Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[genkaus]

Firstly, I believe in jainism <somewhat>, so eating meat cannot be justified according to my moral grounds.

An Atheist doesn't have any moral basis by which he can define what is good and what is bad objectively as far as I know.

Exactly - "as far as you know".

Someone who believes in God, goes on the word of God as to what is Good and what is bad. In Abrahamic religions, I think anything that results in their destination to hell is 'evil' and anything that results in their destination to heaven is 'good'.
Whatever is defined in the religious scriptures as good is good and what is defined as evil is evil.

And yet, that is not objective either. It is subjective for two reasons:
1. It was conceived by a person
2. It frequently requires interpretation.

I think it was Sam Harris, who proposed that the basis of morality for humans should be "worst possible suffering for all conscious beings is bad".

Unless Sam Harris can justify why we should use that as the basis, his answer is not more valid than "worst possible suffering for all humans is bad".

I am no great philosopher <yet>, but if we go by this basis, eating meat is not justified. Because, we know, that an animal has a better developed nervous system than plants. It would suffer more than plants.

If you go by this basis, "eating" is not justified and all carnivorous animals should be out to death. Wait, actually, going on that basis, the most moral thing to do would be to painlessly kill all conscious beings. I think you'll understand what I mean when I say "na rahega baas na bajegi bansuri".

Also, much of the meat we eat, does not come from the wilds, they are from animal farm, where plants are first fed to animals and then animals are fed to humans. So the suffering is experienced by both plants and animals.

Are you under the impression that animals in the wild "don't" eat plants?