Moral Values and Duties Cannot Be Objective if Atheism is True

Salutations & Compliments:I enjoyed reading your clever retorts! I like the format & cadence; it made for any easy read to follow! I'm enjoying the conversation more than the debate!Rebuttals [cue Darth Vader's "Imperial March" music]Moral Values, Objectivity, Subjectivity & God:1) Its conceivable that something can be true and still escape our current modes of securing objectivity (the whole history & methodology of science is important in this way philosophically). We have no way of empirically establishing an external world outside of our own subjectivity, nor can our objective tools tell us about our own interpersonal subjectivity.Much of Thomas Nagel's work is on this point. And even if something can be established objectively - this doesn't automatically mean that it is better."..equally as damaging for your arguments as mine." This can go both ways - BUT - this doesn't mean we can safely postulate or insert anything we want equally either! It's not anything goes. Rather, we are to follow wherever the evidence leads! Notice this is a very different approach than what your argument suggests.2) Your argument uses ideals which are NOT objective to try and secure objectivity (in fact use of the words transcendent & supernatural both denote & connote this).Postulating a need for something transcendent & supernatural takes poor advantage of real work that is still going on in Moral philosophy - exploiting that we (philosophers) are honest about the possibilities in order to avoid the arrogance of certainty. So, I find something terribly parasitic about these kinds of Christian Apologetic arguments which are then inserted in the crevasses, ironically, of honest work. I think the assumption that morality has to be rooted (objectively) in something transcendent & supernatural is an unfounded assumption to start - with backward motivations to secure a religious predilection. As I pointed out, this is a far different exercise from following wherever the evidence leads."..are you implying our attempts to consider possible foundations for objective morality are entirely futile?" Its not merely a black & white issue; there could be a third, forth or fifth + option(s). Perhaps moral values are true and not yet provable objectively - (irrespective of the existence of a theistic entity). Perhaps moral values are only [ought] and cannot be [is] - suggesting morality is ultimately illusory but manifests as true or real in our experiences as we all agree to these values - which have evolutionary underpinnings. The Dawkins quote is framed in this context. Again, this doesn't mean anything goes and we can insert whatever ideas we want. If these other options are viable, postulating a need for a transcendent, supernatural foundation then becomes a huge grotesque categorization mistake - which could be very harmful! What political party does your tuna-fish sandwich identify with? What is the marital status of the number Five? Its not that these are hard questions; its that these are not proper postulations & questions to begin with."..you jumped from subjectivity to this claim about God being particularly problematic.."3) By definition, something supernatural is outside of the natural - obfuscating objective empiricism - therefore, supernatural claims are always relegated to intuition, dream like states, hallucinations, etc., which can only be classified as subjective. We can say the fact of the hallucination is objective but never the meaning of the experience or the experience itself (This is what much of Modern & Post-modern philosophy was about). And if something is truly supernatural, how can we know that we even have access to it? As soon as we have access or data for something that was proposed to be supernatural - it becomes firmly fixed in the natural!So, then, it would be fair to ask you to demonstrate that your "foundation" (God) is also objective first before assigning responsibility & causation of value judgements and then claiming objectivity! Which, in your case, conveniently reverts back to something that is supernatural, transcendent, etc., which doesn't help make a case for securing objectivity.4) "God uniquely fits this description.." - Correlation is not Causation - nor does this secure objectivity.Which God or Gods?!Further - God or gods are derived out of specific religious traditions (a theistic God especially!). But when pushed on the subject of which God or gods we should then use or insert as the actual foundation - you completely side-step this and conveniently offer a generic theistic God! HA! At the very least, let me just say your aren't being very intellectually honest about which God or gods. You are effectively trying to divorce a theistic god from any of the traditions the concept was derived out of.I am unaware of any theistic God who doesn't come with a history of violating the moral standards of today. This is completely and totally devastating to your case, which is why it is completely avoided. You would then be stuck trying to explain why God(s) allowed slavery or killed first born children, etc., while trying to say this is an objective foundation for morality.Ontology v. Epistemology:Epistemological concerns & ontological worries often overlap - as we endeavor in epistemology to establish ontology - and the ontological status of something is secured in epistemology. Both are required for your claim - worse you skirt both with transcendence & supernatural.A Useful Comparison & Natural Morality:I find this debate eerily similar to the Creation v. Evolution debate in that we can observe natural origins and beginnings without any sign of a god or gods.Again, If there are people and other animals - completely devoid of God - who still navigate the world with a moral compass - then this would indicate that postulating a god or gods to create a foundation for moral values is not requisite. We observe morality without God."..I assume is a way of saying that their moral values and duties are objective?"No, it is to say we recognize moral behavior - in humans & animals alike."..when a lion kills a zebra, it kills the zebra, but it doesn't murder the zebra"When humans go hunting they kill food, but they don't murder their food.. ha ha so silly. I think this highlights much in this kind of debate!Are slaughter houses morally wrong? Or would not being able to feed everyone be worse? What's the difference between slaughter houses & hunting morally? Why do we speak of treating animals humanely (hyphenate the word: human-ely)? Why do we care about animals and start orgs. like Animal Protective Services, etc.? (rhetorical questions)My guess is because of natural empathy and a concern for suffering - which can be explained naturally. Sam Harris is on to something if values can be reduced to data.Sam Harris:I like that you took the time to find the critiques of Sam's Work. I'm glad you were respectful enough to take his ideas seriously. But I think you wasted a great deal of time on this rather than securing your own case.I mentioned Sam's work because it's one of the more popular examples of Moral philosophy today. Consider many dozen other moral philosophers could be mentioned who don't posit God in their work.The motion of the debate is: Moral Values and Duties Cannot be Objective if Atheism is True [amended to] If God Does Not Exist. Not morals are objective because of God if Sam is wrong.Both Sides of the Fence:You use Dawkins to suggest morals vacuous - then you used the Shermer quote - which endorses relativism. Sam Harris would completely disagree with relativism. But then you use atheist philosophers' criticisms of Sam's work - which would be hypocritical of a true Christian Apologetic's position. So it seems like you are willing to take any position to undermine another.