Religious Apologetics - Logic Failure

The story begins when a religious apologist provides three links to an Evangelist blog (written by two gentlemen named Veale and Glass). These are the links he provides with an introduction...

"It looks like it's time yet again to address the issue of who... is advocating a morality with a specific basis for applying moral value judgments--and who is not.  These articles sum up the issue rather well and are an easy and fairly succinct read, the first being the longest:"

http://www.saintsandsceptics.org/meaning-morality-and-jerry-coynes-world
http://www.saintsandsceptics.org/scientism-morality-and-the-failure-of-new-atheism-part-1
http://www.saintsandsceptics.org/new-atheisms-moral-meltdown-part-2

These blog entries appear to repeat various points discussed with the apologist several times in the past, so I provide links to the answers that have already been provided (these are in column B).  The Apologist then tries to argue that I'm using fallacious arguments and completely fails to refer to the blog that he provided.  

The only explanation I can think of is that the Apologist doesn't realise I am responding to the Veale and Glass blogs that he recommended. Which is odd because if I'm not responding to those blog entries - what does he think I am responding to?  Puzzling...

A Veale and Glass say...	B My Response to Veale and Glass	C Religious Apologists says	D My response to the Apologist	E Analysis
Rather, the theist is pointing out that atheism cannot explain the existence of moral values and obligations.	This is a category mistake. Atheism cannot explain anything because it is not the kind of thing that provides explanations. It is not a theory, or doctrine, or worldview, or ideology.	JimC’s argument is a straw man. The issue isn't whether atheism can "explain" morality--the issue is whether atheism offers an objective basis for such.	There's good reason to think objective morality does not exist (as discussed here... A Universal Moral Standard). The closest we can get to objective morality is to understand that there are actions that are either good or bad for society. That does seem to be the benchmark that we all use, even if we do so subconsciously.	I have quoted Veale and Glass (in column A) and explained why their statement is a Category Mistake (in column B).  So there is no straw man argument here, simply a statement of fact.  In Column C The apologist says the statement from Veale and Glass is not the issue – but it was their words that I was referring to so it is definitely the issue.  The Apologist apparently has other issues he wants to discuss – but how am I supposed to know that? And why was the blog provided if I am not supposed to respond to what it says?    If the issue is Objective Morality, that is discussed later.     In any case – I respond to the Apologist in column D (again using a standard response from a previous discussion)
Rather, the theist is pointing out that atheism cannot explain the existence of moral values and obligations.	This is a category mistake. Atheism cannot explain anything because it is not the kind of thing that provides explanations. It is not a theory, or doctrine, or worldview, or ideology.	JimC’s argument is a misdirect.  A world view--even a negative one--has ramifications based on that overall outlook. For example, a "religious" viewpoint might conclude that God loves us and wants us to love others. An atheistic viewpoint offers no such belief, and one lives one's life as if there is no such God or his moral imperative to love others. This outlook necessarily has a profound effect on how one views "morality" and how one makes "moral" decisions.	This is demonstrably untrue. Evidence shows that the vast majority of people who believe in such a God make the same moral decisions as the vast majority of people who don't.	Bizarrely, my exact same words are now a “Misdirect” rather than a straw man, and have generated a completely different response from the Apologist about world views or whatever.      Again, I have quoted Veale and Glass (column A) and explained why their statement is a Category Mistake (Column B).  So there is no misdirect here – simply a statement of fact.       The apologist ignores what Veale and Glass have said and presents an argument about the world views.  He classifies atheism as a “negative view” whereas it is neither negative or positive, but neutral.       Regardless of the confusion, I provided a response to the Apologist again by referencing a standard answer from a previous discussion.
To explain morality is to explain principles of value and conduct. There is a wide consensus that moral principles have at least five traits. They are obligatory– they tell us what we ought to do in a given situation; they guide our actions. Such obligations are overriding – they take precedence over other considerations, be they aesthetic, legal, or political. They are also universalizable –they apply to all who are in relevantly similar situations; if it is immoral for Coyne to “kick an innocent dog” then it is immoral for everyone “to kick an innocent dog.” If there is an exception to that rule – perhaps we might be allowed to kick an innocent dog to save its life – then the exception counts for everyone in a relevantly similar situation.	The Bible is open to interpretation and even Christians disagree on how it should be interpreted.  Even a seemingly simple statement such as “love your enemies” can be interpreted as a command to pacifism (by Quakers for example) but for most Christians it does not deter them from them killing their enemies.	JimC has provided a non-sequitur.   John amd Jane are Christians. John and Jane disagree about certain interpretations of Scripture.  Does it logically follow that (1) they disagree on everything, or (2) that there isn't an underlying common moral imperative to act out of love for God and others, even if the specifics of how to do so have yet to be determined?	Disagreements are a fact of life regardless of religion (or lack of).  That's why we have judges and courts of law and any number of ways to resolve disputes and make decisions and come up with the "best" solutions, moral or otherwise.	In Column A, Veale and Glass are trying to claim that morality has principles i.e. it should be obligatory, overriding and universizable [sic]. In Column B I explain that morality isn’t like that, and Christians are no different to anyone else when it comes to determining what is right and wrong.  My response explains this in the context of what Veale and Glass have said and so this can't be a non sequitur.  In column D I respond to the “Jane and John” example (which was not part of the Veale and Glass blog) again by referring back to a previously provided standard answer.
On theism we have immense significance because the creator of the Cosmos values us, made us to be like him, and can enter into a relationship with us. We have a great value because we are significant to God. There is no room for morality in Coyne’s world; therefore his worldview is unconvincing. In God’s world, morality makes sense.	The Bible comes from God so absolute morality is defined by God as described in the Bible. There is no evidence that the Bible comes from God and overwhelming evidence that it was written and compiled by human beings.	JimC is using false reasoning.  The fact that The Bible was written by human beings has nothing to do with whether they did so at God's behest or not.	There is no evidence that human beings wrote the Bible (or Quran or Book of Mormon) at the behest of God. In fact there's no evidence that anyone ever did anything at the behest of God.	Veale and Glass are stating that the Creation myths in the Bible are factual and morality comes from God.  I counter this by pointing out that the Bible was written by human beings – it doesn’t come from God.  This is not false reasoning. It is a statement in response to the assertion from Veale and Glass.  I then responded to the Apologist’s comments in column D again by referencing to a standard answer from a previous discussion.