But wheres the consistency.
Consistency is good, but it must take a backseat to practicality. For instance:
Why is abortion legalized if it it causes harm to a baby and takes away life?
Because enforcing bans on abortion harms more women than it saves babies.
Why is human suffering wrong?.
Did I say it was? I just said people don't like to suffer. I don't like it. You don't like it. Nobody does.
Why should we make people suffer if they don't want to? Doesn't it serve us all better if we come to an agreement and find ways to prevent us from making each other suffer?
You don't want to suffer, right? Neither do I. So why do we need any more justification for avoiding suffering than that? You're making this too complicated.
Humans are just accidents and another evolved animal why is it wrong to cause human suffering.
It's not wrong. It's just that people don't want to suffer. So we make laws that prevent suffering by promising suffering for lawbreakers.
It works, mostly. Since no one wants to suffer, they have a pretty good reason not to make other people suffer.
Who can say no its wrong because i or we say so?
Because your neighboors and I all got together and agreed that we didn't want you to rape our daughters, and so if you did, we'd kill you.
As it turns out, if there's no cosmic law preventing you from raping, there's no cosmic law that says we have to let you do it.
Athiest can take both positions and neither can impose their view on each other saying your wrong and im right.
Well, since society as a whole is going to kick your ass if you bring harm to people, and presumably you don't want your ass kicked, why don't you just play along? It makes everybody happier, including you.
It's really very simple. Societies enforce laws because they want to, and there's no cosmic law that says they can't. Just because you think you can do what you want and harm to others be dammed, doesn't mean I have to let you.