An authority is needed, because otherwise there is no objectivity to morals.

Various systems of morals can be derived from various sources. From reason for example, or from human nature.

I'm not much chop at philosophy so I don't plan on going too deep into this.

There is a rational basis for morality: utilitarianism. It is a rational basis for the Golden Rule and assuming that given the equality of our human desires, properly run utilitarianism sets up protections against moral relativism, because evil actions "for the greater good" are not justifiable if a better alternative is available, which is almost always the case

Utilitarianism solves most moral dilemmas without having to resort to religion, or, for that matter, any of Immanuel Kant's a priori categorical imperative nonsense. Though the categorical imperative is another rational basis for morality, it is much less straightforward, appealing to nontangible (yet non-spiritual) things.

How about happiness? My objective is to be a happy or a healthy individual. My morals revolve around that absolute goal.

"I'm not going to go deep into philosophy because honestly, I'm not great at it."

ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!!!

lol joking...

Well you see my friend, that is a fair point but the question of the subjective and objective nature of morals without an authority is a question hard to answer but is an important one.

Me and friends debate about these things and frankly if its religion vs atheists, religion loses.
If it is God/spiritualism/higher power vs atheists, then it always ends up as a tie.

Right. In the Aristotlean sense of the word, "Happiness" is the goal of all humanity. No-one does not desire to be what i'm going to call "A-Happy" for short, because Aristotle's happiness was not limited to the emotion of joy or enjoyment, but related to the deeper notions of contentment, fulfillment, and a sense of connection with the world, as well as having all of their physical needs and desires met within reason (because overindulgence is not happiness."

Settling A-Happy as the state in which all people desire to live, one must then ask how one can best act in order to both optimize the A-Happy of themselves and others. This then is the route of utilitarianism

So i amend my previous post. It is utilitarianism founded upon the basis of Aristotlean ethics that provides the rational basis for humane morality.

Want to ask did the christians overtrown the romans ?

That would be subjective morality. We're getting back into post-modernism here: If it made one unhappy group of people happy to eliminate another group of people; are they incorrect to wipe out that other group of people?

The people who overthrew the romans had been (or were in the process of being) converted to Christianity, but they were not primarily identified as Christians, since the Romans by that time (talking around the late 300s early 400s AD) were more or less all Christian as well

Thanks for expanding, but I'll be honest I have a difficult time with the term utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism as a term (for me at least, I may have it wrong), conveys a sense of using morals for a pragmatic purpose, and utility comes before the intrinsic value of said moral. But I believe happiness comes when one can transcend utility, and the moral is itself esteemed due to its link to what is good (which our conscience helps us discern).

Why it's a problem to me. If everything is in terms of what is useful and what isn't, well then what happens when something is not useful for me, but it is for my neighbor? I believe a person without religion can help said person, because their conscience (which makes them happy when they follow it) tells them what is right and what is wrong, beyond utility.

In this example, call it a sense of human compassion.