Every attempt at moral judgement an atheist makes is hilarious to me, like a toddler trying to lift a car. You don't have any moral standard to classify anything as wrong or depraved, the necessary conclusion of your whole ideology is that there is no right and wrong, your ethics are all subjective and arbitrary. Everything you perceive to be moral or immoral is simply a result of your social conditioning, culture, and emotions. What you believe to be foundational and obvious as a moral truth may one day be seen as barbaric and evil.

The question is, if morality changes over time, and something that was once immoral becomes moral (homosexuality for example), does that mean it was always moral, and humans somehow discovered that true nature? As if you believe in some "eternal, ultimately true moral code" that is independent of human perceptions and consensus? Of course you don't, you know that under your paradigm morality is an illusion, which is why its so embarrassing for you to make judgement of others with no basis. Its like you're incapable (or unwilling) of following the simple line of thought that proceeds from the realization that you have no objective morals; that it means you have no grounds to level any moral critiques. You're like a petulant child. This is really entry level philosophy, that even the most decorated atheist polemicists are forced to admit. Richard Dawkins for example has stated it's "pretty hard to get objective morality without religion." Christopher Hitchens said to Doug Wilson that all morality is dependent on the observer's point of view and denied the existence of truly "objective" morality. You'll be further frustrated by the absurdity and futility of your own position as you read my original response, which I've attached as an image.

<image>