I think modest rhetorical devices give the passage fibre. I'm an atheist too, though following Socrates (whom I'm also wont to quote) that still allows for infinite possibility--though agreed we needn't concern ourselves with fantastic possibilities when no evidence is in the offing. It does seem problematic to invoke ethics at all though in a purely rational dispensation; as Charles Taylor has opined, rather unimpressively, "High standards need strong sources". Atheist ethics are problematic in that they have no mystical premises, even natural law being rather dubious and, at the very least, requiring constant revision. Thus my call for a neo-classical education--an updated version of paedia of course. I agree entirely that we should all reflect on our convictions and just how rigorous they are--sound advice that goes almost universally unheeded. In answer to your hypothetical on Marx I can answer that I, for one, would be receptive. Perhaps you are looking for such a disclosure though, it occurs to me (and so it should since I nearly had you pegged for a neoliberal), but I don't see how any thinking person can be unmoved by Marx's primary argument--of course few have any comprehension of it--so I give you credit for having some Marx to quote. But I was a late comer and don't wish to distract from the "vital" considerations herein under discussion. But I look forward to more interaction, and now that we've got the pleasantries out of the way, please be as bold as you please; I