None of those are atheist arguments.
We are not “born” atheists. We just hear the rhetoric coming out of organized religions and decide that it doesn’t sound true.
It is that simple
Then one who hears the rhetoric of various secular beliefs systems and ideologies, and insipid arguments from authority and indoctrination, rather than education or free thinking, and decides it isn't true is of the same variety.
Not to mention, there are "religions" and religious notions or ideas which are skeptical of organized systems of belief, much as there are organized systems of belief which are "secular" or philosophical, such as Secular Humanism, and its positive beliefs and axioms which are held on faith, and not reducible or nonfloatable with a mere "lack of belief" in a god.
If one for example, believes that murder or rape is wrong, on the basis of Common Law theory, which is informed by older legal systems, including religious ones such as "Exodus", or the golden rule in general (in regards to respect for people, their property, their family, their autonomy), that in itself is, or could easily be argued to be a "religious" belief to begin with, or at least a belief held to on faith, not "testable" per the parameters of Bacon's methodology, and society being the better off for it, as having faith that murder or rape is wrong, is probably better than being "skeptical" of those notions.
Just as there are atheistic philosophies or worldviews, whether Sade, Stirner, LeVay, or others who reject all or part of the "golden rule", and therefore could easily argue in favor of rape or murder or child molestation, unable to assert these things are "wrong" to begin with, without appealing to faith in the golden rule, or in "religious" systems, or those informed by them, rather than "scientific evidence" in the Baconian sense, such as Common Law theory.
Scientific evidence, could of course be used to argue in favor of racism, sexism, homophobia, and so on, however a Secular Humanist believes on faith that these things are wrong, and will intentionally, probably for the better, rather use the same evidence to argue against these things rather than for them, on the basis of its faith-based axioms..