@ROYISM

"But how can you argue that your belief is more correct than my belief."

By arguing for it. I can appeal to your compassion, to your empathy, to your reason and understanding of the effects of our actions. And you can do the same. And hopefully, through those conversations, we both get a clearer view of how we can make this world a better place.

"But the fact is that you can’t even make a reliable judgement to know whether you are growing or regressing."

Sure. But there is evidence. I can look at the effects of my actions on the well-being of those around me, the environment, our political system, the empowerment of others, etc. Actions have consequences and in my observations (which are of course not objective) my actions have more positive and less negative effects than they used to. It's definitely not a science, but that's still a meaningful outcome in that it actually affects the real world. Parents don't stop trying to be better parents simply because they can't prove whether they're getting better or not. But yeah, my perception of positive and negative is subjective.

"That’s so presumptuous of you. So, you seem to know what is best for everyone, while all you have is a bunch of subjective ideas. How are you any different from a theist who claims the same thing about knowing what is right and fighting for it."

I was very clear that I don't think my morality is perfect, that I'm continuing to learn, and that I'm also not going to be complacent because I care about this world in the people in it. Here's the deal: everyone's morality is subjective. All of us are trying to figure out what's right. And yes, theists are included in that. Would you prefer that, because morality is subjective, everyone throw their hands in the air and say that there's no way to know if murder and torture are better or worse than kindness and generosity because no God explained the difference to us? Something's brewing here regarding babies and bathwater.

Let's not pretend that there's a black and white moral code that has stood the test of time, even within religion. Society and individuals' moralities will continue to change over time, and we all have a say in how that goes. I'd prefer to be a part of that conversation.

I raised the question because it was apposite, you have avoided answering it for the same reason. How I feel about them is irrelevant to the question.

"There are only two reasons why these things are wrong in our culture – one is religious belief and the other is social conditioning (a big part of which comes from religions anyways)."

So you think rape is wrong? What about a 50 year old man raping a nine year old girl? Or do prophets get a free pass on (child) rape?

There are plenty of atheist and secular societies in the developed west, and they have the lowest rates of violent crimes like rape and murder in the world.
--------------------------------------------------
"f you were born in an cannibalistic tribe that feeds on humans for breakfast, you would be as blasé about it as chomping on chicken legs every day. So, the question is on you?"

Answer mine and I will answer your, if you lost your belief in a deity are you saying you would suddenly think behaviours like rape and murder were moral? Stop obfuscating with red herrings.
--------------------------------------------
" Without the referral point of God, who is really good and bad in the middle of all this would be anybody’s guess."

You mean because everyone who has ever believed in a deity has an identical moral code? You are funny, you just stated social conditioning was a factor, now without a deity there is no point of reference, despite atheists giving you several. Empathy, well being, then there are concepts like justice and equality, all of the trump blindly following the misogynistic ravings of ancient superstitious paedophiles, no matter how often you try to claim it came form a deity you can't evidence, and that no two Muslims can agree on without resorting to jihad and bloodshed.

David meant the value these ideas possess are manifest, independent of specious pretentious religious questions that assume life has an purpose beyond what individuals choose their lives to mean. He's not claiming the ideas exist independently of humans, that absurd claim is what religious apologists like yourself make, that they have access to objective morality.

@ ROYISM

"If you think you are doing these acts of charity out some innate sense of empathy, you are mistaken. Your values are the result of years of social conditioning, the ontology of which if you analyze will have some notions on the meaningsof life. The fact is you are relying on some existential dogma (in your language mystical or magical stuff) without your knowing it."

Actually, no. When I was much younger, in my teens and early 20's I was a self absorbed selfish asshole. I did not care for others, and sadly hurt other people. Only when I matured and did a lot of self-reflection and thinking, did I take on a higher level of empathy. I learned (all by myself) to be caring and more sensitive to others.

"Dogs don’t have any moral quotient, we simply try to read our notions into them. Would say a dog is evil if it attacks a passerby or kills a kitten? No They don’t act on the basis of moral choices they consciously make. They simply act on instincts. But we humans are not like that."

Dogs do have a morality. They have been tested under proper scientific protocol, and the results were not based on the dog's desire to please their master. Everything they do, dogs do for a reason. My brother was a cop, and he was a dog handler. One of his dogs (who went into the Purina Hall of Fame) was a 140 pound monster German Shepard. If he sent that dog to attack you, you were in very serious trouble. Yet I have seen that dog in a home environment, with my three year old nephew pulling on it's tail and trying to poke it in the eye. Yet Baron did not react, he just took it. I have also seen guard dogs for a high security military base. They are pushed into insanity, to hate humans with an unbelievable ferocity. Even their handlers are at risk. They are not evil, they are a product of their environment. If you apply the "evil" label to anything, you are not understanding what is going on and resorting to ignorance.