You do.
Every time you claim that objective morality exists, but are then unable to say what that objective morality is and how it applies to specific questions or situations, you are broadcasting loud and clear that you cannot discern objective morality.
Every time you ignore a question about the contents of your objective moral code, you are providing evidence that you cannot discern what that code is.
Every time you are asked about your objective moral code and your reply is along the lines of “Every fiber of my being tells me …” or “But most of us now, at least to me, on the back of Jesus and the long, rocky climb of Western civilization, have come to see …” or “I tie my morals to the goodness of God…”, you demonstrate not only that you can’t discern objective morality, but also that your own morality is subjective, since it is based on your personal feelings, or, your views of society, or your religious belief.
You cannot fall back on the Bible or your church as a source of objective morality, either for yourself or for everyone, because both scripture and your church have declared that things you personally find unacceptably immoral are sometimes permitted.
You reject the various non-religious proposals for objective morality, such as the golden rule or utilitarianism[1] or the Wiccan an it harm none do what ye will, on the grounds that they are standards made up by humans, without realising that your own morals are also a standard made up by a human, because you cannot discern objective morality.
Which is why you have everything about morality completely backwards.
Atheists/materialists who you claim have no basis for objective morality actually do have objective standards against which they can judge slavery, infanticide, etc.
You, on the other hand, can’t judge anything against your supposed objective morality because you can’t show that it exists, and even if you could you don’t actually know what it says. You’re just producing rules based on your feelings.
So when you say that without objective morality "We can’t even tell the Nazi’s or slave traders what they did was wrong and justify our assertion beyond ‘this is my opinion’”, not only does that apply just as much to your subjective morality, but you can be checkmated if the slave traders respond that slavery is moral because it is permitted in their objective morality based on their and your god’s Mosaic laws, and they will show you the text if you disagree. Worse, because you cannot discern objective morality other than through the subjective feelings of the fibres of your being, you can’t know they aren’t right.
So when you say that “If we can’t say it is objectively wrong to play catch with babies using bayonets then a worldview is broken.” that is not only mistaken, it is downright insulting, because I can say that it is objectively wrong, via e.g. the Wiccan creed, but because your morals are actually entirely subjective, and because even though you claim to have an objective moral code based on “the goodness of God” the scripture of your church describes your god ordering the slaughter of babies (Samuel 15), you cannot.
I’ve no doubt you will rant and rail and insist once more that atheist/materialist objective moral codes are useless because they’re just based on opinion, while your own ‘objective’ moral code is superior because it is based on your ‘feelings’ about the goodness of a god that demands actions that are in your opinion unacceptable. It won’t be worth responding to.
One last point:
Not only do you not seem to understand that what people believe in is subjective, not objective - which by itself skewers any and all claims you make about objective morality - you have just given your objective morality the same level of reality as fairies: it only exists if you believe in it.
Which, based on your comment that “if helping my neighbor doesn’t help me in a particulate instance I have lost the moral reason for doing so in a utilitarian framework,” you don’t understand. ↩︎