I’ve heard this claim before that it is not possible for atheists to have “objective moral beliefs” because many moral claims are based on religious authority, which atheists do not believe in.
Thus atheists are subjectivists when it comes to morality: each atheist may disagree with the other about what is moral. Obviously this opens atheists up to problems of disagreements, with some who might believe very conventionally “immoral” things are acceptable for them.
This is not of course to say that atheists may not choose to live lives that are some what “moral” (moral, as is often defined by religions)
So, what’s the status of the idea of “objective morality” and atheism?
Super easy:
Murder is wrong because I don’t have the right to deprive someone of their life.
Theft is wrong because I don’t have the right to goods or services which I did not earn.
I could go on, but there’s no need to bring imaginary beings into morality. In fact, the least moral people appear to be religious.
So to illustrate the point maybe: are you saying atheists are generally in agreement abortion is wrong and that taxation is theft and all governments should be abolished?
Nope, abortion isn’t wrong because a fetus is not a person.
Taxation is not theft because you are, through taxes, contributing to the larger operation of society, from which you are directly benefiting.
If you’re reading this and agree please take the next logical step.
Animal slaughter is wrong because I don’t have the right to deprive someone of their life.
Animals aren’t “someone” and eating other animals is, and has been, part of the natural order of things since animals have existed.
I have been taught animals aren’t things, therefore they are not something but someone.
The relevant part is that they have their own conscious experience that you are negatively impacting by killing them, the same reason it is wrong to kill a human.
“The natural order of things” is not a guide for morality; lions rape each other, that is still immoral.