The difference between ethical atheism and nihlism is that ethical atheists have more faith

[jstrodel]

Don't make me repeat my arguments. That any so called purposes or ends are made up by humans does not mean we make it up. I've already told you that the way to resolve the debate is by justifying your proposition. There may be a million different ways - but none of them should be considered valid unless a rationale is provided for them. So no, whoever cannot define whatever they in whatever way they want.

I understand that perfectly well, but how does that transcend phenomenological understanding and appreciate teleology? Do you understand phenomenological methods of belief formation to yield authoritative answers to teleology?

Why should any person feel like they need to accept your approach to defining teleology or your sense of explanatory power or something like that? How does your approach to teleology become more than an opinion? How can it capture the nature of something and be shown to more than some other way? How can someone feel bound to accept your methods and values in assessing teleology, and ultimately, if something is more your perception of teleology, how can it be said that thing actually has that end?