(I'm new) Objective beats subjective morality. We depend on objective morality.

Instead of defending non-objective moral systems, I will limit myself to a polemic of your arguments. But firstly, I have to raise the purely formal point that the choice isn't as simple as: our morality is either objective or subjective. This is a much too reductive. Western values and moral codes are developed relative to the long history of our culture. To the various inputs of people and groups in order to manipulate how society functions as a whole.1) Seculars thinkers don't base their morality on whim. It isn't subjective in that when some delusional figure believes they are morally right, then if society agrees with them they are right. Whilst this has occurred in the past, today we want definitive evidence and reason for our morals. If we prove one moral practice harmful, activism and resistance will often occur to try and change our moral norms in so that they may align with some sort of truth as the moral standard. 2) The viewpoint you name far precedes the evolutionists. In Ancient Greece, the Melian Dialogue famously put it as 'the strong do what they can and the weak will suffer what they must'. But, even then, moral systems without some absolute source of truth were presented by philosophers like Aristotle and Epicurus. Additionally, claiming that you must have a normative ethics stemming from evolution is mistaken. There are many other secular moral codes (Virtue Ethics, Kantian ethics, Utilitarianism, Situation Ethics, Contractarianism...) that whilst obviously do consider the human condition in their reasonings are based on no such maxim as proposed in the Melian Dialogue. The US Constitution is secular, as well as Enlightenment legislation, as well as the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Nowhere in these documents will you find reference to a God as the moral justification to the morals society deems acceptable. To argue that all atheists operate under Social Darwinism is just wrong. We build our moral foundations on reason and evidence which we argue, debate about and amend corresponding to how close it is to the truth and the effects enacting it has on society. Also, you mention Hitler-- a dictatorial figure directly related to the Catholic Church who inverted the Jewish notion of 'God's chosen people' as to justify his actions on behalf of God (see Mein Kampf). The Aryan Race and Germanification (German racial purity) was actually a policy of Germany (at the time a religious nation) far preceding Hitler's 1933 rise to power. Hitler may have drawn on Nietzsche's writings here but he misapprehended him and Nietzsche's sister, an anti-Semite, actually edited some of Nietzsche's works to make his philosophy more palatable for the Nazis. 3) 'Atheists often quote... this Professor very few atheists have heard of who takes up a Darwinian philosophy' Answering your worry about cultural relativism (what if moral for us, might not be moral for other societies), as I've already wrote, the additional criterion to many social norms which is the backbone of their evolution is this idea of 'facticity' or 'objectivity'. We can say someone's moral code is wrong if it is based on poor reasoning or evidence (like sacrifices to the gods) or produces consequences so negative it is deemed wrong on that account. A) Very few are claiming that morality is a chemical reaction in our brain. Secularists think that morality are the social judgements made by different social factions in society. When these are erroneous, as with the case of Social Nationalism, empirical research can show that these moralities are unnecessary and harmful and therefore can be resisted and changed. By reference to a whole corpus of evidence ostensibly proving that Jews are in no way an inferior group of people, moral norms can change around this fact. Delusions are when people believe in moral maxims without any supplementary evidence or reasoning.The Christian tradition is diverse with many different factions: which norms are God's will are widely contested and can justify any moral action if interpreted in a certain way. There is subjectivity and relativism in religion as well. Nietzsche makes your point exactly here: that birds of prey are not blamed for being birds of prey. This is a problem of moral responsibility; are we free or are our actions determined for us? We might not be able to help what we are by evolution, but we can certainly help what actions we do. Just because an instinct tells us to X, doesn't mean we have to enact it. We are the only animal which can defer or suppress our instincts; our condition can not be reduced to simple animal barbarism. Your last statement is pure hubris, ignoring other religions and moral codes as well as reducing Christianity down to one tradition which is false given the multitudinous positions within Christian morality (which I will expand on if you dispute).