[MitchellC]

Before I bother to read the rest of your post, you should answer the following.

I'd need to be convinced that this act would make the world a better place for the people I value & cherish, and that their gain would be worth the loss of my life.

How does the atheist determine what is "better" a place for someone to live without a universal standard to judge according to? Why is freedom universally and objectively "better" than slavery, for instance?

[Dimensio]

How does the atheist determine what is "better" a place for someone to live without a universal standard to judge according to? Why is freedom universally and objectively "better" than slavery, for instance?

Well, I prefer freedom to slavery, and everyone whom I've met prefers freedom over slavery, so I'd call it a fair bet that anyone who wants slavery is in the minority. Personally, if they want slavery and they ask for it, I'll accomidate, but until then I'll assume that they want freedom and go with that.

[jennyp]

How does the atheist determine what is "better" a place for someone to live without a universal standard to judge according to? Why is freedom universally and objectively "better" than slavery, for instance?

In one sense there is no single universal value, like Marx believed there was: Value, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. And yet the difference between a life-affirming principle and a life-destroying principle is the difference between thriving and extinction. So my goal of a society that sustains the lives of humans as humans (as opposed to savages or slaves) is hardly something that needs to be justified. It's axiomatic, IMO. How could you begin to convince people that the goal they should be orienting their life around should be death & destruction?