Why do you engage in conversational disputes regarding that which you must, as a materialist, deny. You deny the existence of God, yet you get involved with a discussion denegrating that which you say does not exist. You reference a demand to be given an explaination of something which you imply is not good, when in the materialist, darwinists world there can be no good or bad. Things in the materialsts' world...just are. In your worldview morality cannot be accounted for with logic, reason, or rational thought because all logic, rational thought, and reason would have to have a material explaination, yet these are invarient, abstract entities. Or...do you deny that logic exists. To be a consistent materialist you must deny that which is not consistent with the physicalists worldview. If you agree that logic does exist, you must enter the world beyond the physical (Aristotle writings Metaphysic) or the metaphysical for an explaination. To do this, you must reason, by use of the invarient laws of logic,...but again the physicalist has no explaination for reason from a materialist world view. In fact...to reason you must use your mind...which cannot be accounted for by a physicalists worldview. Do you deny that minds other than yours exist? If so, you affirm that which is metaphysical (beyond physics).
Now I do not say that you do not use logic, rational thought, and reason in your worldview....you simply cannot account for them in your worldview.
As an atheist and a materialist, Jimmie would be hard-pressed to provide a situation in which killing a child would be intrinsically bad. After all, if we're all just puffs of smoke with no souls, no eternity, who are just destined to turn back to dust when we die and be forgotten, then really, what does it matter what happens to any of us?