There you go, contradicting yourself in a single paragraph without noticing it. First you say objective morality is an illusion, then you implicitly condemn "child labor, slavery, racism, and oppression." Since objective morality is an illusion, on what grounds do you condemn these so-called "evils?" A childish desire to prove you're more moral than G-d?
There are also both religious and secular people on each side of debates like abortion and death penalty, so no matter what, your objective morality is still subject to hang ups, no matter how much you think it is absolute.
Yes, but on what grounds? The whole point of morality is submission to the Creator's will. The smooth functioning of society, far from being the main purpose of morality, is merely a side-effect.
Right and wrong are determined solely by Divine Decree.
Then it is impossible for them to exist in the absence of god; however, we know they do, and have since the dawn of man.
We "know" they exist? How? And whose ("right and wrong")? I notice people like you never get around to answering this question. Evolved instinct maybe, which means the purpose of morality is to ensure the largest number of survivable offspring?
By the way, Rand was right.
Ayn Rand was a miserable human being, the foundress of a bizarre cult centered on herself (which has far too many acolytes on FR), and hardly a moral person (which means she was more consistent than many of her self-proclaimed "moralist" followers). Whittaker Chambers was completely right about her.
No I didn't, you just missed the point; that being that people who get their moral bearings from god and those who don't more often than not arrive at the same conclusion about right and wrong, and have been since the beginning of human history.
You and an atheist could stand side by side and witness someone get murdered and both be equally called to action.
The only difference is that you're inserting an extra, unneeded step by saying that the only reason you find this appalling is because your imaginary friend said so.
The whole point of morality is submission to the Creator's will. The smooth functioning of society, far from being the main purpose of morality, is merely a side-effect.
You've got it backwards.
A creator's will erases morality, since you're just doing a cost benefit analysis as to what will get you better rewards in heaven.
In your world, there's no reason to be good for goodness' sake, or to do the right thing when no ones looking, since, in your eyes, someone is ALWAYS looking and keeping tabs on you.
You are moral because you expect an everlasting reward for it.
We "know" they exist? How?
Because we can witness and read about goodness, evil, sacrifice, and all of the other eccentricities of mankind in civilizations, peoples, and groups who never knew, do not know, or choose not to follow a Judeo-Christian creator.
Ayn Rand was a miserable human being, the foundress of a bizarre cult centered on herself...
I'm not the biggest objectivist in the world, but she was far from a cult leader. She rejected collectivism in all forms, and whether or not she was miserable is conjecture on your part, unless that is your way of saying that you just don't like her, which is fine.
She was certainly more right about economics and philosophy than Marx though.