Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?

[Esquilax]

In examples people use where they argue unicorns, santa clause, etc. should be accepted if God is accepted, they are not taking into account that God is metaphysical, while unicorns are not. This would give us good reason not to believe in unicorns, since we've basically scoured this planet by now and never found any. It does not, however, say anything about God's existence.. not that you brought unicorns up specifically, but I wanted to address that while I'm here.

Sweet! You're in luck, then, because right here, and right now, I'm claiming there's a metaphysical unicorn! You believe me, right? I mean, you have to, if you want your claim here to remain consistent!

Calling something metaphysical is not quite the escape hatch on your burden of proof that you seem to think it is; if anything, it makes your belief in such a claim more ridiculous, since you're now claiming belief in a thing you can't even detect.

But morality is tied to God. While I know you vehemently disagree with that, I do believe it is true, from what I have seen in my life over and over again.

You're alright with slavery, are you? If you say no, you've already invalidated both this claim here, and the one you're about to make regarding absolute, objective moral standards. If you say yes... heh, that won't be a good look for any objective standard you're hoping to propose.

The reason for this, I think, is simply because a God concept establishes an absolute, external standard, and without an absolute standard, there is nothing to stop people from trying to lower the standard to fit their desires. Any standard humans make for themselves originated internally, not externally.

Then allow me to pose Euthyphro's Dilemma to you: is your objective moral code moral because god ordered it? If so, you're not appealing to anything objective at all, but rather what god wants. Or is it moral, and that's why god set it as the standard? If so, then it's moral without being connected to god at all.

I believe the same is true of atrocities committed by religious groups; I do not believe the leaders of such movements really believe in God (at least, not the Christian God), but rather see an opportunity to exercise their own desires, and use the guise of religion to accomplish it. I believe Hitler is actually a good example of this, as he was not devout and was recorded to have often criticized his Catholic religion, but never left the church; he hated Jews and he used whatever he could to kill them.
This would be an example (as is all of the Catholic church) of humans establishing a non-absolute standard.

We ain't fans of the No True Scotsman fallacy around these parts.