Atheists who announce "I'm good without god"

[RoadRunner79]

But the point is that it isn't just one person's viewpoint. The vast majority of people agree on the basics, as I'm sure you agree. That is what keeps it from being arbitrary: the people still decide.

One problem is how people use the word "objective." Sometimes it seems people want it to mean "eternal and universal," in the way we assume the laws of nature are unchanging and everywhere. But I don't think "objective" means this. I think it's closer to what you mean -- non-arbitrary, not just personal.

For example, for a long time, people thought that ulcers were caused by stress. Doctors would -- objectively -- tell their patients that this was the case. But it turns out everybody was wrong, and ulcers are caused by H. pylori, or whatever it's called. They were objective, but the best explanation changed. 

"Moral realism" seems much clearer, for this reason. "Objective morality" tends to mislead, I think.

I have been using the word objective to mean that it is outside of and independent of the subject (or mind).  This is what is being referred to commonly in the moral argument and when talking about ontology.  It is a different sense of the word; from a reporter giving the news objectively.