So, facts are objective. Where do I disagree?
For facts to be objective, it requires truth to exist. One truth, not two, not zero, not an infinity. Just one.
Further, it requires truth to be knowable. Not necessarily yet known, and not necessarily known 100% in the future, but at least theoretically knowable. Knowledge has to exist and knowledge of everything needs to be possible.
You refuse to call that God? That's, to me, trying to hide behind a dictionary. Pretty clearly such a truth would fit all the attributes of the divine of the major (not just Abrahamic) religions.
So, we ask because we exist and if life didn't exist we wouldn't ask... sure, of course. Where do I disagree? That still doesn't mean God doesn't exist (and for that matter, it doesn't mean either that God exists) -- those are properties of the observer, not of the observed.
Erm. I'm gonna stick with my view that raping and killing the little girls I love is wrong.
If you say it's a matter of your personal taste, I can accept that. But you cannot back it up further than your personal tastes without appealing to God.
Furthermore, study of evolution will show *why* it is we evolved to have the morals we do.
Not really. Plenty of animals rape. Plenty of animals kill within their own species. Including killing female juveniles. We don't, or at least not pervasively, because we evolved in a family who don't. It could have been very different.
I could ask you how you know what is right or wrong, since you admit you don't have an actual religion.
Actually, by observing Nature. Nature reflects God's will spontaneously. Human intervention against it always produces deleterious effects.
How can be sure you're not making up your own 'gospel' as you go along?
Both by observing Nature and by backing up as much as possible with coincidences across religious traditions and time tested success.
How can you expect your truth to be the one truth for all of humanity?
I don't. Hubris is a sin.
And why should I trust a god who says it's alright to commit certain questionable actions, and other times that it's wrong to commit them?
Tired of relativism? Looking for moral coherence? That sounds awfully like an attribute of God. It's as if omnibenevolence was necessary for morality to exist. Oh my.
If this were indeed all the truth, then I'd rather follow what's known as 'Satan'.