Atheist moral judgment on religion have no basis whatsoever.

Addressing your claims: There is no "atheist ideology" any more than there is one single "christian" perspective on things. That would be similar to me claiming that there is a "theist ideology" when there are in fact thousands of forms of theism. The pure definition of atheist - which is one who believes no god exists - carries no extra baggage by default. 1. Society would objectively be better off without a large number of religious doctrines and superstitions that have crept up over the years. No religious principle has led to breakthroughs in any field of study that we gain benefit from, And has actively held those fields back in many ways. Let's take evolution for example. The vast majority of evolution deniers are religious. [1] At this point in time, Saying evolution by natural selection does not happen is like saying gravity is not a concept that exists. This is religion actively holding people back. It is at least intellectually consistent for religious people to say it exists, And that god started it. Creationism is no longer a belief that one can hold with any degree of logical consistency. I can give hundreds of examples to this effect. Religious people preach against contraceptives in STD-ridden countries. This actively spreads STDs of many varieties. These aren't matters of opinion. These are objectively true outside of moral systems. To deny it would be to say that STDs are beneficial, Or that facts should not be supported by evidence. 2. Many atheists - not all - would, With some discussion, Agree that morals are subjective. That we, As a society, Have crafted our morals over time. Consistent people will say that killing gays - to use your example - is "bad" but what we mean by that is that it has a negative effect on society as a whole which then circles around to actively make our lives worse. When we actively hunt gay people we are sometimes killing people who are straight who were framed (How do you prove they are gay? How did you prove this before video and pictures were a thing? ), We are killing people who will otherwise go around to invent useful things for society [2], You are inhibiting the freedoms of individuals from experiencing what they would like which has no clear negative effect on the rest of us. These are all logical and factual statements. You have to use your words to argue your position and justify why it is better for society if we actively hunt and kill gays. I submit that you will be unable to do so adequately. Religious people would state "My god says don't put your penis in that hole. " If you accept logic and reasoning then people can and should be able to change your mind on things. So we, As a society, Grow over time. For any moral question, I should have an argument for my opinion on it. My argument should be changeable if a more logical one comes by me. I, As a consistent person who accepts logic, Should be able to talk to a cannibal, A rapist, Or a psychopath, And be able to argue any of my moral positions. In summary, When someone says "bad" they shouldn't mean it is objectively morally bad. They are saying all the negative effects they can think of outweigh all the positive effects they can think of. This is secular human morality. 3. There is no problem with the consistency here. Religious doctrine is not argument driven. You point to a multi-thousand year old book the authors of whom you aren't sure of, The stories in which you all disagree on the validity or interpretation of, Which wasn't actually written by your god, Whose passages actively contradict each other, Whose writers were mostly illiterate, Which has been translated many times, Whose included books have been selected and edited by groups of priests in the past. Any intellectual should be able to present a logical well-thought argument on the positive and negative effects of any moral fork, But to counter their claims you point to that book, The legitimacy of which you cannot prove between that and thousands of other books, And when your own religion is fractured into hundreds of denominations and multiple literal religions based on disagreements inside the religion. So yes, We all hold subjective views. We all agree to argue those views and put them up against each other. We have heated debates. We will say things are "bad" with each other's views and with views of people outside of our society. The question of if negatives outweigh positives is not always clear or fully answered. Our answers to moral questions can change over time. We should not say people are objectively "wrong" to hold certain positions. We ask for the argument for those positions. We can agree to disagree on things, But respect each other's opinions and value the debate when we have learned things or have new things to study. It is then understandably irritating when someone comes in and throws an old book in your face, Says a god he can't prove exists said otherwise, And hears no arguments. - Expanding on my points 1. Christian Morality is not objective. I'm going to discard several valid objections. They are as follows: 1. You can't prove god exists. 2. Even if you could you would still need to prove that your god was that god. 3. There are thousands of competing religions and there's no reason to think yours is more valid. I don't need any of those to logically prove my point. I'm going to grant you that God exists, And that God is the Christian God. Aren't I generous? Christian morality still would not be objective. Many arguments work for this. I will give several. 1a. The Christian God gives us only the Bible. The problem with this is that besides the aforementioned faults in the Bible, Christian Morality has all been left up to human interpretation. Christians agree on very little with a large majority. There are passages in the Bible in favor of slavery. One could argue the Bible is in favor of slavery. [3] Were the Bible so against it, It would be a Commandment or there would be clear condemnations. What you get in the Bible are rules for slaves. If we can command that infidelity or murder is wrong, How can we not command enslavement is not? Do you believe slavery is morally justified because it is permitted in the Bible? Incest and Rape are similar. When there is debate in the religious community about what morality should be, No one can be sure of what objective morality is. Therefore, The morality in the Bible is subjective even if God did exist and even if his morality was objective. There is no argument against this. Most pastors would say "humans can be wrong, But God cannot be. " Humans are the ones doing the interpreting and God is not clarifying things for us. 1b. The Christian God either does not make morality, Or anything he does is moral. This is also called the Euthyphro Dilemma, Or paradox, In philosophy. One has to accept one of two horns. a. Morality exists without God, In which case it is able to be discovered without god, And there is at least one thing God did not make. or b. Whatever God does is morally good because God does it. This means the sentence can also be "God did something. " It doesn't matter what god does, It is always morally good. If A is correct, God is not "god", And objective morality (if it exists) was not made by him. He is either not 100% good or he is controlled by what is good. If B is correct then when god kills children, Babies, Et cetera and commands humans to kill babies, Children, And rape women it is morally correct to do so. But then god says murder is wrong. In conclusion, In the current state of our reality Christian Morality is just as subjective as anyone else's. Intellectuals are open for debate and arguments. Are you? - Sources in comments if I can get them to work. URLs not being allowed is counterproductive to providing sources.