atheistic morality two

[siegfriedandroy]

if you are a true atheist, then murder is no worse/better than giving the homeless guy a thousand bucks. what hitler did was not wrong. some of you (atheists) rightfully understand this, others protest at length. in the end it is obvious. in the end, the genocide of hundreds of thousands (or more), is no more morally repugnant (from a good atheist's perspective) than the little boy who shares his snacks at lunch with the starving kid. most of you are not really 'philosophers'. and even if you were, you'd be only barely more enlightened (if at all). sklansky talks forever about his acutely difficult moral hypotheticals. but in the end (if he really is atheistic), he has no reasonable reason to care. in reality, your philosophy is incredibly wicked, since you really cannot possibly have any legitimate ground to criticize the nations of our world who kill thousands, perhaps millions, without legitimate right. in fact, you cannot truly even deem it wrong at all, except in your pointless and arbitrary skull that futilely determines good and evil. arrogant d-bags. you can not truly condemn the murder of millions of jews, 3k americans, etc etc ad infinitum throughout history. you may as well support the killing. would not be at all any more inconsistent w/ your atheistic precepts than condemnation of the death. why do you all foolishly cling to heinous, evil philosophy that has no grounding in reality?