Are the laws of logic changeable, too?
I have not renounced reason, and I know what reason is. I am also NOT saying that you have renounced reason or do not use it, or that you do not know what morality is or don't have moral sensibilities. What I am saying is that your atheistic worldview cannot account for your use of reason or ethics because there is no basis in that system for abstract, invariant universals in a naturalistic, material, ever-changing universe governed by chance.
If people determine moral and ethical values for themselves, why do you express moral indignation (eg, your #333 and elsewhere in this thread) over some evil act if those who commit said evil are not really doing anything evil, given the values which they have chosen for themselves? On one hand you seem to assume that some acts are inherently evil and on the other hand you seem to be arguing that they are evil because they violate your stipulated, utilitarian standard that a universe with maximum suffering is worse than a universe with less suffering. To me it seems inconsistent and arbitrary to express moral outrage if people determine moral and ethical values for themselves and they happen to violate your stipulated standards.
If someone can't make that leap, then I would probably not bother arguing with them, and step away slowly.
That leap of what? Faith?
I don't claim to be able to justify a worldly system of morality to a psychopath.
There you go again, assuming that there is an abstract, universal, prescriptive noetic standard that applies. But is this standard changeable, too, as you have stated is the case with reason and morality?
I am not asking you to justify or account for your use of logic, reason and morality to a crazy psychopath; I am asking you how you account for or justify them in a coherent philosophical sense, given your presupposition of an atheistic, naturalistic, materialistic, ever-changing universe governed by chance.
Cordially,
I don't know. I think it's irrelevant. I would think that the laws of logic could be improved over time.
What I am saying is that your atheistic worldview cannot account for your use of reason or ethics because there is no basis in that system for abstract, invariant universals in a naturalistic, material, ever-changing universe governed by chance.
This is statement, nor really an argument. The 'basis' is the supposition about suffering that I mentioned earlier. If people really have a hard time understanding the real world basis for morality, you can start with the supposition about maximum suffering. If you can get them to agree on that then you have something to work with. If you can't, they are unconvincable most likely.
If people determine moral and ethical values for themselves...
I never said people determine it for themselves. They recognize if based on a realization that more suffering vs. less suffering is not a desirable world to live in.
In no way have you demonstrated how all of this would be improved by a theistic creator, especially considering that there's no evidence for one.
If the creator has real world reasons for imposing morality, what is gained above and beyond those real world reasons by a creator? All of the evidence (100% of it) points to the creator being a projection of ourselves, and manmade.
That is why most people have an aversion to the morality of the Old Testament, because our morality has improved and changed since then. We've changed, and the morality of the "creator" has changed as a result.
I am asking you how you account for or justify them in a coherent philosophical sense, given your presupposition of an atheistic, naturalistic, materialistic, ever-changing universe governed by chance.
I have accounted for it. There are real world reasons for behaving morally, and these can be justified simply by recognizing the above supposition about suffering. An amorphous creator and a;peals to the supernatural add nothing of value.