"Excellent", compared to what? "Excellent" presupposes a standard independent of the thing measured. If matter in motion is the only stuff that exists then there is nothing outside of it by which to measure it.
Atheism as a worldview does not provide the necessary preconditions for logic, knowledge or morality, which are immaterial, abstract entities that do not have physical existence. There is no "ought" in matter in motion. That is why I pointed out to the other poster that the physical universe is changing. A physical universe provides no foundation for invariant standards of any kind, much less moral ones, which imply incumbency.
Is logic simply a matter of human convention? How does atheism account for the existence of abstract, universal, invariant standards of thinking? Is morality merely a matter of human convention? If so then both can be changed at a whim. Suppose you yourself are the foundation of morality and you design a moral system that is excellent to yourself for now, and the foreseeable future, say the next 100 years until strong AI's are here. I can not like your moral system and decide to change it. It's not invariant. It's not universal. So there is no reason on an atheist premise why is would be incumbent upon anyone to obey it.
I am not saying atheists are not moral, I'm simply saying that atheism cannot account for the moral prescriptions that atheists make.
Cordially,
Quite possibly.
How does atheism account for the existence of abstract, universal, invariant standards of thinking?
I would guess that some atheists would suggest that platonic ideas exist, others would say that there are no 'invariant standards of thinking' or universal truisms.
Is morality merely a matter of human convention?
Some would say so, someone said so earlier on this thread.
If so then both can be changed at a whim.
Human societies do evolve moral standards over time. Slavery was a "universal" human condition for 4,000 years. Now it's viewed in most places as a terrible wrong. Humans are a social, not a solitary animal, and our institutions, including values evolve as a group, not merely as the whims of individuals. Individuals whose whims are too far outside the bounds of the collective understanding of things like "that's wrong" tend to be punished or killed by the group. It's tough being a great ape!
Suppose you yourself are the foundation of morality and you design a moral system that is excellent to yourself for now, and the foreseeable future, say the next 100 years until strong AI's are here. I can not like your moral system and decide to change it. It's not invariant. It's not universal.
OK, stipulated
So there is no reason on an atheist premise why is would be incumbent upon anyone to obey it.
So, unless a moral code is universal and invariant there is no reason to obey it, you say.
What about: tradition, respect for parents, avoiding negative emotions, group approval, avoiding group disapproval, punishment, adherence to belief system (albeit non-invariant one), etc. None of those reasons EXIST? Because you say so?
Those seem like legitimate reasons to follow a moral code, even if the world is ultimately "impermanent and without self-nature" as the Buddhists claim.
Would you assert that there is no Buddhist morality and that the great Buddhist civilizations were without morals? How did they manage to survive continuously longer than most other civilizations?
Try to agree to my premised (stipulate) for the sake of discussion; assume that it was definitively proven that "everything is impermanant" next week. Would that mean that there would be no need for, existence of, or belief in human morality? Just because something is a concept developed by humans doesn't mean it's not real and useful.