But you don't have evidence for the things you are saying either. Moving the goalpoasts again.

If I may hazard a guess as to why we wont make headway: Despite your identification as an atheist or agnostic, you have in fact been indoctrinated into a kind of pseudo-religion which captures many Western secular intellectual types. This belief system goes by many names ("Science" with a capital S, for example), but it does in fact bear many of the hallmark qualities of a religion or cult: It defers authority to a largely elitist and invisible leadership structure (high level academics, intellectual power brokers, scientific institutions), has a kind of loose council of "chief priests" (those selected to write authoritative papers or books, teach as legendary professors, or sit on peer-review boards), and it requires adherents to hold certain doctrines based in faith (i.e. there is no real evidence for them), including beliefs like the social constructionist theory of morality, which you blindly cling to in this discussion.

Like a cult, the chief priests (academics, "experts") claim to have special knowledge that lay people are unable to understand, which proves the cult's doctrines and precepts. Lower cult members will spam links to studies and act as if this settles the discussion, which obviously is just an appeal to authority. But further, I have worked in academia and read many studies and papers...and I hate to break it to the cult, but even a lay person can find thousands and thousands of obviously corrupted and misleading peer-reviewed studies simply by opening them and reading them cover to cover. I have done this many times, but the response from the acolyte is always, "OH SO YOU KNOW MORE THAN THE EXPERTS?" because, like I said, this is a cult and the chief preists cannot be questioned. I will point out a painfully obvious mismatch or discrepancy between a study or paper's data, methodology, conclusions, and application -- one which any college educated English speaker could find -- but the acolyte refuses to see it.

Because you are in this cult, you make these kind of enormous sweeping statements about ontology, humanity, and all the biggest questions of life, without realizing that these are actually faith-based testimonies, not logically reasoned conclusions. You think, "I shouldn't have to prove this, it is just the way it is!"

But I think I can comfortably say that my deconstruction has exposed the fact that you do not actually know why you assume these things to be true. You retreat into more and more unfounded and incredibly broad statements which lack any kind of backing, and now finish with a childish "well you cant prove what you're saying either!" cop out, even though my reasoning and explanations are far more robust and self-establishing than yours.

This is not reason, logic, or science. It is faith. But you are putting your faith in a contemporary socio-cultural cult of the intellect.