Conscience and the Moral Argument as Evidence for the Goodness of God.

[The Grand Nudger]

Grand Nudger: "That we use rape as a weapon suggests that we innately understand the offense of the act even if a cynical view would suggest that the raping warband doesn't see a problem with it."

Only if one views Skepticism about Atheism as "cynicism". Yes, on the naturalistic perspective, raping warbands and many other raping soldiers, terrorists, criminals etc see no problem with rape. So, if morality is subjective, who is to say ours is right and theirs is wrong. In fact, because morality is objective, we can say that they are wrong. But if it was subjective, we could not, any more than you could dictate your subjective preference of tea over coffee to them.

(Obviously, Christians and Atheists agree Rape is wrong, as we do on many other things in fact; only on things like Abortion being wrong, we'd disagree).

IDK.  

Ever notice that warbands don't go out to blow guys and do the dishes?  It's because we know that's not an attack.  We see the problem - and that's what identifies it as a weapon.  This one boils down to the most common and natural mistake a person can make.  Failing...for whatever reason or none at all.. to include The Other in their self described circle of morality.  Whether we chalk this up to intersubjectivity or the tip of an objectivist iceberg - I think you'd be very surprised at how moralizing rapists can be.  Consider the catholic clergy.

If morality is subjective, we all individually and personally say what's right or wrong.... and all of us are right.   I know, that seems strange..but I think that's because we tend to have these discussions through a lens of self deception.  When we say "if morality is subjective" we mean something more like "if no one can say what the moral facts are".  Closer to error theory.  At any rate, in subjectivist, relativist, and objectivist systems it is perfectly valid to say that the other guy is wrong.  Just means something different in each case.  

You and I aren't going to disagree about abortion.  If you really think about it, it's strange to assume that we would on the basis of whether or not I believe in gods.  Whether abortion is right or wrong has to do with abortions - not gods.  Right?

And, if it is granted that morality is objective, Theism logically follows. The reason is because, nothing in blind, unguided Nature can tell you how you "ought" to behave, by very definition of being unguided. That's the "is-ought" problem I briefly made reference to earlier. Therefore, granted that we all objectively *ought* to behave in certain ways, and *ought* not to do other things, even if it is in our great self-advantage to do so (as it may be in the self-advantage of a murderer to kill, a rapist to rape, and a thief to steal; or of a bad doctor to commit infanticide etc), it follows logically that there is an objective moral Law that binds all of us, which in turn could only have originated from a Supremely Good Law-Giver.

The existence of a personal and intervening god does not flow from moral objectivism in...any...way.  I'm not going to waste much time arguing this with you.  You may think that this..and that, and some other thing, all added up, implies who knows what - but nothing about there being a moral fact requires a god to exist.  Moral facts aren't about gods.  You're right that nothing in "blind unguided nature" tells me what I ought to do, though.  I tell that to myself.  All that follows logically from a true objectivist statement is that there are moral facts of a matter x, and the statement has accurately reported them.  Metaethical objectivity is not a magic spell that can whip gods into existence. Your god may or may not exist, objective morality may or may not be true - but neither thing is capable of logically cosigning for the other. Each stands or falls on it's own merits.