Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[RoadRunner79]

Is that the only trick you know?  At least get it right if you're going to repeat it.  I was responding to Inks question, not laying out a case for objective morality.  I'm tired of this mama-bird shit.

What makes something objective...as I have repeatedly stated, is it's status as being both independent of a particular subject, and demonstrably referent to an actual object.  End of, that's it, that's all.  Harm is both of these things, and is as fundamental to any religious morality as it is to a secular morality.  It is available to all of us, and has the benefit of explaining -why- something is wrong, rather than declaring it to be so by fiat.  

From the POV of moral subjectivism..whatever immorality is seen in the character of the biblical god makes as much sense as whatever subjective assessment of it is being offered - ala "That god story makes me feel filthy just thinking about it".  Well, okay, I can understand why a person would trust their sense of disgust - it's pretty damned reliable for reasons that you don't believe in (lol).  

From the point of view of my moral objectivism...the immorality of the bible-god is sensible specifically because the character of god manages to incur immense harm left right and center...and still has the finale up his sleeves. 

I would not equate harm with immorality, or lack of harm with moral.  Although it may be involved in a very basic guideline (I would agree, that you shouldn't seek to harm others for selfish reasons)
.
As C.S. Lewis pointed out; someone who tries to trip me and fails is in the wrong, while someone who accidentally trips me is not.  Your principle of harm would see to reverse this.  Does this harm extend to all living things?   What about non-living things?   If I destroy some thing of mine, is that immoral?

And all of this, is describing what is moral (epistemology).  However it doesn't answer the question of why anything is wrong, or why one ought not to do these things.  So while I agree, that harm is objective (at least for the most part) and independent of the subject (I think some arguments could be made for psychological harm here),  I still don't think that you understand the argument that is being made.