Another “retort”, James?
In any event, my focus is not on starting or stopping to be one thing or another, but on how [in a world sans God] we can demonstrate that who we think we are “in our head” “here and now” is that which can be communicated to others such that all reasonable men and women are obligated to share this as in fact true.
Or, to put it another way, how we become who we think we are from the cradle to the grave.
And, that, once we shift from the world of either/or [embedded in the laws of nature] to the world of human interactions entangled in conflicting moral and political narratives [the world of is/ought], our value judgments come, instead, to embody the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
If, in fact, that is true. After all, I have no way in which to demonstrate definitively that it is. Also, even human interactions may be entirely intertwined in a wholly determined universe.
Then I challenge objectivists of your ilk [with or without God] to explore our respective assumptions about these relationships out in the world of conflicting human behaviors.
In other words, the part that you avoid like the plaque. Over and again, my friend, I have challenged you to bring your convictions from the Society, Government and Economics forum into the Philosophy forum.
There we can explore the existential parameters of both RM/AO and the Real God.
Instead, your preference here revolves around “definitional logic”. That way up in the clouds you can cling to the tautological assumptions you make about What Words Must Mean.