A Dark Apologetic

It doesn't matter if you "reject my claims" about metaphysical truths existing, because the argument isn't actually making that claim. It's clearly stating the opposite. If minds can only exist within a physical framework, then what I stated is simply a logical consequence of your worldview, that existential and moral truths do not exist. You should really pay attention to the actual argument. 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. 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. Let's now address this fantasy of yours, that the evolutionary drive for survival somehow establishes an objective standard for morality. You're essentially implying moral utilitarianism, that is, whatever standard brings about the best results is the best standard for us to go by. So you're suggesting that because murder, rape and theft upsets the order of society, they are by default immoral. There are a few problems with this however. The results being good or bad are subjective from the very beginning. For example, I could easily argue that an institution which provides a stoic philosophy, orienting the people towards introspection, self-discipline, clergy who dedicate themselves to self-mastery and being able to identify flaws in others and providing them with a community and an absolute man would be very beneficial in comparison to lacking said institution. I could argue that allowing uncontrolled hedonism and the lack of unified meaning and purpose for the people would have many negative consequences. And then there is the fact that we are not objectively obliged to even care about society, or about our species. I could personally be for only my own family, race and nation, and perhaps even for the subjugation of all other races and nations, nothing says that this is objectively wrong. What outside of our own opinions says we "must" care for the well-being and flourishing of the entire human species? Why can't we be selective? You have nothing. Absolutely nothing. What about fornication and marriage? Some say sex outside of marriage is good, some say it's bad, both have their own arguments. Some say marriage is a fraud, others argue it's necessary and beneficial. Why should I go by your vision for society and not my own? Or by theirs? Nothing says I have to. Absolutely nothing. Being that we are self-aware and far. Ore autonomous than the other animal species on this planet, we are capable of breaking free from such constraints and doing whatever we please. If all you have are good and bad "results," then you really don't have anything at all. It is not true (objective) that we must act in a way that promotes the greatest well-being and flourishing of the human species, or even a part of it. That would be a moral truth, an intelligent concept, which simply cannot exist outside of our own minds without another mind, a metaphysical mind. It is true (objective) however that behaving in a certain way will further the well-being and flourishing of the human species. But notice the difference in how that was stated. 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. To say that it is true (objective) that I must behave in this way is to say this moral duty exists outside of our own minds, obliging us to do so. But this doesn't exist in your worldview. You can shout, whine, spit and stammer all you want like a petulant child, nothing objectively (mind-independently) obligates me to be a good person or to behave in such a way, making me "wrong" or "immoral" for not doing so. Another prime example is your mention of rape being objectively immoral because it threatens the health and stability of society. This is incorrect. It's not that it is immoral, but that it is bad (consequentially) for society. You see, there are two different goods. There might be good chess moves, but those chess moves aren't somehow morally good. Learn the difference, please. As to atheism inevitably leading to nihilism? Well this is certainly true should you actually practice wha you preach and rid yourself of delusions. Self-analyzation and the practice of mindfulness can help you to purify your mind of existential and moral objectivity, to live and see what your worldview actually proclaims. And until you practice this, you're still in our world. Your meaning and purpose in life is to survive and make babies, nothing more, nothing less. That's why you exist. You're nothing more than very complex bacteria. If you believe the meaning and purpose of life is to love, live and let live, you have allowed yourself to become deluded. If you believe that it is true (objective) that rape, gemocide, murder, etc, is immoral, you have allowed yourself to become deluded. It's certainly true (objective) that such acts have harmful effects to society, but that's a far-very from their actually goodness. 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. 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 e,brace suicide.