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.
So "A" could be "non-A"?
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?
What I am saying is that IF there is no transcendent standard by which to judge these human behaviors then all you have is a description of human behaviors. There is nothing prescriptive or incumbent in them. Nature is amoral. You might as well be describing a termite colony.
Now all of the things you mention DO EXIST and at least sense can be made of them from a Christian theistic perspective (with some qualifications regarding group approval and avoiding group disapproval) BECAUSE there is a transcendent standard by which the above behaviors are judged, but obviously you do not mean to be referring to these behaviors from that perspective.
Why should I care about Tradition? Why shouldn't I be selfish? Because being selfish will hurt society? But that answer presumes another moral value; namely, that I ought to care about society. But why should I, the great ape, care about society? Because society won't survive? So what? Why should I care about society's survival? And that answer also presumes another prior moral value. And so on. What I am asking for is an accounting of these moral notions in the first place in a purportedly non-theistic universe.
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?
I am not very well informed in the varieties of Buddhist philosophy and religion, but I would say that to the extent that Buddhists are moral it is because they have a moral nature, having been created in the image of God, Who has a moral nature.
From what I have read, though, Buddhist morality is more pantheistic than personal:
In Buddhism, sin is largely understood to be ignorance. And, while sin is understood as “moral error,” the context in which “evil” and “good” are understood is amoral. Karma is understood as nature's balance and is not personally enforced. Nature is not moral; therefore, karma is not a moral code, and sin is not ultimately immoral. Thus, we can say, by Buddhist thought, that our error is not a moral issue since it is ultimately an impersonal mistake, not an interpersonal violation. The consequence of this understanding is devastating. For the Buddhist, sin is more akin to a misstep than a transgression against the nature of holy God. This understanding of sin does not accord with the innate moral consciousness that men stand condemned because of their sin before a holy God (Romans 1-2).
Question: "What is Buddhism and what do Buddhists believe?"
Most of Buddhism seems to me to be an attempt to escape karma and suffering and obliterating any kind of dualism by following the ways taught by Mr. Sid Guatama (he's still dead, Jim). And I've never been able to figure out how Buddhists or Hindus explain how anything in a pantheistic universe either is or is not the way it ought to be or why they are trying to escape from something that is or is not ideal.
Anyway, as you can see, my knowledge of Buddhism is sorely lacking.
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.
It would just means that there would be no foundation or accounting for it, and therefore entail no incumbency. However since both you and I both know innately that there is moral obligation and accountability, that means there is something very wrong with the premise.
Cordially,
And this is a little belated, because I overlooked the obvious, but I would add that the proposed stipulation is self-refuting. If everything were impermanent there would be no permanent laws of logic and consequently it would be impossible to prove anything. According to the premise, next week there might not be any laws of logic.
Cordially,