Perry:
Does the belief that there is no all-loving Diety in which to be accountable to make it easier or harder to treat and judge others they way that you want to be treated and judged?
Definitely harder. Believing that there is an absolute good and evil which can be checked by reference to a holy book/man is a lot easier than having to consider moral dilemmas on their own merit. However, the trouble with taking the easy way out is that there's no way to distinguish between an action or behaviour that is genuinely harmful and one that is merely condemned by the holy book. For example, you and I would both think stealing is wrong. I think it is wrong because it is depriving another person of the fruit of their labours, it is gaining an unfair advantage at someone else's expense. You would (perhaps) think it is wrong because the bible says so. Doesn't really matter so far, does it? The end result is that neither of us will steal from our neighbour. The trouble comes when bad advice gets mixed up with the good, and it all gets muddled together in the holy book. You might therefore think homosexuality is wrong because the bible says so, whereas I, seeing no victims of such behaviour, do not see it as wrong.
So while it's harder to think about your choices independently of a one-size-fits-all book of rule, it's definitely more intellectually and emotionally rewarding, and it promotes more tolerant and compassionate behaviour to our fellow humans. Of course, you don't need to be an atheist to have a solid moral foundation, but you need to be advanced enough not to automatically accept any text.
Since evolution supposes that life and ultimately man who is at the top of the chain
Man is not in any important sense at the top of the train. The evolutionary history of life on earth is more like a tree where all the top branches are all organisms alive today. A simplified version is below:
got here through a process of the fittest dominating and killing off the weaker
This is a misinterpretation of the idea of "survival of the fittest". Organisms survive and reproduce by being better able to survive and reproduce in the environment in which they find themselves. The way different organisms do this varies immensely - there are some 10 million different species alive today (give or take an order of magnitude!). Very few do it by regularly killing members of their own species, and for many organisms, survival depends on other members of their species. Wolves, for example, hunt in packs and share the spoils of the hunt. A wolf who didn't cooperate wouldn't survive very long. Humans similarly hunt in packs (or nowadays, work in groups) and need to cooperate to survive.
and since most modern evolutionists in democracies no longer think that this is good to practice, how do you deal with the fact that you are a living contradiction of your own belief since you pronounce the same thing both good and bad?
I hope I've demonstrated that evolutionists do not believe that survival depends on "dominating and killing off the weaker", but even if they did, that says nothing about whether the situation in which we find ourselves is good or bad. I know that if I jump off a cliff I will fall to my death but that doesn't stop me believing in gravity.
If the process that brought us here (which I'm assuming is good since the A/E position is that we are a good thing by nature, correct me if I'm wrong)weeded out competing others (a failure of would be that we would not be here and that's bad) by a survival of the fittest, then why should people interfere (offer assistance to the weak) with a process that has worked so far?
Evolution may have produced us by a process of survival of the fittest but that does not necessarily mean that is what we want for the future. You might only exist because your grandmother's first husband was hit by a bus, but that does not mean you'll be happy to be hit by a bus, just so your wife can remarry and eventually produce grandchildren.
Evolution is a slow and clumsy process with no goals. We as humans have evolved large brains capable of understanding the world and predicting the future. We have our own goals which may not coincide with the random meanderings of evolution.
Many people just do not connect with this heritage of violence that athiests maintain gives them freedom from religious servitude. Many wonder if athiests have split personalities since there is such cognitive dissonance between what they believe is their origins and what they publically practice.
I've never heard of anyone wondering that but it seems you do. It seems you can't get over the idea that the way things are is the way they ought to be. I'm sure you wouldn't have to go back too far in your ancestry to find instances of untimely death, rape, arranged marriage, unwanted pregnancies and so on, all of which were absolutely essential to produce you, whether there's a god or not. I'm sure you don't think that those were good things even though you like the end result.
The next logical question is how do you know when you are "doing good"? What do you base that on? If you do good, but I maintain that it's bad, how do you know the difference as an "evolved athiest"?
Well, how do you know? Is something good because your god says so, or is there an independent standard of good to which your god adheres? If the latter, then there's no difficulty. Atheists can use the same standard of good that your god uses. If the former, then "good" is simply another word for whatever God wants. It means might is right, which, ironically, is what you seem to think atheists believe.
