If God sent your child to Hell.

[Anima]

So, by your logic a rock does not exist because it does not have free-will.  That's what I'm getting from this.  Only free-will causes existence.  That's the dumbest argument for free-will I've ever heard.  But a rock isn't alive, so I guess you'll go there.

What about a jellyfish? We can agree that it is alive, I hope?  Yet it has no brain, does it posess free-will?   What is the cause of free-will, then?  Do only humans have it, not say, dogs and cats, corals or whales?  How about Virus's?  If god gave free will only to humans, then how do these other creatures function?  Can a bear chose to eat a and or some honey?  If any of these creature do not possess free-will, then free-will and consciousness are not related, nor are free-will and life, nor are free-will and existence.  If all of them do possess free-will, then what sets humans apart from a virus, since you equate free-will with consciousness?

As to the whole moral argument, you are just going back to the old "morals must be absolute or they mean nothing" chestnut, and then basing a bunch of claims off of that faulty argument.  Morals are subjective, and we can invent them based on what we feel causes most harm.
First, prove morals are absolute.  Then we can talk more about the rest of your assumptions from that claim.

If we are indeed just meat robots, its still does not follow that we could not have consciousness, or that we then wouldn't exist.  Serious case of Reductio ad absurdum there.

First, Argumentum ad novitatem is really not going to get you anywhere. Not only is it a logical fallacy, but if knowledge is predicated on other knowledge (which we know to be the case) the argument itself would state nothing known is valid as it is based on something invalid because it was rendered invalid long ago.

Second, if morals are subjective than no one acts immorally. Under a subjective definition it is impossible to say that an action is immoral or amoral. Rather the morality of the action (no matter how horrible or hurtful) is to be determine by the actor who thought it was such a good quality as to commit the act.

Third, if we are to distinquish the existence of person from that of reactive meat automatons we shall be best served in observation where conduct is not in accordance with reactive meat conduct. This is to say the person must choose to react in a manner that reactive meat would not thereby exhibiting itself as either as more than reactive meat. Now if you take away choice then we may say there is only reactive meat since the conduct exhibited shall either always be that of reactive meat or shall be that of defective reactive meat, but reactive meat nonetheless as the action was not one of choice.

Fourth, that reactive meat engages in limited activity is not indicative of freewill or consciousness. Bear eats because it is hungry than it stops eating when it is no longer hungry. Naturally this leads to the odorless, tasteless poison dish example. If bear observers other bears eat from poison dish and die; and bear is starving will bear choose not to eat from dish to avoid poison though they may starve? Or will bear act according to the stimuli and eat from the dish bear has observed to be poisonous.

Fifth, under Atheistic argument (yes I know you are not a monolith) something does not exist without "proof". Proof is to be direct explicit empirical evidence. There is no direct explicit empirical evidence of metaphysical person. Thus persons do not exist. While human meat moves around as if persons are present such movement is only circumstantial implicit empirical evidence of the existence of metaphysical person, which is not sufficient proof. Ergo, persons do not exist for lack of proof.