It's airtight. As for Tyler's ridiculous assertion that being an atheist INEVITABLY leads to nihilism, which INEVITABLY leads to horrible emptiness and suicide - the primary problem, again, with that silliness is his profound and chronic ignorance regarding what atheism actually is. Tyler, if you take nothing else away from this debate, try to remember this, OK? Imagine if you will that atheism is what it actually is: a rejection of god claims. That's it. Your opinion about the necessity of daily brain-purification rituals to be a truly consistent atheist is... your strange, subjective opinion. Again, you don't seem to understand the difference between atheism and skepticism. I KNOW that you're REALLY attached to your SUBJECTIVE OPINION that the ONLY possible source of objective purpose and morality is your god. Unfortunately, that's absurd. An atheist could believe that... say, the universe itself is unconscious but has evolved into life-perpetuation construct and imbues that atheist with the objective purpose to preserve and perpetuate life (I don't believe that, by the way). But guess what, Tyler - there's 100% as much evidence for THAT as there is for your god. In fact, since we ACTUALLY KNOW THE UNIVERSE EXISTS, there's a LOT MORE evidence for it than there is for your god. But let's go ahead and grant your confused conflation of atheism and skepticism. If atheists practice what they preach, self-analyze, and are mindful, every day, they reject the acceptance of anything for which there's no evidence. And guess what, Tyler - THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE REJECTION OF SUPERNATURAL CLAIMS, FOR NOW, BECAUSE OF A LACK OF EVIDENCE, MEANS THAT LIFE IS EMPTY AND DEVOID OF PURPOSE, EVEN OBJECTIVE PURPOSE! So, if an atheist, every single day rejected baseless assertions, your weird assertion that rejecting "existential and moral objectivity", RIGHT NOW, due to a lack of evidence, means that no existential or moral objectivity will ever be discovered ever. Those are NOT the sort of broad, stupid, and ill-informed assumptions about the universe that atheists make. I don't know how to make that any clearer: by practicing what we preach, atheists keep an open mind and neither accept or reject possibilities outright and entirely without the appropriate evidence. And then there's this: "If you actually live pure nihilism, with no delusions, you will contemplate suicide. Disagree?" Yes, Tyler, I disagree, because human beings are all different. Some people who... "live pure nihilism" might contemplate suicide, sure, while others might find it incredibly freeing and suicide would be the LAST thing on their mind. This is ground we've already covered, but let's again grant your fallacious confusion of atheism, skepticism and perhaps more fallacious assertion that it inevitably leads to nihilism. AGAIN, why would someone who believed that this life was the ONE shot they had to experience everything they could in life, learn everything they could, travel, study, etc., before dying forever - why the hell would they choose end that existence early? You believe that paradise is waiting for you... after you've died, paradise that lasts for eternity, making your little blink of existence here is MORE precious than it is for someone who thinks this is all they get? Do you understand how ridiculous that is? Again, apparently for you the prospect of living without this evidence-free religious mythology that promises paradise after you die, is SO INCREDIBLY TERRIFYING, you think the ONLY alternative that anyone could honestly entertain is suicide. Tyler, that doesn't say anything about atheism or the "atheist worldview" or skepticism or the rejection of supernatural claims and/or existential objectivity - it says EVERYTHING about how incredibly, desperately necessary your religious crutch is to you. Not to mention how barren the non-religious facets of your life seem to be. Anyway, for me and most atheists I know, investigating the mysteries of life and the universe, and investigating questions like the existence (or not) of objective morality, truth, and purpose is reason enough for existence and the rejection of your bizarre suicide fixation. Voters: I hope you enjoyed the debate! I enjoyed having it. Thanks for the time and consideration of it. Frank