Those are valid points. To some degree. Probably defining a "rational person" with a code of morality goes beyond the epistemological methods of empirical science, just a tad. A rational philosophy can be legitimate and even the ethical writings of the pre-Christian Aristotle and Cicero display this. Whether the universe exhibits an order, an intelligent design, open to cosmological theism, etc., is up to the ... professional --- scientists to debate. That's a valid discussion. One could propose the utilitarian benefits to society of people honoring theistic ethical codes like the Judaeo-Christian ones. Prohibition of murder, theft and so forth. A sense of the intrinsic worth and sacredness of the individual person. It's a philosophical debate whether or even how this might be "known" and understood. How do we KNOW it is wrong to kill a person and so forth. I welcome that type of discussion. Thanks for raising the topics. The points are well taken. I think these types of friendly discussions, with some differences of opinion or interpretation, are healthy for a free and open society.