Are you arguing for an "ordered" universe?
If so, then who or what gave the order?
If not, then from whence did you obtain your moral compass? And what makes your moral compass any more moral than Adolph Eichmann's or Pol Pot's?
Eichmann believed he was doing mankind a favor and advancing the march of Darwinistic evolution by exterminating the Jews and eliminating them from the gene pool.
On what basis can you judge him to be wrong?
There is order in the universe, sure.
If so, then who or what gave the order?
That's merely a play on words. Try logic; it works better.
If not, then from whence did you obtain your moral compass? And what makes your moral compass any more moral than Adolph Eichmann's or Pol Pot's?
People, as social animals, evolved a moral compass of sorts. It's not a very sophisticated one, but it does endow us with an innate sense of fairness, equips us to be reciprocally altruistic, and dissuades us from, for example, random violence, particularly against kin.
In order to live in more complex societies, we've by application of reason come up with more sophisticated compasses. They are more moral than those of Eichmann and Pol Pot (and Martin Luther, just so we include theistic genocidal lunatics as well) in that they don't call for the slaughter of millions of innocents.
Despite your protestations, you have an innate moral compass too. So although you may protest that without your God there would be nothing to keep you from infanticide, rape, murder and other mayhem, I am reasonably confident that if you woke tomorrow and decided religion was bunk, you wouldn't turn into a sociopath. Ironic, isn't it, that I think better of Christians than Christians think of themselves?
The atheist view of morality (utilitarianism) is “the greatest happiness for the greatest number”.
And that’s where it starts getting sticky. Happiness is qualia, a very personal thing. The sadist is happy when the other guy suffers, the altruist is happy when the other guy does not suffer.
It implies we take a vote and determine “happy” from instance to instance - but who gets to vote?
The Palestinians would be happiest if the Jews were annihilated altogether – and there are more of them than there are Jews but so far the annihilation of Jews would not make most people in the world happy. Islamicists would be happiest if non-Islamicists were annihilated or enslaved – but fortunately we outnumber them.
But minorities must be protected under utilitarianism.
At the moment, in the U.S., pedophilia makes a lot of people unhappy – but who’s to say we won’t become like some “enlightened” atheistic European country and weigh the happiness to the men and boys who do so willingly along with other minorities (such as slaves, homosexuals, etc.) whose happiness must be protected as a minority class?
Already on the Supreme Court, Ginsberg would like to lower the age of consensual age. That is the “enlightened” view. But, at the moment, ten year olds having sex does not make most people happy. But they don’t have the power of the court either; as we saw in Roe v. Wade, the court can ignore God's "absolute morality" as recognizied by the majority in the interest of protecting a minority "right".
It gets even more sticky when we bump it up to Singer’s view – because he gives no preference to human happiness over much of animal happiness. Certainly, it makes many of us happy to eat the beef – but what about the cows?
Likewise, the tiger can be quite happy to eat the villager – and the tiger is a minority, a protected class at that.
And, of course, in this reasoning – the happiness of the mother is sufficient cause to abort the unborn. And after birth, the happiness of the parents is also reason enough to kill the child until/unless the majority of people are unhappy over the killing. Singer believes the parents ought to have a trial period – a few months or a year. Jeepers.
At the moment, infanticide causes a great deal of unhappiness to most people. But who’s to say we won’t become “enlightened” like European countries which have already determined the happiness of the family is sufficient cause to euthanize the unwanted whose care makes them unhappy.
In an atheistic world, Singer's reasoning would be hard to defeat - that man is just another animal and should have equitable rights whether as predator or prey, whether to cull the herd, abandon the runts, when to breed, etc.