The really big question is this:

What is wrong with this shooting on atheism? If there is no God, then all things are permissible - there certainly will not be any objective moral justice meted out to the terrorist. Atheists generally agree with me here:

“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference— DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995))

“Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.” A-theist William Provine

“The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such an awareness of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when someone says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.” (Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262-269).

“Is there a God? No.
What is the nature of reality? What physics says it is.
What is the purpose of the universe? There is none.
What is the meaning of life? Ditto.
Why am I here? Just dumb luck.
Is there a soul? Are you kidding?
Is there free will? Not a chance!
What is the difference between right/wrong, good/bad? There is no moral difference between them— So much for the meaning of history, and everything else we care about— you will have to be comfortable with a certain amount of nihilism . . . . And just in case there’s always Prozac.” -- Alex P. Rosenberg

First of all, you're way off base in terms of how you're understanding all three of those atheist statements. They don't mean what you think they mean.

This article is one you need to read, because it puts all the William Lane Craig stuff in the dumpster where it belongs:

http://goddoesnt.blogspot.ca/2013/02/god-doesnt-give-us-moral-ontology.html

Here's a sampling:

The entire Twitter engagement about moral ontology (which arose after being asked for evidence that God exists, recall) arose with "do you think objective morality exists?"

I answered this question the same way I answered it in God Doesn't; We Do.
"It depends on how we define the word 'objective.'" I don't mean to play word games here--indeed, I think it's an interesting and hard question. Let me show you what I mean by showing you two ways we can interpret that term:

(1) The theist way: Objective morals are divine ethical laws that stem from a source outside of human minds (the fellow I talked with last night specifically said this, adding the words "transcendent" and "supernatural" in the mix).
(2) The science way: Objective morals are ethical guidelines that have been empirically determined to optimize values in salient metrics that gauge them.
Incidentally, while the term "supernatural" cannot apply to (2) above, the term "transcendent" can, but not in anything but the mundane "societies are bigger than individuals" sense.

So, I'm not being a jerk when I say that the term "objective morals" isn't sufficiently clear for me to answer the question of whether or not they exist.

Those statements mean exactly what they clearly say.

The fact that you do not WANT them to mean what they clearly say and mean is no warrant against their clarity. Those are just your feelings talking. :-)

There is really no shame in admitting you don't understand them :)

Let's look at Dawkins first: What do you think his statement is saying? That atheists should care nothing about killing or harming others wantonly because they don't believe they'll answer to a God?

"There is really no shame in admitting you don't understand them."

There is really no shame in admitting you DO understand them but don't like what they say. :-)

I wouldn't be ashamed of such a thing, but it's patently absurd to suggest that we need a God to be moral people. You know this, and that article I liked pretty much gives William Lane Craig the spanking he's always deserved. Did you read it?

"we need a God to be moral people"

You miss the point completely between ontology (existence) and sociology (behavior). Here is a great short video for you to watch that will distinguish between these two concepts and epistemology (how we come to know objective moral values and duties):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU

You're very fond of saying that to people, but I don't think you have a clue what it means yourself. Epistemology is how we come to know things, and ontology is what IS. So I know full well the difference. How do you think it relates to the discussion at hand, and what makes you say that I missed the point in what I said?

"You're very fond of saying that to people"

You're very fond of saying "You're very fond of saying." :-)

"but I don't think you have a clue what it means yourself."

Projection, after you confused the terms yourself. :-)

"Epistemology is how we come to know things, and ontology is what IS."

So, you admit that you confused sociology with ontology above when you wrote "it's patently absurd to suggest that we need a God to be moral people"?

"So I know full well the difference."

Apparently not. Well, maybe the short video taught you better. That is progress.

"How do you think it relates to the discussion at hand"

The atheist quotes are about ontology, the existence of objective moral values and duties, of objective good or evil. Your strawmen were about sociology and pin one case epistemology. Pretty simple actually.

If seems you have a fight with your fellow atheists. Just take it up with them - publish a paper that contradicts their quotes regarding ontology.

Come now, I've seen it over and over. You say to people "You are confusing moral epistemology with moral ontology" to try to flummox them with your highfalutin language. Well, I am not intimidated by it, I know what it means, and you know as well as I do that you can't possibly know moral ontology when it comes to God because God is not knowable. And by assuming you know God you're not going to win any arguments. Tell me please what I have "confused" here. I know it perfectly.

"So, you admit that you confused sociology with ontology above when you
wrote "it's patently absurd to suggest that we need a God to be moral
people"?"

No, because it IS patently absurd. Did you or did you not read the article I linked? It talks at length about the ridiculousness of making the statement that we need God to make moral statements.

The atheist quotes are no such thing. You are making the Dawkins quote in particular to be about behavior, and it's NOT about behavior. Dawkins is simply making the statement that DNA doesn't have a conscience, it just is. How can he be talking about moral ontology when he's discussing DNA? He isn't suggesting that we go out and kill people because of it. And that's how you're interpreting it, which is wrong. Pretty simple actually.

I'm on board with everything those atheists said, and guess what? We don't need God to know good behavior from bad. What a shame you think you do.

"Tell me please what I have "confused" here."

Already did. Not only told you but proved it to you. The fact that your feeewings were hurt is not warrant against the truth.

"Dawkins is simply making the statement that DNA doesn't have a conscience"

False. No one defends that it does. Morality is always discussed inseparably from humans. No one goes around saying "rocks aren't good or bad." That's silly. Dawkins meant what Dawkins said.

"I'm on board with everything those atheists said"

I know you are. :-)

"We don't need God to know good behavior from bad. What a shame you think you do."

What a shame that you once again confused epistemology (how we know right from wrong) with ontology (the existence of right or wrong). You are the gift that keeps on giving! :-)

No, you have proven nothing. What you did was insist by stamping your little feet that I don't know the difference between moral ontology and moral epistemology, and I proved to you that I did. Furthermore, my original statement still stands strong: We don't require a God to be moral people.
"Dawkins is simply making the statement that DNA doesn't have a conscience"
"No one defends that it does. Morality is always discussed inseparably from humans. No one goes around saying "rocks aren't good or bad." That's silly. Dawkins meant what Dawkins said."

All right, well, in that case, may I ask you if you know what DNA is? Deoxyribonucleic acid?

It seems pretty obvious to me that Dawkins was saying that bad stuff happens in the world. The universe doesn't have a conscience because the universe doesn't have morals. That's all Dawkins was saying. Somehow you find that shocking and horrible. Why? It's true. What did you infer from Dawkins' statement that had him saying there was nothing stopping us from murdering little old ladies? You sure like to post his quote a lot. It would help if you knew what he meant, I think.

"What a shame that you once again confused epistemology (how we know right from wrong) with ontology (the existence of right or wrong)."

I did no such thing. Your arrogance in this matter is your stumbling block. You think you know moral ontology, that you know the existence of right and wrong and that you know God. You don't. That's nothing more than faith. You keep making God a foregone conclusion and argue from that standpoint. What you need to do is take a step back from that position and say "IF God exists..." Because that's the crux of the matter here. We need a level playing ground. And we're never going to have a level playing ground if you keep assuming God before the debate even starts. Moral ontology, which you keep talking about, isn't yours to claim.