"But Crazy, Dawkins, Provine and Ruse didn't SAY that there could be no moral values without God. "

You WISH they weren't saying what they are saying. and, thus far, you have provided no counterargument - just wishful thinking. And, it is delusional, because on atheism, the universe is just headed for a slow cold dark death, and nothing you do will matter in any ultimate moral sense.

'"you have NEVER - not even once - said why God is necessary."

Sure I did: without an Objective Moral Standard there can be no objective moral values or duties. It is quite simple, for those willing to listen.

"because God cannot be proven"

What?!? I have given you lots of arguments in favor of the God Hypothesis and you have given me no arguments, other than wanting to be your own "god" that He doesn't exist. In fact, merely the fact that you are spending so much time debating me on this subject is proof of God's existence: you are behaving as if your life has an objective purpose but such does not exist on atheism. (See slow cold dark death of universe.) You are actually denying your atheism, pretending that your life has an objective meaning - by evangelizing theists. :-)

"If I give you evidence and you don't believe it, it doesn't mean I haven't given you evidence. I have objective values and I have no God."

Merely saying that you have objective values is not proof that they exist, any more than my saying I have a billion dollars is proof that it exists in my bank account.

"Isn't that really your problem - you are so intent on telling me what I believe rather than actually listening to me that you can't handle the truth?"

I don't actually care what you believe. I care what is objectively true. What you believe is a measure of your feelings and psychological state - I am not interested in that - I am a theist, in search of truth, not feelings. That is a huge difference from my life as an atheist, I might add.

"Because we are human beings with c onsciences, empathy, a sense of belonging, a sense of place, a sense of purpose, a sense of how to co-exist with our fellow human beings, a sense of what works best for us all to live together harmoniously."

None of those things are objective, - they are ice cream flavors that vary across individuals. Some like Hitler, others like Ghandi. A sense of purpose is not any objective purpose - it is just a grand delusion, on atheism. How can anything objectively matter when there will be no one around to remember it or you for that matter?

"What a waste of a g ift this life is under that way of thinking."

Life IS a waste on atheism. It is a big accident which has no ultimate meaning. It is absurd. Look at the universe around you: if that is all there is, then it is a huge waste. And you are a speck of a dot of waste, on atheism. Why are you pretending your life means anything, other than whatever you want to make up out of thin air - to satisfy a fairy tale of yours?

"We are not insects. Next."

Nice try, but take it up with Darwin. He realized full well that we could be insects in a subjective moral sense if evolution had taken a different turn, and, BTW, aren't insects our cousins or something?!? :-) You have not answered the question as to why Darwinian evolution is not just one giant craps table, and due to that, there are no objective moral values and duties? Darwin understood.

"We are not other animals, either. Our brains don't work the same way."

That is twice it sounds as though you are distancing yourself from macro-evolution, do I have that right? I thought we were just animals evolved to a different species, no better or worse? It almost sounds like you are saying, twice, that human beings are supernaturally different from insects and lions, not merely physically different? Speaking of lions (scroll down for more good images):

http://www .powerlineblog .com/archives/2015/08/zebra-lives-matter.php

"I don't think it's intellectually honest of you to tell people who are living perfectly happy lives under s ecular humanism that they are miserable failures."

I never said that. I said that you are deluding yourself into thinking your life has objective moral value and purpose and meaning. (And, for some strange reason, 97% of atheists do not give the same consideration to the human in the womb.)

I know drunks and drug addicts who thought they were living perfectly happy lives too. They are as deluded as atheists. :-)

"All right, under the condition that you ditch the annoying smilies."

OK, but you didn't warn me before this, so that is why I have annoying smilies above. (Uuugh! I SO want to put an annoying smiley here!)

"Premise 1: You, the fundamentalist Christian, require a God in order to claim moral objectivity. Premise 2: The moral objectivity you claim is actually moral SUBJECTIVITY as laid out specifically by your God in your Bible. Premise 3: God's subjective commands can involve killing, torture, murder, and other unsavory and amoral things. Conclusion: You are amoral, subscribing to the whims of a cruel and jealous God."

It would be nice to have these in IF-Then form, but OK, I will consider this as a step-wise proof. I would probably reword Premise 1, but I will allow it.

Premise 2 is invalid. Even if you think that the Bible is a rule book (hint: it's not), then you would need to show that. How is it that God's Rule Book could pos sibly be subjective, since He is the Objective Moral Standard? Even if you believe that He is cruel and mean and all, how can that be subjective? What Higher Standard are you appealing to? Not God. Perhaps (yourself)?!?

Premise 3 is also invalid, since it includes "subjective" and it smuggles in you placing your objective moral values and duties above God's, which by the definition of "God" cannot be true. Same for the conclusion and, BTW, there are no rules of logic that would apply, even if Premises 1-3 were true, that would lead to the Conclusion. If I am wrong, please state the propositional logic rule that applies.

"I get morals from my family, my upbringing, and my developed sense of empathy."

Yes, but those are not objective. Hitler got his morals that way too, as did Stalin. Hitler had tremendous empathy for the Aryan race.

"Dawkins, Provine, Ruse and anyone else you'd care to name puts value on the loved ones in their lives."

Oh sure, but they are stealing from theism to do so. They are denying their atheism and pretending that their lives, and those of their loved ones, have objective moral value, purpose, and meaning. This is why atheism is totally unlivable. For the atheist to spend this much time debating a theist, he MUST believe that there is something objective about that purpose. But, on the slow cold dark death of the universe, such objectivity means nothing of course.