Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Astonished]

I think you're addressing the wrong point (and I didn't even point out that you're wrong about who tainted my view of objective morality; I didn't even give it serious contemplation til I started watching atheist videos online and I can't find a consensus on it among actual philosophers so are you going to make the same assumption about them?),

No assumptions need be made.  The entire field of inquiry has been deeply influenced and fucked with by religious tradition. We don't escape that simply by not being believers, ourselves, or by listening to non-believers.  Some of it is so endemic that it's bound into word usage, it's that basic..-and- that thorough.

that goes to the other thread where I have no idea why you think religion can or should be allowed to try to play any kind of positive role rather than being stamped out entirely.

You have something particular in mind when you think of religion...that...too...has been established by whatever religion or religions you have in mind.  It's probably not intrinsic to religion, but intrinsic to particular religions...and because of your cultural heritage and your cognitive and linguistic processes you take the word religion to be an analog to whatever that religion was.  

You blame them for warping how I think but the truth is, they kept me from even thinking about it in a meaningful way til fairly recently and having exclusively anti-theistic models for constructing it (like Matt Dillahunty's secular morality debates and speeches) hasn't resolved this issue. Try asking next time instead of making assumptions. It wouldn't be nearly the first time you've misunderstood something here.

Keeping you from meaningfully thinking about something is a hell of a trick.  Then, when you do think meaningfully about it, you're saddled with -their- baggage.  Trying to ditch their baggage you inherently refer to it as though it were -the- baggage, -the- goods.  This isn't an assumption.  This happens to all of us, or propositions and our very cognition is shaped in important ways by the culture from which we arise.  

You spent, for example, what,,.90% of our conversation arguing against religious moral absolutism and the shitty things that religion does.....to me, in reference to a secular moral objectivity.  You kept telling me..anmd are till insisting..that this secular moral objectivity couldn't be objective...because it wasn't what the religious claim that their morality is.  

Why do -you- think that happened?

Give me a definition of religion that doesn't in some way involve being irrational, without also being so far removed from what religion should reasonably include, and we'll talk.

And the problem was that we can't agree on definitions like objective, apparently, any more than philosophers who make a living thinking about this shit. What does that have to do with whether it comes from religion or not? Not that it does anyway but if you've got a contradictory component within the definition of objective, I can't play your game, and that's your fault. That's like asking me to accept that Yahweh is a good god, it's simply impossible given the definition of good and the character of Yahweh.