If your answer to “how do we figure out what is moral” is to just throw up your hands and amorally accept the same system that burned witches at the stake, then I don’t see how we are even on the same planet, morally speaking.

Your system, not prescribing any morals, allows for people to believe it is moral to burn whoever they want at the stake for whatever reason, which would be arguably worse, no?

We know what is moral because we know how we like to be treated. We’ve agreed as a society what is acceptable or not. We have certain minimum rights that we accept in our social contact. There is no need for magic to explain any of this.

You know this is no solution to the problem: one person may like to be treated differently than another, different societies decide what is acceptable or not, the rights aren’t guaranteed by social contract.

Of course atheists have caused death

This is your answer for Catholics and Catholicism though, it’s not all Catholics that have done this

One doesn’t need rules to be handed down from an authority to be moral.

How would this process go? I decide one thing is moral, you decide another thing is moral which is different; it doesn’t seem possible for the two to work out. Say one person believes abortion is immoral, another decides it is moral: how is this conflict resolved, in your view?

There’s no humanist who proposes burning witches at the stake, but how many thousands have been murdered at the hands of Catholic supremacists?

There hasn’t been agreement on if capital punishment should be the punishment for certain crimes or not, but the authority to decide has been accepted as being allowed. The person who spreads heresy was thought to be perhaps worse than one who takes life, as they threaten damage that doesn’t end. Consider the danger of “misinformation” today: say a person said that eating any dirt might be healthy, and this led to much illness. This is the problem of “heresy”: hence, some considered this to be like taking lives, and that it should be punished as such. Others argued for toleration and combating false teaching with simply discussing the truth.

There have been atheists that have caused much death, like the Communist movements in the 20th century (Communism aims to create a society free of religion).

Very old arguement that has no merit

It seems to have merit though: if there is no moral code, a person can choose as their moral code abusive supremacy

Such as? Don’t the non-religious have no basis for morality?

The moral principles are held to still stand today, just as you might still read something by a scientist like Newton on physics from some time ago, which may have some validity; moral principles like that it is “wrong to steal” are still as true today as thousands of years ago, just as the formula for the area of a circle hasn’t changed throughout the centuries

> Trump-hating people also deride Jesus’ teachings

“Don’t make unnecessary journeys, don’t take risks on treacherous roads, and don’t swim in the sea.”

don’t go chasin’ waterfalls

for the peaceful resolution of various serious conflicts in the world