If you consider objective reality dependent on the subject, then no. In this concept of objective reality there is no contradiction. — EugeneW

This is not what you find if you look for “objective” in any dictionary. See, for example, here:

“In most of its common uses, objective is contrasted with subjective, often as if it’s the opposite. Objective most commonly means not influenced by an individual’s personal viewpoint”

or here:

“In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity”.

You can say this in everyday life language, which is a language that doesn't need to be exact, precise. But, if you want to talk in a proper philosophical way, what you said is a contradiction: "objective" , in a rigorous philosophical way, means absolutely independent from anybody. So, if you instead make it relative by adding "for me", it becomes contradictory. It is like saying "in my opinion this fact is independent from my opinion"; in everyday language this can be accepted, but philosophically it becomes meaningless or contradictory. Being able to build a sentence that is grammatically correct doesn't automatically guarantee that the sentence makes sense or has a meaning.
If a fact is really objective, you must be able to say "This is not my opinion, this is a fact". You can say "In my opinion this is not my opinion", but this is not philosophy, this is careless common language. Absolute objectivity is what Descartes tried to find: his effort was to find something about which you can say "This is not my opinion and I don't even say that I think that it is not my opinion; this is just a fact, undeniable for everybody". This is the true absolute objectivity that Descartes wanted to reach and this is what we mean when we say "objective" in a philosophical sense. A philosopher would never say "I think that this is objective".
Something similar can be found in everyday language when we say "Two plus two are four". It is not easy to find people saying "In my opinion 2+2=4". Normally they claim that it is not their opinion, it is just a fact, so that, in that case, adding "in my opinion" doesn't make sense even in everyday language.

there is an objectivity to be found — Possibility

Whatever objective you think you found is interpreted by you, so how can you say that it is objective?

Even our idea of natural selection, however we describe it, is a human interpretation. Even when we support our ideas with scientific evidence, it is still us managing how to interpret the elements offered by science. We can’t avoid interpreting. Interpreting means that we cannot find anything objective, because whatever we consider is automatically filtered, adapted, changed, by our action of interpreting. The very ideas of logic and randomness are human interpretations.

Cidat — Cidat

It looks like you are confusing how things work when we try to explain nature by logic. When we are able to predict the behaviour of an object, or an animal, this does not mean that the object, or the animal, is behaving according to our human extremely limited, I would even say stupid, logic. It is the opposite: we have built a logic that we adapted to what we observe in phenomenons, in order to gain some understanding and some mastering on those phenomenons. Logic has been built on events, not events on logic. Logic obeys to events, not events to logic. The fact that events seem to obey to some logic is just a human hypothesis, a mental frame, to try to understand nature.
That’s the reason why we haven’t been able to build a complete, comprehensive logic, able to explain everything so far. Think about this: why should nature obey to the ridiculous logic, miserable mental frames, poor schemes, petty rational systems, created by humans?

Any argument in this world, including theistic and non theistic arguments, can be easily demolished with some criticism.
For example, no argument is able to give proof that tomorrow nobody will be able to discover flaws and mistakes in it. No argument is able to be independent from the person who thinks of it. No argument is able to avoid leading to an infinite chain of explanations if we ask “why?” to it and to the answers given to “why?”.

According to Lewis’ argument

- the planet earth is flat, because those who believed it was flat weren’t lunatics, nor liars;
- the ancient Egyptian Pharaoh was truly a God, because he wasn’t lunatic, nor liar;
- Hitler was right in all his thoughts and actions, because he wasn’t lunatic, nor liar;
- it is true that God does and does not exist at the same time, because both atheists and believers are not lunatic, nor liars;
- everything is true, no matter if it conflicts with anything else, provided that at least somebody not lunatic nor liar sometime believed it was true;
- we don’t need to make any scientific research in this world: what we need is just being persuaded that something is true, provided that we are not lunatic, nor liars. It doesn’t matter if our ideas conflict with each other, nor with reality: what is important is just not being lunatic, nor liar;

We need just some creativity to realize the funniest consequences of Lewis’ argument.

I would like to understand what you are arguing about.

I think that Descartes failed in finding something able to resist the attack of doubting. His reasoning is exposed to a lot of criticism, it can be easily demolished.
If an objective reality belongs to a group, then it's not objective. In order for something to be really philosophically objective, it must be universal, absolute, independent from any opinion, otherwise it is relative, subjective. If I say "I think that this thing is objective", the sentence is a contradiction, because, if that objectivity depends from "I think", then it's not objective, it's just my opinion, it is subjective. This applies also to groups.

I think that any agreement or disagreement from other people can’t set any ultimate support abot reality, because, ultimately, whatever they say is interpreted and filtered by our brain. In practical life a few elements are fine to accept some ideas about reality, but philosophy wants the ultimate, the universal, and for this purpose anything we say cannot grant anything, because it is human, subjective. My conclusion is that we, as humans, cannot claim any absolute certainty about the existence of reality, of any reality, even of ourselves, although Descartes thought that he was able to.