"You seem to be unable to take a decision on the subjectivity of objective reality. Now you seem to be dabbling with the degree of subjectivity… the lesser the chances of you being wrong… more objective your understanding becomes… so then on what level are you currently on… who decides this level?"

No, you seem to misunderstand what I said, yet again. Just because something is subjective doesn't mean that it doesn't comport with the actual objective reality that exists, unless you think that is impossible to arrive at any kind of truth that actually comports with reality using only subjective experience and perception. My subjective experience and perception leads me to believe that a knife to the heart would bad for my health, and I think we would probably both agree on that, but if you don't then we can start a comparative assessment of our experiences and that of others to determine which is most likely correct.

"You are contradicting yourself only… you are the one who said everything is subjective…"

EVERYTHING? No, don't put words in my mouth, I only said our perception is necessarily subjective, not everything in the universe.

"and now you are asking me about this batter acid?"

Typo, I meant battery acid.

"SO, you tell me… can objective reality be understood objectively or not?"

If you had been following along, and understood what I said, you would never have asked such an ill-formed question. Understanding is based on perception. Perception is necessarily subjective. That means understanding will be subjective too. Subjective doesn't mean false, and despite what people seem to think, subjectivity isn't actually a bad thing. The only thing that it really means is that we have to constantly check our perception and understanding against the reality that we and others observe, and comparatively assess them, to make sure that they best comport with the reality we inhabit.

"Make up your mind…"

I did, you just don't seem to understand it.

"This is not my statement…"

Yes it is, should I quote what you said?

"this is what I think your notions will lead you to say…"

No, my notions will never deny progress in both fields simply because we have the capacity to discover and learn, that is precisely what yours would do. My entire system DEPENDS on an ability to discover and learn new things about our reality, yours merely depends on dictation from holy text, no ability needed.

"if you say objective truth can only be understood using subjective means… you will have to accept both the above propositions on slavery and flat earth…"

No, I don't. I have outlined the reason for this multiple times, and you either don't understand it, or refuse to accept it. If you want to pretend that the conclusions that were made before mankind could find its ass with both hands and a flashlight, are somehow equal to the conclusions we have now, be my guest, but you won't be doing yourself any favors. We used to think bloodletting and Trepanation were valid medical practices, then we learned better, and to pretend our current knowledge is somehow no better than it was then is simply silly.

"And it’s precisely to escape this conundrum that I rely on a non-subjective moral standard… (may be the way I have reached there is subjective… like your assumption that objective reality exists… but once I am there… my moral standard is stable)…"

Except that your supposed god would also be basing his commands on his subjective perception and desires, making its moral dictates no more objective or absolute than those of anyone else.

"as for the objective reality of the shape of the earth… well, I agree with you that as knowledge grows our perceptions change… and there’s nothing we can do about it… but it bears no consequence on my morality. "

And that is where we will differ, my understanding of morality will grow as our knowledge does, while yours will remain forever trapped in the seventh century.

"Yes, it doesn’t mean so… but it also doesn’t mean that it has to comport with it… that’s precisely why it is subjective…"

We do have tools that help determine if something appears to comport with it, and those tools do not solely rely on our subjective perception.

"I agree with you. That’s the reason I have been arguing from the beginning that morality and objective reality are two different things… sticking a knife into a person is of course bad as it will harm him…"

We have come to this conclusion using the same tools we use to determine if something comports with reality.

"but is it morally right or wrong… the answer depends on who you ask?"

Actually, applying the aforementioned tools will give you an answer.

"That is why questions like death penalty are hotly debated topics…all the rationally thinking people in the world do not agree on this. Forget religionists.., just take atheists, and you will see them differing on this."

People not agreeing about something does not mean that there isn't a right answer, it just means we have yet to discover and support it sufficiently.

"If perception is the only way you can understand everything in the universe…and that perception is subjective…then everything by logic must be subjective."

If perception is the only way we can experience and apple, and perception is subjective, then the existence of apples is subjective to our experience of them? No. The fact that our perception of a thing is subjective does not make the thing itself subjective. Two people locked in a room may percieve time differently, because our perception is subjective, does that mean that the actual amount of time that has passed is subjective?

"Fine. But the problem is you never know how long you will have to check perceptions before we take a decision…"

We are forced to make moral decisions, often on insufficient information, and manage to come to conclusions in everyday life. Does that mean we should stop checking them? No. Should we ever stop checking them? Not if we want to be as moral as we can be.

"didn’t we practice slavery for hundreds of years…didn’t we deny women right to vote for decades… didn’t we illegalize homosexuality for hundreds of years…"

Just like we used to think the world was flat, we used to think illness was caused by demonic possession, and that birth defects were punishment by god. We learned better.

"and now you say all these are wrong…"

Much like I can say that the Earth is round, that illness is caused by pathogens and physiological phenomena, and that birth defects are caused by genetics.

"and who knows how many more hundreds of years before you change you stance yet again!"

Unless something really apocalyptic and wonky happens, we are as likely to reverse positions on these issues as we are a flat Earth. Once knowledge is gained, it isn't erased, but added to. The fact that our scientific and moral understanding progresses, and gets better, is the STRENGTH of the system.

"What guarantee do you have that 500 years later our medical practices will not be critiqued in the same manner that we now critique blood-letting?"

Oh, I have little doubt that many of our current practices may well seem primitive and barbaric to people living 500 years from now, how does that make our current knowledge and understanding worthless? Without our current progress, society 500 years from now would have nothing to work with or add upon, meaning our current knowledge and progress is actually ESSENTIAL.

"We are always smarter in hindsight… who knows we might even return to some age-old practices… there is already a heightened interest in natural remedies as practiced by some of our ancients… yoga is millennia old."

Mystical woo aside, many doctors do actually recommend yoga as a healty low-impact aerobic exercise, and such exercise has demonstrable benefit. However, your larger claim that society might revert back to ancient practices, that only seems to be the case for religion.

"But your understanding will never stop growing…and therefore in hindsight it is always a dwarf…"

Our understanding of physics will never stop growing, and will be greater than it is now, how does that demean or destroy the understanding we have now?

"And here is the most important point to remember: this kind of growing of knowledge is okay as far as medical remedies and such things are concerned…because we apply it out of necessity…whether it’s good or bad."

If we applied unsound medical procedures out of urgency, it would still be bad. Urgency does not make right.

"Whereas morality is quite different…morality, if you look closely, involves a sacrifice for the benefit of others…"

Not in every case, morality is quite diverse, and covers a broad range of interaction.

"Example: eating good food is good for health, but it is not a moral act."

Weird, because eating something so bad for you that it would kill you immediately is often considered an immoral act, and yet the opposite mysteriously has NO moral value whatsoever. How strange.

"Whereas, when you share that food with a hungry person, you are doing a moral act."

I would consider that a moral act, for reasons I have perviously described.

"Therefore, if you base your morality on growing knowledge, and are never sure if things wouldn’t change again tomorrow…"

Here you go pretending that our gained understanding could reverse itself in a minute, do you have any idea how silly that sounds. That is like saying that because science is based on our growing knowledge, you never know if it wouldn't revert tommorow.

"then there is really no drive to do this moral act… because you anyways don’t have any benefit in it for you…"

If the only reason you are doing a moral act is to simply benefit yourself, then is it actually moral?

"Or morality involves withholding a perceived benefit for the good of others…if you kill your uncle you may inherit his wealth…why shouldn’t you do it for the sake of a moral code that you are not sure will stay the same 10 years later?"

Really? Another utterly vapid argument that attempt to strawman and ignore the last two days of conversation? I honestly don't know why I bother anymore.