General question about the possibility of objective moral truth

[Chad32]

No one says he "does not believe in a real Right and Wrong", but a moral relativist says that different cultures have different ideas about what those rights and wrongs are, making it clear that morality is subjective, rather than objective. You said as much in your reply.

However, because we are a social animal, we have evolved a general sense of empathy for our fellow human beings because this is the only way for social groups to succeed, which manifests itself as a series of "common themes" among the various forms of morality we see in different cultures. Generally, what harms our fellow humans will also harm us if allowed to go on, so we make rules about it.

If you're going to discuss the moral concepts atheists hold with us, we'd ask that you at least try to understand what they are, instead of making up versions that help your argument but which aren't real.

In my understanding, to say that morality is subjective is the same as saying that there is no real Right and Wrong. Because "real" means that it is really existing. But when I think that morality is just a subjective feeling that human beings have - then we have to state that our feeling of the truth of morality, of moral rules is just a useful ilusion which our brain generates for us. (Because the long term survival chances of a society are higher if there are moral rules.)

Well find something that can be universally agreed on to be right or wrong, and we'll call that objective. the problem is that there's always going to be some reasonable justification to disagree.