Not sure how this thread got off track but I will give it more try to anyone who would like to respond to the actual topic I broached.
The thread is off track, because you are ignoring me(I gave at least one direct reply to your contention), and responding to Baruch, who loves to sidetrack any thread, with his contrarian tangents.
The term objective morality carries a lot of baggage in the theist eyes.
Objectivity is often equated with omniscience. This is because, in order to be 100% absolutely objective, an observer has to be outside the thing being observed, as God is supposed to be outside the universe. If omniscience is required for objectivity, then the word is meaningless to man, for the obvious reason, that humans are not omniscient. So objective morality, as the theist defines it, is not possible for any human.
Objectivity as a journalist, scientist or judge, uses a more realistic standard, which is primarily, to let the facts lead the investigation, without imposing preconceptions. Detachment.
Objectivity, for a moralist, is not sufficient without empathy.