I think there's a very serious wrong turn here:
-- Atheism is incompatible with there being real, objective moral obligation. --
Atheism as such makes no statements about moral obligation, so it cannot be held to conflict with the idea a priori. Atheism merely disavows the theist's preferred source for moral obligation: a Being who has mandated the moral rules of the universe by conscious intention.
Moral obligation in the atheist's view is epiphenomenological. It derives from invariant natural law and a self-referential standard for evaluation. Probably the best known example is the Ayn Rand approach:
"There is a morality of reason, a morality proper to man, and Man's Life is its standard of value." [from Atlas Shrugged]
Rand and the philosophers who accord with her measure the moral weight of decisions and actions teleologically, similarly to the Prisoners' Dilemma approach. Their conclusions are in good a
...in good agreement with the Christian approach. Where they diverge is solely on the matter of Ultimate Sources.
Now, you and I are Christians, with our own beliefs about Ultimate Sources. But it is arrogance to posit that those who disagree with our unprovable convictions -- and that's just the way it is, Curt; if we could really prove our religious beliefs, there would be no place in the world for faith -- have no way to arrive at a sound moral system. More, if it were really true, then those to whom the Word has not reached would be incapable of the "abundant life" that Christ said was the birthright of every man -- a position the Church has already disavowed.
In short, be extremely careful about statements like "Atheism is incompatible with there being real, objective moral obligation." I would never allow such a sentiment to pass my lips. I suggest that you think the matter over much more carefully.
Maybe I'm just not getting it, but I don't see how the morals derived from one person's desires could ever be compelling to anyone but the person holding them. They may have many, many things on which they can agree and work on, but the moment they hit upon something they differ on, they have no means of resolving it. Talk won't do it because each one's claim has equal standing. I have not claimed the argument points of a Christian God, only monotheism, and that Christian Heaven fits the argument very well. Can you refer me to anything that might cause me to reconsider?
As a former objectivist, I know where you are coming from, Francis. But even though they reach the same moral conclusions, their method of reaching said conclusions is contradictory. If humans, by virtue of "natural law", maintain a code of morality, and thus of rights, then by what right do transgressors face punishment. If I commit murder, it is a crime against the individual, not the collective. If I have not wronged any member of the jury or the judicial process, then they, following the principles of atheist self ownership, have no real right to impose upon me any binding retribution.
To paraphrase Atlas Shrugged, there is no such thing as a contradiction. If there seems to be, check your premises.
Commenting by HaloScan
