Anslem's argument is sound.

[henryp]

So this is where it gets tricky, because I'm going to say value to mean one thing, and you think of it as another.

I value donuts.  They are delicious.  I do not value brussel sprouts.  They are gross.  

I don't believe my valuing donuts but not brussel sprouts says anything about donuts or brussel sprouts having any intrinsic value. 

I do value my life.  But in the same way I value donuts.  It's something I like.  That most of us like being alive does not make life inherently valuable.  It's just a common opinion.  Just like most people liking donuts doesn't make them more valuable than brussel sprouts, which are generally despised.  

What I think you need for your argument is a way to show human life is valuable that isn't based on an opinion, as you can see with many examples that opinion of value and intrinsic value (such as with donuts) are not connected.

You may not like brussel sprouts for personal use, but if others do eat them, you should value them for other's sake. And that should value is due to objective standards, they are beneficial for people. And that is based on facts. Whether you like them or not, doesn't take away their value to others.

You take away the objective value of humans and all that is left is us defining what we are by our mere desires and judgment of ignorance with no reality to our actions.

Finding a reality in which humans lack objective value distasteful doesn't mean it isn't true.  It's the big flaw in so many people's thinking.  They pick a destination they want to arrive at, and then try to form an argument that allows them to get there.  

You need humans to have an objective value for your views on life to make sense.  If you want to believe that on faith, I think that's great.  But when you start making arguments based on logic, you can't include a bunch of things you wish were true, or generally held beliefs.  When someone digs into the reasoning, the shovel eventually needs to hit a foundational fact.

You say "brussel sprouts are beneficial to people, so they have value."  I respond with "But why is something being beneficial to people valuable?"  You say "People have objective value."  I say "Why do people have objective value?"  You say "Because otherwise things are bad."  And I say "What if reality is just bad?"   

Your argument is rooted not on logic, but optimism.  Which again, is fine.  Wanting to believe the world is good doesn't bother me at all.  But for the style of arguments you're presenting, that can't be at the foundation.