Just to be clear on some of the terminology being tossed around: objective is that which exists as a demonstrable object. When we say that the Bible is a book, that is an objective truth because books are real objects.
But when you say that what's in the bible is objective truth that does not follow.
Now if we begin with a premise that murder is evil and that killing someone is murder, then it follows that murder is evil, but doesn't prove it because the premise is not based on objective truth. Objective evil requires that you demonstrate that there is an object that is evil by nature. No such object can be demonstrated.
Thus, evil is a convention whether it is based on social or theological premises. Theological premises must be believed. We have only a theoretical argument that God exists. God is not an object and therefore cannot be objectively demonstrated as true. It must be believed.
On the other hand, societies objectively exist and lawless societies fall apart while lawful ones succeed. If one can show a direct relationship between murder and lawlessness and lawlessness as injurious to the community, then there is objective proof that murder is evil for the community.
Your assertion that atheists reject logic is unsupported. In fact, it seems rather asinine come to think of it. An atheist scientist uses logic. Logic does not come from beliefs, but form objective demonstrable, mneasurable phenomena. Mathematics. Geometry, logic, represent structural thinking based on objective (real) criteria, actual real observations, not abstractions. Triangles, squares and circles are objective premises. Numbers are objective representations of the real world.
In this post I will deal with a few misunderstandings. Is your mind a demonstrable object? Clearly, no. It is immaterial. However I have no doubt that your mind objectivley exists. You and I are corresponding is the simple proof.
Objective evil requires that you demonstrate that there is an object that is evil by nature
I offer the same explaination as before.
We have only a theoretical argument that God Your assertion that atheists reject logic is unsupported. exists. God is not an object and therefore cannot be objectively demonstrated as true. It must be believed. I would more specifically say we have philosophical proof that God exists (the Transcendental Arguement), not to put too fine a point on the distinction of your 'theoretical' argument. As I said you may accept these arguments or refuse to accept them. But as a materialist, you did not, and I assert cannot, account for, in a matrialist world, the law of logic, reason, or rational thoght. The transcendent qualities of these things, logic, reason and rational thought are not made of matter, energy, or space. That is all your worldview will allow. Therefore you must borrow from the theists worldview to engage these tools. So again, I ask simply that you account for logic, rational thought, and reason as material entities.
Your assertion that atheists reject logic is unsupported. Now, you know I never made that assertion. In fact, I will assert that atheist, materialist scientist use logic, reason and rational thought all of the time. They simply cannot justify, in an atheist, materialstic world how laws of logic, reason, and rational thought can exist. They must 'borrow' from the thesists world view, which does account for these invarient, immaterial laws of thought in order to use these tools. Their worldview does not provide for the immaterial and thus, to affirm that the immaterial exists, violates their long-held view that only matter, energy, and space and time is all that exists while they employ a thesitic world view, though they deny it. It becomes reductio ad absurdum.
An atheist uses logic. Logic does not come from beliefs, but from objective demonstrable, measurable phenomena.
I agree that atheists use logic. Now, explain that logic does not come from beliefs,......(I agree with that)....but from objective demonstrable, measurable phenomena.....explain that!!!!Logic comes from demonstrable, measurable phenomena....what phenomena?????
Geometry, logic, represent structural thinking based on objective (real) criteria, actual real observations, not abstractions.< p>What is the physical nature of structural thinking....what is it made of.....Not, it is seen on a graph as brainwaves....but, What IS THINKING (thought or any mental event) made of? In other words what is the material which makes up sentience? You have asserted exclusive materialism. What is any mental event made of? Additionally, you add, Mathematics. Geometry, logic, represent structural thinking based on objective (real) criteria, actual real observations, not abstractions. Triangles, squares and circles are objective premises. Numbers are objective representations of the real world.
I simply reject your charicterization of numbers. All abstract objects, such as numbers and propositions, are either independently existing realities, or else concepts in some mind. Abstract entities are not independently eixting realities, but in fact concept of mind. Mind is a metaphysical necessity. So unless you can account materially for mind, you have no reason to believe that 2 + 3 = 5, in a materialst worldview. They are not, as you say, in your worldview 'real' or objective representations because those abstractions do not exist in a consistent materialists world view. So, as I said, the materialist, atheist cannot exist in any other that an absurd world which is illogical and irrational, OR, they must give up their view that all is material/energy if they are to be consistent and logical. They must, in fact 'borrow' from the theists worldview to account for logic, reason, rational thought, mind, numbers or any other abstract entity.