Do you wish there's a god?

[Angrboda]

I see.... you're on the objective train...
ok... then I'm going to have to ask you to define "objective" as it pertains to morality.

I'll keep it simple: Experienced/Observed as external to us.

From my point of view, morality is something that arises of the social group. It seems objective because it is shared by the majority (or all) the elements of the group. However, I don't think that morality is independent of the group. In the absence of the group, morality is meaningless.

When we acknowledge the immorality of the holocaust. When we say the holocaust is immoral, what we’re not saying is that it’s immoral because our social group considers it immoral. If one day our social group feels it’s the right thing to do, it would remain immoral to us, and our social group would be delusional, like a social group who became holocaust deniers.

When we acknowledge the holocaust is immoral, what we’re not acknowledging is something internal to us or our social group, such as I’m not saying the holocaust is immoral because of how it makes me feel, or because of my societies personal opinion. If we were to call the the Nazi’s immoral, we’re not saying what they did is wrong, only because us american’s are of the opinion that it’s wrong.

We are acknowledging and claiming an objective truth, that it’s wrong regardless of what germans or american’s think.

Claiming something and acknowledging something are two very different things. You can claim basically anything you want, no matter how ridiculous. The accepted meaning of acknowledging is that the thing acknowledged is a fact or readily apparent truth. That the holocaust was immoral is a claim. You can acknowledge that you believe the holocaust is immoral is an objective fact. You cannot acknowledge that the holocaust was objectively immoral as it isn't sufficiently well evidenced to be considered a fact or a readily apparent truth. So, your counter-argument amounts to saying little more than, "nuh uh." It's an ipse dixit argument and is thus essentially worthless for establishing your point.

In fact we discuss and argue about morality, the way we argue about truth, not the way we might argue about the best band, of best Indian restaurant in town. 

We have no reason to deny that our experience and observations here are not external to us, that they exist purely in our mind, any more so than any other objective truth of reality, other than on the basis of some presuppositions in which it can't be so.

This is complete bullshit. We have every reason in the world to be skeptical of the validity of anything that isn't a direct sense perception, and even then, the acceptance is not absolute. You're simply making more meaningless ipse dixit arguments.