Sure there is. Because there is only one universe. That being the case, one can reasonably assume that it expresses one fundamental, universal law at its deepest level. Even if multiverse theory were true (which I doubt), the multiverses would simply be different inhabitants of the ONE universe. And the problem of the beginning of space and time and the natural laws would still be there. [I'm cribbing from Einstein's Special Relativity here.]
For an atheist who happens to be Buddhist, for example, that standard might be the truth that all sentient beings desire happiness and do not desire suffering. While that standard is different from the one(s) that a Christian might judge by, it is no less valid.
This is the first time in my life that I have ever heard someone equate Buddhism with atheism. Buddhists believe in God, but a God that is embedded in nature. That is, Buddhists embrace pantheism or panentheism. Atheists simply and plainly say "there is no God at all."
Everyone desires to be happy and avoid suffering. But such things are not controllable or finally decided by man. Many people desire things they think will make them "happy"; the people at the Folsom Street Fair were doing the things that make them "happy." My, but such a grim "happiness" there: The participants were/are slaves to their own disordered passions, where they constantly need "more and more"; and there isn't enough "more and more" in the universe to make them happy. But their attempts along this course result literally in pathology, medical and social. One might just as well take up smoking opium, or committing suicide (which perhaps some of these folks, at least, are subconsciously doing).
Ergo, the atheist is certainly rational/reasonable. Wouldn't you agree?
No I absolutely disagree. I think atheists are the most irrational and unreasonable human beings of all. They will not open themselves to the lessons that are learned from simple observations of nature, as aided by common sense. They remind me of the inhabitants of the flying island of Laputa, in Jonathan Swift's Gullivers Travels:
...[T]he reader can hardly conceive my astonishment, to behold an island in the air, inhabited by men, who were able (as it should seem) to raise or sink, or put it into progressive motion, as they pleased. But not being at that time in a disposition to philosophize on this phenomenon, I rather chose to observe what course the island would take, because it seemed for awhile to stand still. Yet soon afterward, it advanced nearer.... I waved my cap...and my handkerchief toward the island; and upon its nearer approach, I called and shouted with the utmost strength of my voice; and then looking circumspectly, I beheld a crowd gather to that side which was most in my view. I found by their pointing towards me and to each other, that they plainly discovered me, although they made no return to my shouting. But I could see four or five men running in great haste ... to the top of the island, who then disappeared. I happened rightly to conjecture, that these were sent for orders to some person of authority....Of course, the inhabitants of that flying island never have to put their feet down on the real ground. They are completely untethered from the things that pertain to real human existence, down here on earth.
Capice?
Sure there is. Because there is only one universe. That being the case, one can reasonably assume that it expresses one fundamental, universal law at its deepest level.
I do not agree that there can only be one universal law simply because there is only one (thus far discovered) universe. But since there's no way to prove it, we will each have to believe what we believe.
This is the first time in my life that I have ever heard someone equate Buddhism with atheism. Buddhists believe in God, but a God that is embedded in nature. That is, Buddhists embrace pantheism or panentheism.
There are more than one "denomination" of Buddhism, and some strains believe in pantheons of gods/goddesses. But basic, "vanilla" Buddhists do not believe in a god. Many of us do recognize a "divine spark" in all sentient beings, as reflected in the greeting, "Namaste". But that is not the same as panentheism. In fact, many Buddhists do not consider Buddhism to be a religion, but a philosophy.
I think atheists are the most irrational and unreasonable human beings of all. They will not open themselves to the lessons that are learned from simple observations of nature, as aided by common sense.
It sounds to me more like atheists do not draw the same conclusions as you want them to from observations of nature, via common sense, and therefore you deem us irrational. From this side of the fence, however, guiding one's actions according to what one believe will cause the most happiness and the least suffering is eminently more rational than guiding one's actions according to what one believes an invisible magician in the sky tells one to do. So I guess it's really just a matter of perspective, isn't it?