If Atheists Believe in Dawkin's Statement of "Only Pitiless Indifference" Then They Have NO BASIS For Condemning Bloody Acts of Injustice

Richard Dawkins wrote this disturbing statement:

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.

When I think about that statement which was taken from "The River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life", it is apparent that atheism actually believes that there are no absolutes, nothing but pitiless difference to rule out. WHY Outreach had also summarized the whole statement in this placard they made:

Note that Dr. Bob Palindrome is just an illustrative character made to show the truth. Looking at the picture above, it does summarize atheism's "consistency" that they deny moral standards but only bring it up for their own convenience. I have noticed how more often than not that atheist morality is based on altruism or picking up only which one you want then disregarding the others. Sites ran by militant atheists who seek to discredit the Bible by taking it out of context, but end up revealing how much they hate God are like that. If they believe that there are no absolutes that is no good, no evil, nothing but pitiless indifference they why accuse God of becoming a moral monster? Isn't it contradictory to do so? For example, they even take the whole story of Abraham commanded to sacrifice his son out of context and they do the same with Jephthah (which they argue that silence means yes or approval fallacy).

Whenever I read about arguments about religion, one of their biggest arguments against theism is the existence of blood sacrifices especially human sacrifices. While the Old Testament demanded blood sacrifices, the New Testament abolished it. The blood sacrifices of animals in the Old Testament from any clean, unblemished animal was a picture of Christ's ultimate death. What they ignore on purpose is that God sent a ram to replace Isaac, in order to show that God does not accept human sacrifices and two, that the ram was a picture of Jesus' substitution for sinners. At the same time, I would like to reveal the hypocrisy behind their reasoning.

If there is nothing but pitiless indifference then human sacrifices should be considered acceptable. Most human sacrifices were either defeated foes, helpless children (and they hypocritically think nothing is wrong with abortion) or just helpless captives. If they believe that the strong must eliminate the weak then doesn't human sacrifice count as manifesting the survival of the fittest? When I read about Aztec history, they conquered cities and brought the sacrifices to the altar, to show they were on top of the "evolutionary ladder". Patterns of conquest were also done to show who's the strongest. At the same time, why am I tempted to assume that atheism is, "Human sacrifice is bad if it's done in the name of religion but it's good if it's not done in the name of religion." which is just very contradictory.

At the same time, they always argue that Adolph Hitler was a Christian when he was not. They have also used atrocities done by the Roman Catholic institution to justify their hatred for God, never mind that there's a radical huge difference between Roman Catholicism and Biblical Christianity. Nowhere in the Bible did Jesus command His disciples to strike down people if they didn't convert or two, in the Old Testament, God did not command the Israelites to ravage done a pagan city unless it was already ripe for judgment. Also, the Canaanites themselves were deplorably immoral and historians have shown that they were also cannibals - the word cannibal comes from "Canaan" and "Baal" just like the word sodomy refers to any practice of sexual immorality comes from the word "Sodom". Terms do not only use terms from mythology but also from actual history like why we name certain terms in science like, "Pythagorean theorem" after Pythagoras and "Caesar's salad" after the historical Julius Caesar. If there is nothing more than pitiless indifference then the Holocaust, the Inquisition and the Jesuit murders should not be condemned because they physically overpowered their victims.

At the same time, their arguments of nothing but pitiless indifference should give a moral monster god his every right to bully humanity. After all, in atheistic Darwinism, they would actually say, "Might makes right." so that means, a god who is a moral monster has the right to command the deaths of civilizations he does not see fit. Then it should be morally acceptable for Dawkins' view that the Israelites should ravage, plunder and destroy heathen, sinful civilizations. If according to them that God mercilessly destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah (warning a good number of them are also homosexuals or pro-homosexuals), then God has every right to bully His creation. Fortunately, God may hate sin but He does not want anybody to perish. He waited for 400 years before He leveled down the unrepentant Canaanites, He was willing to spare Sodom and Gomorrah if at least ten were found righteous and that when God destroyed a city, it was because their sins were too great. These atheists have no one but themselves to blame for any coming judgment unto them.