You said:If you are talking about stuff related to science I agree with you. But with regards to you moral issues...As I said earlier, what I take issue with is justifying decision-making based on the fairy tales.only makes sense if in fact morals can be objectively defined.nobody ever used Little Red Riding Hood to justify the Crusades (or September 11th or the violence in Palestine or Ireland if you want to pick some contemporary examples).
If/then: If materialism is true then all justifications are arbitrary. Secular humanism (a kind of atheism with a belief in universal human rights) is the newest fairy-tale making mythology....it only excludes a deity.
To quote Infidel.org
 "An evolutionary account of the origin of moral judgment in human beings does not tell us what (if anything) makes a specific action moral. On a materialist view, all codes of conduct must ultimately be man-made or socially constructed; there are no objective moral laws existing independently of sentient beings in the way that laws of nature do. Thus there are no objective criteria for determining if human actions are right or wrong. The objectivity of laws of nature is clear--our approximations to them (laws of physics) are publicly falsifiable and can be corroborated by empirical evidence. Moreover, unlike natural laws, moral laws can be violated. But if what we call moral laws are really man-made inventions, our ethical rules are arbitrary and thus individuals are not obligated to follow them. Nothing makes an action objectively moral or immoral; individual and social codes vary because ethics, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. But then there are no compelling grounds for arguing that Aztec human sacrifice, Nazi or Serbian genocide, or infanticide is really wrong. Core ethical rules are no doubt determined by intersubjective consensus across cultures--for example, incest and murder are universally prohibited. But such consensus does not demonstrate the objectivity of ethics; it merely demonstrates that human beings or societies are largely 'built' the same way and react similarly to certain types of behavior. Suppose we have inherited an aversion to committing murder. That such a genetic disposition would be widespread makes evolutionary sense. A known murderer's neighbors will fear that the murderer might kill them. Out of mutual self-interest they would be wise to band together and eliminate the murderer before he could eliminate them. Since murderers would tend to be eliminated before they could reproduce, individuals with a genetic inclination to commit murder would tend to dwindle. But this is merely an accident of natural selection, and trying to base morality on the fact that adhering to certain ethical norms will make you more "fit" to stay alive and reproduce is insufficient. The origin of behavior is irrelevant to whether a behavior is right or wrong; what makes an individual evolutionarily 'fit' (e.g. infidelity) is not necessarily moral. There will no doubt still be some individuals who are genetically inclined to commit murder; but we do not conclude that they are exempt from moral prohibitions on murder because of this. Furthermore, the fitness of certain evolutionary traits changes when the environment changes. Would murder suddenly become morally acceptable--even obligatory--if it provided us a selective advantage? On a materialist account, the only foundations for behavioral codes are preserving self-interest and satisfying one's conscience--there are no additional 'moral facts' which motivate behavior."
Like it or not, that quote applies equally to both atheist and theist who justify action upon anything they want. Existence is pointless and all human rights arguments are the stuff of myth.
Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?
For your post, and to Rich:
I wouldn't say that I feel sympathetic towards religious people, it's more like envy. True believers have so much unconditional love and reliance and faith in their deity, that they never feel alone here. Never lost, because they believe they have a place that's always waiting for them beyond this existence. Where they can be reunited with those loved and lost, and a place where only the good and pure are allowed in. No crime, no intolerance, no misery. When you have love and faith you never feel alone.
Unfortunately for me, I lack that faith and imagination, so I envy those who have it and all their ability to love unconditionally. I realize that my existence is meaningless. My entire being is a product of my environment, and a fluke, or an accident. I'm one of billions and billions. I know that when I die, time will keep revolving, and nothing I've done here will matter whatsoever. I know that the loved ones I've lost are lost forever. I don't like the idea of decomposing and being digested by animals.
There's an undeniable simplicity that's inherent with faith and belief, sort of like youth. It almost feels like freedom. When I look at a child, that's uncomplicated by age and experience, I find myself envying that too. They're seemingly beaming with boundless energy and happiness.
True happiness is probably viewing each day like a child would on Christmas morning.
Time is passing so quickly. Right now, I feel like complaining to Einstein. Whether time is slow or fast depends on perception. Relativity theory is so romantic. And so sad.
I doubt you lack the imagination. You write so eloquently that I have a feeling you're a deeply creative and imaginative person, or at least have that potential. But yes, you do lack the faith, as do I. I consider this a good thing. I think it's better to have beliefs that are consistent with reality, even if the stories of religions are extremely appealing in the ways you describe. If I had to choose between believing a truth that unsettled me, or a fiction that made me happy, I'd pick the truth every time. Maybe I'm just a glutton for punishment, lol.
Here's what I really want you to consider though, your existence is not necessarily meaningless. Meaning is not something prescribed to us, it is not something absolute, or ultimate, not something bestowed upon us or dictated from on high. It doesn't come from some outside authority, so it's not lost when you don't believe in such an authority. Meaning is something we create for ourselves. It's a human concept. Each of us finds and creates meaning in our own lives. I certainly can't tell you what will make your life meaningful to you. I think you just have to figure out what you value and what you consider good and then construct your life around that stuff.