Atheists who believe in objective morality should generally avoid referring to their beliefs as such
EDIT: I am completely fine with downvotes, but if you're going to leave one, please also leave a comment explaining why you disagree. So far, people have mostly been on the same page after ironing out some of the nuance, mostly around the specific contexts in which I think this is relevant. I said at the outset that I am open to being shifted on this, so if you have a specific alternative approach to getting theists on board with these points, please share.
Note: This is not a hard prescription. I'm still sorting through my perspective on this, so very open to input and having my mind changed about how this should be approached.
I've noticed a persistent point of confusion in discussions of the type that occur in this sub, where the theistic use of the term "objective morality" conflicts with the atheistic conception. This gets so bad that I often see people having seemingly completely different conversations, while thinking they are talking about the same thing. Often, this confusion is actually atheist to atheist, derailing the original discussion with perceived disagreement between atheists.
I think everyone understands subjective morality well enough, the idea that morality stems from the views and opinions of the individual. I know many of us would claim morality to rather be intersubjective; I would agree but I don't find it particularly relevant to the scope of this post.
Communication seems to break down when it comes to the term "objective". The theist generally uses the term to mean that there is a universally "correct" moral standard that transcends subjective human opinion of what might be right or wrong.
In my experience, atheists who are moral objectivists use the term to mean literally "not subjective", i.e., that a framework can be constructed that allows for consistent and coherent conclusions regarding what is right or wrong, based on logical rules rather than subjective opinions.
To me, these uses of "objective" are not the same, but are frequently treated as such during these discussions, usually unintentionally. It is generally still the atheist's subjective opinion that their objective framework is correct and appropriate; they do not believe it to be universally correct above and beyond all other viewpoints on morality. This is, at best, confusing to the average theist, and frequently confusing to other atheists. Many atheists are actually moral objectivists without realising it, because the terms are so obtuse.
Ultimately, while it may be correct for an atheist to say that they believe in objective morality from a philosophy 101, dictionary definition sense, I find it to be problematic and confusing when used as part of more informal discussions between laypeople, like those in this sub. I actually think neither subjective nor objective are useful terms in this context at all, since the theist's "objective morality" is ultimately based on the subjective opinions of an alleged deity anyway. We are all talking about different things.
I wonder if people find this to be reasonable, or if it's seen as ceding unnecessary ground to the theist and/or a problem that should be solved by being more careful about defining our terms upfront.