secular based morals are superior to religious faith based morals

You make some very interesting points, flawed but interesting. You claim that you are religious and yet believe in a god that is indifferent to the universe. This contradicts the very basis of religious faith. It means that faith is not an adequate or reasonable defense of any belief or belief system which purports to have any empirical connection to the reality which we all share. You claim to use the scientific method to read God's handwriting. And then contradict your self saying man is fallible and may misinterpret what God wants. Following you down the traceability path, I get lost when you use the science of biology to explain Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. You use social conventions which are not real and mix them with fixed immutable laws of the universe which are real to form a flawed premise. You claim that morality is a group concept, but it is an individual concept. Individuals have a right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. You claim that an atheistic view is a cultural view, it is an individual's view. Implicit here is the self-defeating idea that for human life to have worth it must have something more powerful and nonhuman to bestow that worth upon it, be it Nature or God. Human beings are individuals, each with his own body, his own mind, his own life, this standard applies to human beings as individuals. Man"s life is the standard of moral value and each individual"s own life is his own ultimate value. Each individual is morally an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others. The moral principle here is egoism Because we possess free will, we choose our values; thus, we can choose either objectively legitimate, life-serving values (e.g., to pursue a wonderful career, to remain with a worthy spouse, to establish and maintain a civilized society)"or objectively illegitimate, life-thwarting values (e.g., to shoot heroin, to stay with an abusive spouse, or to advocate communism or sharia). But whatever our choices, these facts remain: The only reason we can pursue values is because we are alive, and the only reason we need to pursue values is in order to live. This observation-based, two-pronged principle is essential to understanding how morality, and, in turn, the principle of rights, is grounded in the immutable facts of reality. Only life makes values possible, and only life makes values necessary. Or: We have to be alive in order to pursue values, and we have to pursue values in order to stay alive. It is an observable fact that life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. This is a metaphysically given fact; it"s the way the world is, regardless of what anyone hopes, feels, prays, or does. Life depends on such action, and human life depends on rational action, action in accordance with one"s own judgment. Because each individual"s life requires self-generated, goal-directed action in accordance with his own judgment, each individual morally must be left free to act on his own judgment, and each individual morally must leave others free to act on theirs. The idea that rights come from God or from a law of nature created by God fails to meet the requirement of demonstrability. Neither the notion that rights come from God"nor the notion that they come from government"nor the notion that they come from a law of nature created by God is viable. None of these theories identifies a demonstrable, observation-based source for rights. None explains rationally why people should be free to live (the right to life); to act on their own judgment, free of coercion (liberty); to keep, use, and dispose of the product of their effort (property); and to pursue the goals and values of their own choosing (the pursuit of happiness). None supplies an objective foundation for these rights. In the absence of demonstrable proof of the existence of rights, proponents of rights have nothing to support their claims. To gain the knowledge needed,first and foremost we must use reason, the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man"s senses. Reason is our means of understanding the world, ourselves, and our needs, if we want to gain such understanding, we must use it, we must observe reality and think. And reason is not only our means of gaining knowledge of our physical needs, it is also our means of gaining knowledge of our spiritual needs. It is by means of reason that we learn what self-confidence is, why we need it, and how to gain it. The importance of long-range goals, which ones will serve our life and happiness, and which ones will not. The nature of love, and how to build and maintain a wonderful romantic relationship, and so on. We are not born with any such knowledge, if and to the extent that we gain it, we do so by means of reason. Rights are not inherent or inborn which is why there is no evidence to suggest that they are. Rights are conceptual identifications of the factual requirements of human life in a social context. Real rights, defensible rights are demonstrably true.