NO! But let's let CosmicSkeptic and RationalityRules duke it out!
The only way morality could be objective is if God as a person existed here and was actively involved with humanity. I'm unique in that I concede that could be the case but it would mean that God has instructed all involved on the higher dimensions to use only natural means in this age. As far as I can see this is the only viable avenue open for any type of personal theistic belief as it's obvious there is no supernatural phenomenon happening today (even if angels are walking among us they've agreed to use natural means only).
This particular query in philosophy is deeply entrenched within Humes 'getting an ought from an is' argument.
Here is my comment on the video: It seems to me RR is projecting purpose and teleology into moral philosophy. It's true there are objective facts: 2plus2 equals 4 but there is nothing moral about this. The universe, it seems to me, is amoral--it doesn't seem to care one way or the other. A comet could wipe us out tomorrow and life would just strive to live again--nothing personal.
Having said all this: as a Gnostic, I believe the God we are dealing with is an amoral fuckwad much like the architect in the matrix movie. But that's another post.
I'll link a video also by cuckphilosophy who correctly deconstructs RR's (and Sam Harris' moral ideas). Sorry guys, morality is subjective through and through which doesn't mean we can't agree on pragmatic 'as if' solutions to moral dilemmas.
And as an added bonus I was able to figure out how to do split-screen in Final Cut today so here is loopytunes 8 again:
