The difference between ethical atheism and nihlism is that ethical atheists have more faith

[genkaus]

I accept the existence of the only kind of morality which has ever existed: arbitrary, subjective morality. To argue from a position of objective morality is meaningless: no such thing has ever existed. Even if we assumed that God existed, morals attributed to God are no less subjective and arbitrary than secular morals, and there is no justifiable basis to assert that God's morals are of any greater value than secular.

I strongly disagree. God's moral's are certainly more subjective and arbitrary than secular morals and thus they most certainly are of lesser value. But then, given your arguments below, I'd say you believe that as well.

Morals are, to put it most simply, guidelines by which society can best function and people can most amicably co-exist, and as such, arbitrary secular morals are demonstrably far superior to arbitrary God morals (which, as we all know, are loaded with all kinds of terrible, destructive and divisive tenets). Secular morals are also superior in that they are flexible, and subject to improvement and refinement, whereas God's morals are rigid and unbending. Society, economics and politics never saw any substantial improvement until Godly morals began to give way to secular morals. Theists love to take credit for such developments as the abolition of slavery, the Enlightenment and the fostering of science, but the reality of it is that slavery, ignorance, and opposition to science were (and in many ways continue to be) the result of applying Biblical morality.

No arguments, except that the purpose of morality is not limited to guiding society and people towards amicable co-existence.

The value we place on life has pretty much everything to do with how deeply we can empathize with it. Most people value cats and dogs, because it is possible to form relationships with them. Few people value amoeba because that's not possible. We have a hard time empathizing with creatures which we perceive to be threats, and this is not always justified. What sets us apart from you is that an honest secularist can admit this. You're just lying to yourself.

Not universally true, but it is true in general.

As above, it is impossible to apply an objective value to human beings.

I'd disagree there. Application of objective value is possible if you devise a standard to measure that value against. It is not possible currently because no such standard exists. Though we are getting there - given that value of human life often comes up in civil cases.