Subjective Morality?

[brewer]

We are discussing morals, not scientific facts where there is a definite correct and incorrect position/determination.

Apologetics huh. Thought you might be in that herd, so not as irrelavent as your

Oh. The article. Very well:
"The [objective] object is something that presumably exists independent of the subject’s perception of it. " (https://www.iep.utm.edu/objectiv/)

Honestly, I just google 'objectivism philosophical definition', and this one had the cleanest description, but I'm glad it did turn out to be apologetic; it seems to demonstrate prejudice that you seem to have against theist thought. As an atheist, I would image you believe any rationality is a step in the right direction, although I understand you may have reservations against using pieces of apologetic thought in a secular conversation.
I hope you realize how much you depend on ideas religious people had though... even if delusional about some things, theists can still bring about productive science. For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lay_Catholic_scientists



In my opinion, truth is truth no matter who utters it or how they got to it. But maybe thats just my objectivism talking.


EDIT:

"Differing opinions with regard to a moral statement makes that statement subjective"
No it doesn't. Given both/either of the philosophical definitions I have provided, an objective morality would be absolutely plausible should there be different opinions about it.
Objective morality (hypothetically, if it exist) has definite correct and incorrect positions, just like science. By definition, that's what the 'objective' in front of 'morality' is for.

"OK, give me a precise and narrowly defined example of a "truth value absolutely separate from perception" that applies to morals."
... After you give me a precise and narrowly defined matrix of the position of every single subatomic particle in your body.
Likewise, objective moral definitions are extremely hard to provide and extremely easy to find minute errors in... this doesn't mean they don't exist.

Re killing: you're mistaken. To paraphrase: killing is okay in certain situations, not okay in others.
Again, since objective morality works like objective science, this would be akin to saying that: some functions have a limit at x=0, others don't. Nothing subjective about it. Very specific though.



Just to reiterate: differing interpretations do not prove subjectivity. Complicated and situationally specific results do not prove subjectivity.
Like, please stop trying to demonstrate either of these, it's logically impossible

What makes you think I care about what religion a scientists is. Does not matter as long as the science is correct and they don't interject religion/god. 

Why are you going back to science with the "subatomic particle" crap. You wanted to discuss moral(s) not science. If there are errors (great or small) in objective morals then they are not objective. 

But now that I understand that you are religious, I'm not surprised that you continue the theist dance/dodge.