<<My thought processes ARE my life.>>
You THINK they are. ;-)
JB>Further, logic itself is a concept that is meaningless without an
"outside" referrent.
DM<<But, for the purposes of this discussion, the
outside referrent is the rationality of the human mind, specifically MY
mind. I accept MY capacity for rationality as an axiom>>
No, you accept it as a presupposition. An axiom is a self-evident truth, and
the rationality of the mind--without outside referral--is anything but
self-evident.
That's the problem you face as an atheist. You keep wanting make rational
noises, but your system cuts you off at every turn. Thus, you "borrow" from
the objective crowd and try to couch things in subjective terms. That merely
results in disconnect, oxymorons and things like "The Brady Bunch Movie."
<<One reasonably chooses based on one's own standards of reason... And how do
I choose my own standards of reason? I observe the practical application, and
consider the theoretical application of standards of reason that others have
chosen or rejected, and DECIDE for myself.>>
Yes. Stalin did the same thing. He was most practical about genocide.
<<In view of your question below, I would ask you for a logical argument
confirming that the evils perpetrated by Stalin were a specific result of
his atheism, rather than any other cause.>>
That's a red herring. My question assumes an atheistic stance--I can easily
argue FOR Stalin; but I cannot CONDEMN him.
You try, with the consensus argument. But that is relativism come home to
roost. Moral questions become questions of votes. This is an odd morality.
<<Good and evil are not subject to logical argument.>>
Sure they are. Begin with a premise, and reason through:
1. Murder is evil.
2. Stalin murdered.
3. Stalin was evil.
QED.
The problem for the atheist is he cannot assert #1 rationally.
Jim
"I think I think. Therefore I think I am." -- Ambrose Bierce.