PGA2.0

My cats and dogs are atheists and they seem pretty happy. They seem pretty moral to each other also.

Show me you have a fixed standard that is objective or don't call what you believe moral.

Do you cut your hair according to Levitical law? [**]

Are you careful to not wear clothes made of mixed fibers? [**]

I'm not detecting any UNCHANGING moral guidelines in the teachings of "YHWH".

The law was instituted for Israel yet we recognize its goodness too.

Do you agree with the Orthodox Jewish legal tradition/interpretations?

Conversion equalled freedom! [...]

Conversion is an escape from slavery and bondage just as it was in OT times. [...]

So, the principle of evangelism slavery is reasonable to believe. But even if you did find this evangelistic slavery principle hard to stomach, the principle of slavery and freedom is well demonstrated in a physical sense in the OT and in a spiritual way in the NT.  [...]

War reparations or restitution [a.k.a slavery] was a different principle, the principle of damages owed, damages paid. [...]

It should be noted you've shifted from denying Biblically condoned slavery to offering a justification for it. 

...but in the case where you ignore someone dying not because your life is at stake but because you are indifferent, that is a crime. 

People are routinely deported with zero regard for their life or general well-being.

The unborn is a human being. 

It doesn't matter. 

(EITHER) a person's kidney (and their uterus) are their possessions protected by their right to personal bodily autonomy (in which case NO ONE can use them without consent) (OR) a person's body (such that its use is only a danger to the individual but they could live through the process) is commonwealth and anyone in possession of two kidneys is just as guilty of murder by proxy as a woman who gets an abortion. 

Do you really think that your will is free, or is it influenced by many things?

I do not believe in freewill at all. That is part of why any given christian claiming that I choose not to believe or that I send myself to hell are in my opinion no sequiturs.

Too many bald assertions to address individual. Even if I accept that some version of the Yahweh must necessarily exist you have not actually demonstrated or even suggested some methodology that takes the guess work out of understanding the primary moral axioms of the Yahweh. 

Then take a few. I was just answering your statements, charges, and questions. Break them down into segments. 

Your statements do the same thing - assert. Then you guys pick and choose what you will and will not address. You only select what you believe will further your talking points.  I took the time to deal with all your assertions. 

No. First take the guess work out of your argument. Stop telling me what you think is immoral and tell me why it is immoral. I've given you my standard and we can both discuss it because we both agree that there are humans and that the things we do effect their welfare. 

You have claimed to share the Yahwehs standard. Great. Now please explain not just his pronouncements about specific actions but how he has determined what is and is not moral and if you don't actually know then I'm afraid you don't actually have a standard to present at all.

As an example you have said that killing humans is immoral (the opinions in the ot to the contrary) but you have not said why. Why should we care about killing people? Why would the Yahweh (assuming he even exists).

God permits exceptions for civil societies to function.

Where in the holy scripture does it explain under what specific circumstances "YHWH" permits exceptions?

God permits exceptions for civil societies to function.

Where in the holy scripture does it explain under what specific circumstances "YHWH" permits exceptions?

Not only that, you are dealing with the OT which is no longer in existence. 

Then why do you keep talking about "the ten commandments"?

I would argue I am better informed than you on the subject but I'm not sure I am an expert.

If you're claiming that you know the true will of "YHWH" based purely on the "words on the page" and furthermore that thousands of years of careful consideration by the people who actually wrote the thing down in the first place "is wrong", then you MUST BE AN EXPERT.

Both you and I believe in morality.

Ethics, code of conduct, social contract, or the like.

The question is how you validate morality as an atheist.

The same way you do.  Moral instinct.  Moral intuition.

Then, in comparing your justification with mine, which is more reasonable.

How do you know "the decalogue" is valid?  Because it matches your moral intuition.

Try this on for size,

The ten yamas are:

1) ahiṁsā, “noninjury,” not harming others by thought, word or deed;

2) satya, “truthfulness,” refraining from lying and betraying promises;

3) asteya, “nonstealing,” neither stealing nor coveting nor entering into debt;

4) brahmacharya, “divine conduct,” controlling lust by remaining celibate when single, leading to faithfulness in marriage;

5) kshamā, “patience,” restraining intolerance with people and impatience with circumstances;

6) dhṛiti, “steadfastness,” overcoming nonperseverance, fear, indecision, inconstancy and changeableness;

7) dayā, “compassion,” conquering callous, cruel and insensitive feelings toward all beings;

8) ārjava, “honesty, straightforwardness,” renouncing deception and wrongdoing;

9) mitāhāra, “moderate appetite,” neither eating too much nor consuming meat, fish, fowl or eggs;

10) śaucha, “purity,” avoiding impurity in body, mind and speech.

The ten niyamas are:

1) hrī, “remorse,” being modest and showing shame for misdeeds;

2) santosha, “contentment,” seeking joy and serenity in life;

3) dāna, “giving,” tithing and giving generously without thought of reward;

4) āstikya, “faith,” believing firmly in God, Gods, guru and the path to enlightenment;

5) Īśvarapūjana, “worship of the Lord,” the cultivation of devotion through daily worship and meditation;

6) siddhānta śravaṇa, “scriptural listening,” studying the teachings and listening to the wise of one’s lineage;

7) mati, “cognition,” developing a spiritual will and intellect with the guru’s guidance;

8) vrata, “sacred vows,” fulfilling religious vows, rules and observances faithfully;

9) japa, “recitation,” chanting mantras daily;

10) tapas, “austerity,” performing sādhana, penance, tapas and sacrifice. [**]

Thus, the purpose or design of foreign slavery was first a rescue mission against harsher treatment.

33 “‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God. [**]

Yeah, I was just stating that a person in five religious groups must be extra morally. Extra moral.  

Do you agree?

I mean, how the hell was he ever getting on without us before all this creating of Hell,Satan, deceiving serpents, angels, disobedient women, floods, destruction, war, murder, kings, queens, sacrifice, priests, other idols to worry about and be jealous of and not to mention the "other gods" also to be jealousy of that appear to have been "loved" instead of him.   However did he manage to occupied himself for all that time before we and this planet were even thought about and come into existence?

He did manage. God is content in Himself, in the tri-unity of Beings - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 Oh stop it.

You now simply have to attempt to invent further something you that do not, and cannot,  possibly have a clue about and all   to be enable you  to embellish even further  and expand  your initial simply response reply of  " we were created to experience a relationship with Him and learn of His love for us, that we may choose to love Him".

You have been caught cold with just one question and two replies from me.. 

Genesis 1

4 God saw that the light was good

God  may well have called it "all good", but WE now know it wasn't and isn't,  don't we? 

The earth for instance, has and always will be an unstable planet and becomes more unstable as it moves through the solar system and  when it comes into close proximity with other planets. We know that the movements of the other planets have an adverse  effect on our own planet causing the deaths of millions.   AND SO DID those controlling  priests of old, didn't they? 

Indeed it was much more simpler then in past times of ignorance and fear, when priests faced less doubt and opposition to totally control a persons daily life not to mention to enable them to extort ones hard earned earthly goods. 

Because he was bored stupid '   would have been a better reply. And just as easily been blown out of the water. 

Pure speculation without biblical evidence.

Says the man that always attempts to pass off speculation and belief as fact. Example>> 

Stephen wrote: However did he manage to occupied himself for all that time before we and this planet were even thought about and come into existence?

PGA2.0, Speculated  "without evidence" ... "God is eternally present. Time needs a start, yet God is eternal. He transcends time. Time was created with the universe and humanity. Humans comprehend time because they think as well as have a beginning". 

There is no difference.

Or it would be perfect if there were no difference....But we are all different and separate from each other and act individually.

Lumping individuals together under one of two labels, doesn't imply "behavioural" certainty..... Far from it.

Acceptance of deistic hypotheses, is no guarantee of an individuals state of mind.

Until you are able to come up with an apples to apples comparison, there is really no defense needed.

Okay, I got your meaning. Then we are comparing the applies of Christianity to the applies of atheism. Both you and I believe in morality. The question is how you validate morality as an atheist. Then, in comparing your justification with mine, which is more reasonable.

Actually, I don't think you get my meaning. Atheism isn't a moral philosophy, so your question isnt coherent - it is not a reasonable ask. 

If I try to distill your question down to something meaningful, I get something along the lines of 'How do you as a non-Christian justify morality?' This strikes me as utterly tone-deaf and arrogant given:

1) most people aren't Christian.

2) Christianity has been specifically used to justify things like slavery, Holy wars, etc,

3) what good may be recognized in its moral views come from humanistic interests which predate and can stand apart from it.

So, ANY moral view which puts people above human interpretations of the 'will of a god' will be more reasonable in my view.

Often the logical conclusions do not resemble your stated intention in the slightest (when you kindly take the time to elucidate).

You just said that you can't decipher my intentions. Which is it? 

Your stated intention: Discover a logically coherent non-god($) origin of moral intuition.

Your pre-judice: Only "YHWH" can provide a logically coherent origin of moral intuition.

How do you validate the moral codec of "YHWH"?

You validate the moral codec of "YHWH" by using YOUR moral intuition.

And then you credit "YHWH" for gifting you the moral intuition you use to validate "the ten commandments".

King Hammurabi didn't know the law of "YHWH", and yet codified a set of rules more comprehensive than "the ten commandments".

Many cultures that predate Abraham have inscribed practical codes of conduct.

Your explanation seems to be "YHWH" wrote a moral code on their hearts.

THEREFORE, "the ten commandments" is superfluous and redundant and NOT prerequisite to moral intuition.

Any human can detect their own moral intuition without any assistance from a book.

You claim this is because "YHWH" wrote that moral code on their hearts.

This claim is unfalsifiable.

I have already explained my reasoning with this verse. Not only that, you are dealing with the OT which is no longer in existence. 

So, OT is "off limits"?

Would you accept spectral evidence alone to convict you of a murder you haven't committed yet? 

No, how could anyone be so stupid?A person cannot be convicted of a crime that has not been committed? 

Haha, so it does matter who makes the prophecy and who interprets it as fulfilled?

Again, you implicitly acknowledge your standard of evidence isn't near as strong as your pretend. IF spectral evidence were all that, how could you deny it...even if use against you?

Truth is the gauge by which falsehood is measured. For there to be a counterfeit there must be a real to compare the counterfeit against. Once I have the real I have the standard. 

If you determine what's real by anecdote, hearsay, and spectral evidence (which you wouldn't accept to convict you of murder), then you can't really say you know what is real and counterfeit.

It is impossible that two contrary things can be true at the same time regarding the same thing. 

It is possible for 2 contrary things to both be false.

Nothing can be 'simpler' than an infinite being, amIright?!

That is not my argument. The explanation is simple. He merely spoke the universe into existence. Very simple in comparison to let's say the Big Bang.

The explanation has fewer words, but it is not simpler because it is contingent on an eternal omnipotent being. 

Also, if you're willing to admit a subjective being can be objective...then you provide all that is needed for morality without the need for a god.

I am speaking of interpretation of the Bible and in understanding others. In the case of morality I question what the objective standard you profess that excludes God. You have still to reveal that objective standard you speak of.

You weigh your actions against what you believe the Biblical god wants to objectively determine right and wrong.  This is subjective.

You pretend to have an objective source for morality, but you (like everyone else) have a subjective morality.

I think you, and many people, overly complicate morality.  We only need to agree on something by which to measure our actions. Your preference is god.  Mine is well-being. 

No. I'm saying all too often what cannot be explained by our current understanding of nature is considered supernatural or attributed to it.

Supernatural would exclude nature as an explanation. If it is not natural it must be a being - yes or no?

What? I don't see how that follows.

Or are you speaking of a force such as in Starwars? If a force lacks personhood what can it do and would that force not be considered natural too, since it owes no explanation to personhood?

I'm simply pointing out that the supernatural lays claim to an increasingly smaller slice of the cosmos as our knowledge of nature increases.

It seems your primary argument against Biblically condoned slavery is that 'it couldn't be slavery because slaves must be bought/ kidnapping is disallowed', suggesting Biblical slavery was always voluntary and some form of indentured servitude. You also point to verses referring to  'foreigners which live among you' being treated with respect as though foreigners were to always to be treated as equal to Israelites.   This is simplistic cherry picking oblivious to what the Bible actually allows. 

Non-Israelite slaves were permanent property and could be acquired by purchase (Lev 25:44-46) or captured during war (Deut 20:14).  Yes, kidnapping Hebrews to enslave them is punishable by death (Deut 24:7), but there is no such restriction regarding foreigners - war captives is a case in point of foreigners literally being kidnapped as slaves (Deut 21:10-15). The OT is very much against slavery of "God's people", but this did not extend to non-Hebrews. Indentured servitude was available to Hebrew men, but everyone else was subject to some form of slavery as we commonly understand the term.

As a member of FIVE and a half religious groups , spanning across the main three holy books,   I highly doubt you'd find a more moral being then I. 

So , yeah.   Ask away.

Morals,   Shmorals. 

Actually,  if being in a religious  group gave one some kind of plus. You'd join a dozen of em.

Oh ,Unless there is a clause like. THALL SHALL NOT PUT ANOTHER GOD ABOVE ME. 

Yeah.      Real nice move. Very well played. 

Good game. 

Good game. 

Consider other verses which show the God of the Bible does not consider other peoples equal to Israel.  (The notion of "God's chosen people" speaks to this)The verses I provided make that distinction clear (Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25:44-46).

You ignore other verses that clarify what God expected in the treatment of others. And in no way was the treatment the same as in Egypt or other ANE cultures. It was better. As already pointed out, and you cannot deny it for it is Scripture, a 'slave' must be bought, not kidnapped from other lands. Kidnapping was punishable by death. That meant that a slave would have to agree to serve a Hebrew master. 

Egyptian slavery was a bondage and oppression that God never wanted Israel to duplicate. It was a type of servitude that God forbade. Time and time again, God wants  us to treat others as we want others to be treated. If you are blessed by wealth and can afford to hire others God still wants you to treat them with respect and dignity. 

It seems your primary argument against Biblically condoned slavery is that 'it couldn't be slavery because slaves must be bought/ kidnapping is disallowed', suggesting Biblical slavery was always voluntary and some form of indentured servitude.

I am comparing apples to oranges. Applies is Christianity; oranges is atheism.  

Lol, I don't disagree. I refer you back to my previous comment:

Until you are able to come up with an apples to apples comparison, there is really no defense needed.

Do you believe you can correctly interpret what I have said?

I can decipher the words and their logical conclusions, but NOT your intention.

Often the logical conclusions do not resemble your stated intention in the slightest (when you kindly take the time to elucidate).

And when you don't quite understand my meaning you ask me to explain it further.

Either directly or indirectly by paraphrasing.

Thus, you must understand that there is an objective meaning in communications,

Nope.  Please explain.

...but you do not give the biblical author(s) (said to be God speaking in over a thousand verses) that courtesy.

I also don't (CAN'T) give the author(s) of the Tao Te Ching and or the Bardo Thodol that "courtesy".

That is inconsistent and hypocritical if you do that. 

Look, you're the "expert" on this subject, so that's why I'm asking you.

Have you managed to distill any moral AXIOMS?

How do you mean? I believe I have. 

I work from the principle of the Ten Commandments, which delves into most aspects of morality for it deals with what happens when someone wrongs instead of loves others.

How do the "Ten Commandments" relate to COPYRIGHT LAW?

I'm not sure if that particular verse teaches the killing of children (among the little ones), but and innocent life God takes (a life that has not committed sin and is not able to reason or yet be accountable) God will restore to a better place.

Literally, "kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out".

Of course, "they deserved it" because those pesky prisoners probably "caused the israelites to sin" (or they probably would in the future, better not take any chances).

It sounds like "everyone is equal before jesus" is more like "shape-up or ship-out".

HOW DOES THIS BIBLE STORY INFORM YOUR PRIMARY MORAL AXIOMS??

Wrong. There is no free man nor slave, no female of male but all are one in Jesus Christ. The biblical teaching promotes loving others and looking out for their best interests. 

15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. [**]

So, it should not bother you if you are being consistent with atheism in which the universe is a meaningless mass of matter.

Atheism makes no such claim.

I do not vote.

I am probably not consistent with atheism.

The rest is your opinion.

Also, as related to this thread, atheism/theism are not moral philosophies....neither are reasonable from a moral standpoint. In your thread you drop the theistic ambiguity and name Christianity, which is a moral view, but again, you compare it to atheism which is not a moral philosophy. The comparison itself is not reasonable.

Its like you're pitting "Kumbaya" against silence and asking which is better music. There is a category error in the comparison.

I only defend one moral theistic position for I believe that the many contrary positions cannot all be true/valid. Thus, I always point to the Christian God.

Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to concede you are not defending theism but a particular view which falls under the label of theism.

Additionally, if theism (a broad belief in god) is not a moral view, then atheism (a broad non-belief in god) is not a moral view either. Until you are able to come up with an apples to apples comparison, there is really no defense needed.

The analogy you give sucks. What we are dealing with are TWO human beings, one unborn and the other born.

In my analogy we are dealing with two human beings.

Both have already been born. Does that make them intrinsically less worthwhile?

If my body could save a man and I refuse is that immoral?

What if he is a father with children that need him?

What if he is a doctor or the leader of an important peace movement? Should my body be under the control of the state in cases where I could save a life even at risk to my own?

Also I am not convinced that a fetus is necessarily a human being in the sense that it is an individual with emotions and thoughts (and therefore at least arguably deserving of rights) but really that is beside the point when you demand that legislation be passed which removes my bodily autonomy. 

I believe that free will was only present in Adam. 

Then no other humans are really making choices including the "choice" to believe or reject. If I am flawed by design take it up with the manufacturer. 

Too many bald assertions to address individual. Even if I accept that some version of the Yahweh must necessarily exist you have not actually demonstrated or even suggested some methodology that takes the guess work out of understanding the primary moral axioms of the Yahweh. 

That correct interpretation comes from finding the Author's meaning, not interjecting my own meaning into the text. 

Why do you think so many "christians" disagree with each other?

They do not try to understand what God is saying. Their bias, influence from others, and denominationalism gets in the way. His Word is our standard. 

It's because "human evaluation" and "human interpretation" is inescapable.

Even though I use my human filter - my mind - I try to get the Author's meaning. That is possible, so there is a correct INTERPRETATION. 

I'm not sure how your interpretation of "the Author's meaning" is "unfiltered" by your human perception.

Have you managed to distill any moral AXIOMS?

Sure you can make up meaning, but ultimately it means nothing. 

Yes, and....? So what?

Something came from nothing!!!

Or the stuff in the universe was always around in various forms, cycling from big bang to big crunch eternally. 

Next, if there is no intention then there is no purpose for the universe being here.

Again, so what?

Are we being consistent with such a universe as that? 

I've asked this like a million times: WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO BE "CONSISTENT" WITH THE UNIVERSE? The practical implication on every day life. I'll help: Person A is "consistent" with the universe, and therefore they can __________________, which person B, who is inconsistent with the universe, cannot. " Fill in the blank. 

Why do we discover (no intent) the laws of nature? These questions are usually left blank by atheists. Do you care to answer them, or should I expect the usual silence? 

I'll answer this one because it's easy: we're exceptionally good at spotting patterns., whether they're there or not. We're wrong as often as we're right. 

If you believe in a kind loving God and your child dies of pediatric cancer, what are you left with?

No, I would not want to be found guilty on anecdotal evidence or hearsay. I fail to see how that ties in with God.  God has given all kinds of reasonable evidence, of which you are brushing off. I offered to debate you on the subject of prophecy, as to its reasonableness.

Prophecy would fall under 'spectral evidence' which you've noticeably neglected to mention, but this too is not admissible in a court of law.

Would you accept spectral evidence alone to convict you of a murder you haven't committed yet? 

I seriously doubt it. It seems you understand the standard of evidence you're advocating is insufficient for a court of law which would certainly make it insufficient to 'convict' the Biblical god of existence.  Something to think about...

You are being ridiculous. One object plus another object equals two objectives. 1+1=2. It does not equal something else. If Christianity is true then all other gods and religious beliefs (of which I include atheism as a belief) are false. It is as simple as that. But it is difficult to convince and unbeliever since they have invested their whole outlook on another system of thought. Therefore, I have challenged you, based on atheism, to show yours is more reasonable than my Christian belief in the area of morality, of which you have to date avoided doing. 

In that case, your reasons for belief are not impossibility of the contrary. How can you argue impossibility of the contrary without evaluating the "contrary"? Aren't you just assuming the truth of your view without going through the standard you claim?

I provided a response to your challenge in post #238. 

You are confusing God as a person with God as an explanation. God as an explanation is simple.  

Nothing can be 'simpler' than an infinite being, amIright?!

How does 'subject' apply to God? I think you are confusing two different things, that a subjective being cannot be objective. Then how does God qualify? He knows all things. How would His knowledge be subjective? 

Is it your position an omniscient being is incapable of subjectivity?

How would you square that with the Biblical god having a "chosen people"?!

Also, if you're willing to admit a subjective being can be objective...then you provide all that is needed for morality without the need for a god.

Are you saying that something supernatural is not personal,

No. I'm saying all too often what cannot be explained by our current understanding of nature is considered supernatural or attributed to it.

Yes, Israel experienced chattel slavery in Egypt.

Per the Bible, Israel experienced chattel slavery in Egypt.  This was never in contention.

No, He did not codify chattel slavery. He forbid Israel from practicing the same harsh treatment that Israel experienced in Egypt. 

The verses you provide taken alone might be used to support your interpretation, but this is very much cherry picking. 

Consider other verses which show the God of the Bible does not consider other peoples equal to Israel.  (The notion of "God's chosen people" speaks to this)The verses I provided make that distinction clear (Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25:44-46).

I could provide others, but I don't think you're open to that possibility.  Of course, if you are I can provide verses which may broaden your interpretation.

God orders the Israelites to make a distinction between the Hebrew servants and the those of foreign nations. They were:
·        Allowed to 'buy' (not take!) slaves from foreign nations around them...

·        Finally, it should be noted that the passage says that they "can" make them slaves for life--not that they "were automatically" slaves for life. Somehow, freedom was the default and lifetime slavery only an 'option'.

The Great Escape Clause…?
Deut 23.15 has this fascinating passage:
If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. 16 Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him. (Deut 23.15)...

"A slave could also be freed by running away. According to Deuteronomy, a runaway slave is not to be returned to its master. He should be sheltered if he wishes or allowed to go free, and he must not be taken advantage of (Deut 23:16-17). This provision is strikingly different from the laws of slavery in the surrounding nations and is explained as due to Israel's own history of slaves. It would have the effect of turning slavery into a voluntary institution."

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html

Remember also, Exodus 21:16 forbids kidnapping, thus a slave would have to be bought, per above, thus not against their will.

The mental gymnastics here is impressive. 'Lifetime slavery is only an option' - who's option - the master or the slave.  (Hint - it's not the slave).  This alone is a concession that the Bible does codify slavery. 

Schopenhauer declared that the true basis of morality is compassion or sympathy. The morality of an action can be judged in accordance with Kant's distinction of treating a person as an end not as a mere means. By drawing the distinction between egoism and unselfishness, Kant correctly described the criterion of morality. For Schopenhauer, this was the only merit of Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals.

Remember that there were 19 million miscarriages last year also. Doesn't god know anything about quality control? Why did god use atoms and 10 sextillion suns to create one planet that life would finally form on?

Also, as related to this thread, atheism/theism are not moral philosophies....neither are reasonable from a moral standpoint. In your thread you drop the theistic ambiguity and name Christianity, which is a moral view, but again, you compare it to atheism which is not a moral philosophy. The comparison itself is not reasonable.

Its like you're pitting "Kumbaya" against silence and asking which is better music. There is a category error in the comparison.

Not all human beings are treated with equality and dignity.

Nope, never have been and will not be for the foreseeable future.

And neither the bible nor the U.S. actually promotes such morals. 

Altruistic lip service in the pursuit of wealth and power is typically human, hypocrisy. 

just for the record - I am not an American. I am from the southern hemisphere. In the area known as Oceania. 

So it is about you! What is good is about you? Do you think your system of thought as an atheist is morally justifiable? If so, justify why your subjective opinion is better than mine and how you measure better when there is no fixed reference as a comparison???

Better is a subjective term. It is only useful if we first have a reference point. If the reference point is human welfare then I believe my view is "better" at promoting welfare. If the reference point is some possibly fictional god then until the god is demonstrate along with s ok me methodology for unambiguously (not subject to interpretation) determining the will of said god then even if it exists we are still all just guessing. If I understand your method properly it is very suspect specifically because it is subject to interpretation which allows subjective opinions to again enter the conversation.

Is it okay to kill innocent unborn human beings because you don't want them?

Is it okay to violate my bodily autonomy and force me to donate my kidney to a dying human? Is refusing to donate my kidney the same as killing the human in question?