There's what we say we believe and then there's what we actually believe. There's what we tell others (and ourselves) that we believe and then there's the beliefs that we act on. There's even what we'd like to believe and then what we actually believe.
Do we know what we truly believe? Not usually. How can we find out what it is that we truly believe? The beliefs that we actually hold are the beliefs that we act on. How we live shows what we actually believe, no matter what we say or think we believe.
For instance, one can say that they don't believe in any sort of universally binding moral code. One can claim to be a radical moral subjectivist claiming that what's right for one person is not binding on another person. But no one lives like this is true. At the end of the day they're going to be offended by personal injustices suffered just like someone who believes in a universal code of morality. They'll seek justice for themselves just like the rest of the world. So, though they claim to believe one thing, their emotional responses and actions plainly show that they believe something entirely different.
Another can claim to believe something like "we can know nothing" and be a radical epistemological skeptic. But no one can usually live this way. At the end of the day they'll go about seeking knowledge and acting upon assumed knowledge just like the person who believes that they can know things. So, though they claim to be an epistemological skeptic their actions show otherwise.
One might claim to be a hard determinist. There is no free will, no legitimate choices. All that happens is predetermined by impersonal forces larger than us. But it's pretty difficult to live as if this were true. At the end of the day they'll deliberate over decisions just like the person who believes in legitimate choices. They claim to believe one thing but their actions show otherwise.
Another might claim to be an atheist. There is no God, no architect of history, no person in control behind the forces of nature, no authoritative moral code, no plan for history, and no one ultimately watching out for us or taking care of us. There's no one to blame for the injustices we experience in the world. But, again, it's near impossible to live with such a view. At the end of the day this person will be angry with the way life has unfolded (angry at whom?), or grateful (grateful to whom?), live as though there is a binding moral code for all people, live with a vague sense of optimism that things are going to be ok, live expecting the world to keep spinning and for their lives to be sustained, live as though they had some purpose in life, etc... So they may claim to believe one thing but their actions show that they believe something totally different.
This is what Paul meant in Romans 1 when he said:
All people believe in God's existence. Indeed it's impossible to live without this belief. It's necessary to function in day to day life.
Isn't it true that your main beef with God is that you don't like him? As Thomas Nagel put it:
If so, this is understandable. I've certainly been there. Why not just reconcile with God rather than spend your life in an estranged relationship with him? Why contend with God? Are we mightier than he?
I think you should look up the psychological term "projection" and seriously consider what it means. What you've done here is taken your worldview and projected it onto others as if they couldn't possibly see things differently from what you do. In short, you're wrong. Allow me to explain the two mistakes in your O P that apply to me.
You made some assumptions about moral relativism (you called subjective morality) that simply aren't true. You said...
" At the end of the day they're going to be offended by personal injustices suffered just like someone who believes in a universal code of morality."
Maybe you have an example for this that you'd like to use...but since you didn't, I'll use an example. Let's say you believe in a universal moral code that says stealing is wrong. I, as a moral relativist, say that sometimes...stealing is good...it all depends on circumstances. If someone were to break into my home and steal my t.v., would I be upset? You betcha. You might think this is because of the moral outrage I feel at being stolen from...but it isn't. I'm upset because I valued that t v and it was taken from me...as humans we like to think we aren't that superficial and that it's really our righteous sense of morals that causes us to be outraged...but it isn't. How do I know this? Let's look at another example... Suppose you and a friend stopped at a burger joint to grab a quick lunch. During your meal, your friend reaches across the table and steaks a french fry off of your plate and blatantly pops it in his mouth right in front of you. Do you feel the same moral outrage that you felt when your t.v. was stolen from you? Probably not (it would be rather odd if you did...and I can assure you that i don't). Why don't you feel that overwhelming moral outrage you felt before? It's the same crime...the same "universal moral law" being broken...and yet it probably doesn't bother you in the least, you might even have a laugh about it. The reasons are pretty obvious, you never felt moral outrage....you felt loss, more specifically, the loss of something of value. When it comes to breaking into your home and taking your t.v.....the loss of the t.v. and loss of the sense of security is a powerful feeling. The loss of the french fry however, is so small you either don't notice or you don't care. Hopefully, this explains to you why moral relativists and objective moralists appear to behave similarly despite their disagreeing viewpoints.
You also said this...
"Another might claim to be an atheist. There is no God, no architect of history, no person in control behind the forces of nature, no authoritative moral code, no plan for history, and no one ultimately watching out for us or taking care of us. There's no one to blame for the injustices we experience in the world. But, again, it's near impossible to live with such a view. At the end of the day this person will be angry with the way life has unfolded (angry at whom?), or grateful (grateful to whom?), live as though there is a binding moral code for all people, live with a vague sense of optimism that things are going to be ok, live expecting the world to keep spinning and for their lives to be sustained, live as though they had some purpose in life, etc."
As an atheist, if I see an injustice...I blame whoever committed it. I don't think angry or grateful are ways I've ever felt about my life. Better words would be "satisfied or dissatisfied"...and when I feel those ways about my life, I take responsibility for them...anything else would be a cop-out. I already explained why we share similar feelings about moral actions above. I don't see why you think being an atheist means you cannot be optimistic (did you look up the term "projecting" as I suggested?) Science tells me the world will keep spinning, i don't need a god for that. I also am aware I'll die one day, I don't see the problem with that. I also see no reason why as an atheist I cannot find my own purposes in life, or why you think you need a god to give you purpose. (Again, projection)
I know the ideas of thinking for yourself, taking responsibility for your own life and actions, finding your own way and purposes probably all seem "near impossible to live by" since you've spent your life having others fulfill these roles for you...but I can only assure you that not only is it possible to live this way...it's actually quite liberating and empowering. To quote a lot of christians on this forum, "It's something you have to experience to understand."
