If one rejects logic, then there is no point in attempting to persuade him using logic. If he is content to base his ethics in bronze-age fairy tales rife with obvious logical contradictions, then that is his prerogative.

On the other hand, if one values the truth, he might seek a rational basis for ethics. Such a person will benefit from digesting this post-enlightenment argument for ethical behavior based in reason — and without reference to mystical creatures.

The easy-to-follow logical proof found in the book "Universally Preferable Behavior" offers better arguments for morality than "God said it; I believe it; that settles it."

Universally Preferable Behaviour

A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics

by Stefan Molyneux

Read Full Book FREE!

Are you seeking a rational foundation for morality?

UPB provides a logical basis for the tenets of ethical human interactions without appeals to magic or bronze-age idols.

Arrive at your conclusions about morality by more reliable means, and in so doing, give yourself a framework for ethical decision-making in the future without logical fallacies such as "appeal to authority" or "special pleading."

Putting aside the puerile terminology of a 'magical sky daddy', any argument of a secular ethics that is built upon a concept of 'rationality' is bereft of an understanding of where rationality comes from. The argument is circular; from where does your reasoning come from? There must, at its root, be a transcendental cause and effect. To even conceive of an ethic is to contradict yourself - you are indeed conceiving, and conceiving is not something that can be conceived alone. Only from the father.

Read Kant's Transcendental Arguments: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental/

Epistemological concerns aside, I do not believe Molyneaux's Universable Preferable Behavior, or UPB for short (sort of like UBI or some other new world order-esque term) has any basis in historical human fact. 'Preferable behavior' is entirely context dependent - in some places it is preferable to shake a woman's hand, and in others, it is not. What judgement can be made on what is 'good' using behavior? Human behavior should never be a measuring stick for what is good, for what is good transcends humanity itself. 'All things work together for good' - Romans 8:28

If what is 'good' is simply what people find preferable at any given time.. then it is hardly Good at all. Humans are easily swayed and adaptable to corrosive circumstance.

Molyneaux says "Thus it is impossible that anyone can logically argue against universally preferable behavior, since if he is alive to argue, he must have followed universally preferable behaviors such as breathing, eating and drinking.

If eating, breathing, and drinking constitute the same metaphysical stuff as morals, then his materialistic argument fails to account for why one could prefer to not eat or not drink and indeed fails to account for why this may possibly be good. Rationality leads one to ease, indulgence, and comfort. After all, the brain is always seeking what is of least resistance, and rationality as atheists conceive of is exactly the same. Molyneaux's ethics are much like those of Sodom and Gomorrah - if everyone else is doing it, why not me? That is what UPB espouses as Good.