Why do you object to morals?
I don't.
Many atheists on this forum like to brag about how much moral than believers they are.
"More" moral?
Well, what are they using for a standard then?
Didn't I already answer this in a different thread? Oy.
It is entirely possible to have an objective, reality-based morality. Objectivism is the strongest contender in this area.
Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand is the best introduction.
I have my disagreements with Objectivism, abortion for example, but by and large I agree.
The Golden Rule works as a principle for most situations.
#4 - Your ethical problems DO NOT dictate what a scientist can do. This is an example of theocracy. If you don't like that research, don't engage in it.
Then don't expect us to pay for it either.
Oh, I agree. I'd prefer most research to be left to universities, corporations, and individuals.
If scientists want to butcher babies in the name of progress, they can do it on their own dime.
That would be a violation of the baby's right to life.
It should not be government subsidized elitist welfare.
And by "elitist" you mean "scientist".
And by "scientist" you mean "credentialed propagandist."
The all-encompassing nature of the Randian line may be illustrated by an incident that occurred to a friend of mine who once asked a leading Randian if he disagreed with the movement’s position on any conceivable subject. After several minutes of hard thought, the Randian replied: "Well, I can’t quite understand their position on smoking." Astonished that the Rand cult had any position on smoking, my friend pressed on: "They have a position on smoking? What is it?" The Randian replied that smoking, according to the cult, was a moral obligation. In my own experience, a top Randian once asked me rather sharply, "How is it that you don’t smoke?" When I replied that I had discovered early that I was allergic to smoke, the Randian was mollified: "Oh, that’s OK, then."