I'm actually invoking Darwin's principles. Without objective morality, Darwin only had death to look forward to, that philosophical discussion is not a threat.

Please review the powerful argument of The Abolition of Man and its appendix demonstrating the commonality of natural law across cultures. For it to be objective and independent, it must also be transcendent, meaning that every expression of it is an incomplete mirror, and people might nitpick differences among the expressions. But more atheists follow the Golden Rule than you'd expect.

Let's turn what you perceive as a threat into a positive promise. You make the positive statement "show it". I invoke God that you will be shown it, at the right time and in language you can accept, by whatever means necessary. You might even start by holding forward whatever morality you live by, whatever you use to judge right and wrong for yourself, because it might have more external origin than you realize. If you put a credo forward (like the Golden Rule) and I agree, that's enough for a set morality between us two, isn't it? Then we can proceed nonadversarially. Add:

Inner Light

There are many lights. How do you know which is true Light and which is deceptive show unless you have a sharable standard? If my feelings of what is true Light are subject to change because I control them situationally, I can be deceived and hacked as soon as my control is distracted. But if the means of detecting true Light are given by and controlled by Light itself, they cannot change and are safe against hijacking. There is only one Power in the universe that can safeguard that, to put that power anywhere else is to jump to contradiction and nihilism.

I'm actually invoking Darwin's principles. Without objective morality, Darwin only had death to look forward to, that philosophical discussion is not a threat.

Please review the powerful argument of The Abolition of Man and its appendix demonstrating the commonality of natural law across cultures. For it to be objective and independent, it must also be transcendent, meaning that every expression of it is an incomplete mirror, and people might nitpick differences among the expressions. But more atheists follow the Golden Rule than you'd expect.

Let's turn what you perceive as a threat into a positive promise. You make the positive statement "show it". I invoke God that you will be shown it, at the right time and in language you can accept, by whatever means necessary. You might even start by holding forward whatever morality you live by, whatever you use to judge right and wrong for yourself, because it might have more external origin than you realize. If you put a credo forward (like the Golden Rule) and I agree, that's enough for a set morality between us two, isn't it? Then we can proceed nonadversarially.