Does absolute morality require a supernatural explanation?

[RCTjunkie]

Mr Khan said:

RCTjunkie said:

Mr Khan said:

Significance doesn't matter, i would contend. Whatever our significance, or lack thereof, in the grand scheme of things, we as individuals know what we value, and we know the concept of fairness, therefore we can understand that getting what we want while not letting others get what they want is not right.

The bolded is the problem, here. Not everyone "knows" the concept of fairness and what is right except what is indoctrinated by society and those around the person. Where does such a knowledge of fairness and value come from in a worldview without supernaturally indocterined morality? 

Babies understand fairness

This indicates that we likely have an innate concept of justice, a priori, which does not immediately disprove the idea of God (could lend credence to the concept of the Holy Spirit, that we have been given access to God's capacity for goodness, etc etc), but it does show that humans have a notion of justice without anyone having to explain anything to them, or threaten them with jail, inferior reincarnation, or eternal hellfire.

Only 2/3rds of the babies shared their toys and showed a concept of fairness, and amongst those there were babies that only offered their least favorite toy. That's not a universal, absolute sense of morality. It just shows that morality is varied amongst others as they choose and also to what degree. Even if there is a correlation, having such doesn't give enough justification to dub those that act on them any morally superior than those who don't from an evolutionary standpoint, specifically in cases where going against established morality would benefit yourself greatly.