Objective Morals vs. Subjective Morals

I'll address each premise separately. Against Premise 1 - The idea that we are completely insignificant in the grand scheme of things isn't an atheistic point of view, it's an objective physical reality. We are lucky to be here, considering how hostile to life most of the universe appears to be. The Earth is a small speck of dust and in reality, nothing we do here truly matters when compared to the size and scale of the universe. Once again, that isn't an atheist point of view, that's simply the cold hard truth. If anything, believing that we are significant compared to the universe is an incredibly arrogant viewpoint. As to your second point, you don't need religion to have moral values. Animals are a perfect example of this. Animals, as far as we know, don't believe in a higher power. Despite that, animals such as elephants, mice, gorillas, ravens and of course, dogs and cats, can all feel empathy. Empathy is a major player in what defines our moral values. Without empathy, we probably wouldn't feel guilt for stealing from or hurting another human being or animal. Whilst we do not completely understand it, using the argument that "God did it" isn't really an accepted solution anymore. Also, Jeffrey Dahmer had multiple mental health issues and a history of substance abuse. Using him as an example for atheistic beliefs is like using Hitler for Christian beliefs. Also, that quote wasn't from Dahmer himself, it was from his father who was attempting to describe Dahmer's mindset. And there is absolutely no correlation between atheism and increased crime rates. Incidentally, crime rates are lower in countries that are more secular. This proves that you absolutely do not need religion to have a good set of moral values. Why? Because our society sets those moral values, not text from 2,000 years ago. Against Premise 2 - Yes, it is common knowledge that moral values are real. That C.S. Lewis quote, whilst not wrong, isn't entirely correct either. The quote assumes that someone who doesn't believe in moral objectivity has a different set of moral values. Someone who believes in moral objectivity can have the exact same set of moral values as someone who doesn't believes in moral objectivity. The only difference is the way we believe we came to those beliefs: someone who believes in moral objectivity believes we were born that way and people who don't believe in moral objectivity believe we were influenced by our society to think that way. Against Premise 3 - Yes, we know there are immoral actions that should be condemned, but the way in which we condemn them are different depending on the person. For example, some people believe that murder should be met with capital punishment, whereas others think capital punishment is wrong. In other words, some people believe that killing is "right" in certain circumstances whereas other people believe killing is "wrong" in all circumstances. Our beliefs in regards to killing is shaped by the laws and culture of our society. Once again, you bring up our condemnation of slavery, racism and child abuse. However, racism has definitely not been eradicated, slavery was still mainstream two hundred years ago and is still being practiced today, and child abuse is definitely still happening. What you and I regard as "right" and "wrong" is definitely not the same as what our forefathers regarded as "right" and "wrong". Why do we believe in different things? Because society evolves and progresses. What we once deemed taboo slowly becomes a normality. God doesn't suddenly update our moral compass every few decades or so, no, we decide for ourselves. When the Americans finally freed their slaves, they didn't all of a sudden say, "Ok guys, this is wrong", it took decades for them to slowly realise that, "Hey, these guys are people as well. What right do we have to own them?" It's like the modern example of marriage equality, many people have realised or are starting to realise that, "Hey, if a man and woman can get married and be unhappy, why can't two people of the same gender get married and be happy?" It's simple, society evolves and as it evolves, so does our morality. If objective morality was real, if this universal set of "right" and "wrong" was real, we would've never had slavery, child abuse or racism because we would've known it was wrong from the very beginning. So what best accounts for these moral values? That's easy. When society first developed thousands of years ago, it would've quickly become apparent that the best way to survive and prosper was to cooperate. We see this among animals who roam in packs as opposed to animals who don't roam in packs. Laws regarding killing, lying and stealing are created to prevent chaos because we can look at chaos from a modern perspective and know that it simply doesn't work. It's evolutionary, the best way to survive and prosper is to obviously have laws against things that are detrimental to the survival of our species. As to your example of the Nuremberg Trials, let me introduce you to a bit of alternate reality. Assuming the Nazis had won the war and gone own to conquer most of, if not all of the Earth, then it's quite likely that people would grow up this very day believing that the Holocaust was a good thing. Even though the Nazis lost the war, people this very day believe that the Holocaust was a good thing and that the Nazis were right. As to the courts response to the Nazis, there were thousands of war crimes the Nazis were found guilty of. They weren't judged on the basis of a universal moral law, they were judged on the deaths of upwards of thirty million innocent people. They were judged on their war crimes and continuous breaches of the Geneva Convention. They could legally be held accountable for the war crimes they committed. As to your last few points, atheism can't account for what isn't and neither can secular society. The whole point of written laws is to avoid theologically-based moral laws from intervening in secular systems. Also, so far no religion that I'm aware of has described a morally perfect creator - they are always as flawed as the humans they apparently "created". And finally, it is relevant that different parts of the world see things differently to you. There is no moral absolutism, that's why we have different religions, different laws and different beliefs across all parts of the world. If moral absolutism was true, then surely we would all be the same?