Greed and ugliness go hand in hand with atheism, so the only way they could be better than that is if they aren't truly atheists and believe in an objectively greater good than greed and materialism.

Corporatistic libertarianism is a degenerate atheist ideology adhered to by atheistic degenerates such as Ayn Rand.

Nature is less fundamental than the formal sciences, logic, mathematics, aesthetics - from which all material derives, and which of course prove the existence of God and objective morality.

It's probably because progressives tend to view themselves as perpetual victims and view their antisocial and destructive acts as just 'getting revenge' on whoever they think is to blame for their miserable lot in life, which is why you'll find a lot more evil and debased people on the left than you will on the right.

Then you're not an atheist. Since from a materialistic perspective, right and wrong mean nothing beyond whether or not they serve a means to an end.

You can't for example say there's any objective 'moral' right to free speech, it only exists as a right if one has the might to make it so.

I agree, why do atheist spend so much time talking about something they say is a fictional character.

You don't see Christians spending that much time talking about the tooth fairy or the Easter bunny.

I believe loving gay homes are much rarer if they exist at all, which is why most gay couples aren't getting married even though it's now legal; gay males also have about 10X the number of lifetime sex partners as straight males.

From an evolutionary perspective, 'right' and 'wrong' would only be consequentially related to whether or not they enhance or detract from group survival.

So while one could have a problem with rape if the result would harm one's own survival or that of one's 'tribe', they couldn't logically have a problem with it if it had a benefit.

Abortion is of course a step backward in high culture and more in the direction of ancient barbarism, like the 'discarding' of children in ancient Sparta.

The universe is young, why are you waiting for 'ragnarok' when the notion of an end to the universe in many ancient texts was something not predicted to occur for billions, or even trillions of years and lifetimes.

This is an example of atheists ignorance of things that require deeper and symbolic thought, as well as their own vapid fascination with their own individual lives, which are as far as the universe is concerned, just a microscopic blip on the evolutionary radar.

No not even close, in fact compared to other scientific theories such as the theories of gravity and relativity, it's not nearly as well supported by scientific evidence, it's one of the shakiest and least stable theories out there, which is why most of Darwin's original theory has been superseded by new theories.

Dawkins of course is more of a dogmatist than a scientist so his fertilization of evolution is just the typical attempt by atheists to treat evolution as a "replacement" for religion or a creation story.

But objectively speaking, its one of the least consequential theories and most of the talk about it is just hype. Mathematical and formal logic theories are also much better at explaining quite a bit of things than evolution, or most 'natural science' is anyway.

The fact that you have evolutionary biologists who can't even figure out how to get a date, when even cavemen could do that is testimony to how vapid it is in actual day-to-day life, lol