One of the things that annoys me about the study of philosophy is how frequently philosophers equate "God" with "Absolutes." Even atheistic philosophers generally concede to the claim that, if God* exists, it naturally follows that there is an objective morality, truths about experience, right and wrong aesthetic judgement, etc. This really bothers me. I can't see any sense in which, if God existed, it would be anything other than just another mind, thinking and acting within the universe. Its conclusions would, therefore, be just as subject to the criticisms raised by nihilism and relativism than anyone else's. Its positions would be better informed, but if there's no moral law in the universe outside God, its positions are just as subjective as everyone else's. On the other hand, if there were universal moral laws built into the physical law of the universe, then there's no need for God to vouchsafe them.
You could argue that God has access to the moral laws that humans don't, but then God is just an intermediary -- a glorified Priest, officiating the will of the real Deity, the uncaring universe. In that case, the only advantage God gives us is as a tool of increased perception. From there, all the traditional problems of the existence of God are still present, but if you argue that, you would have to concede that even if there was a God, there's still objective right and wrong.
I'll be posting my Pulp Fiction post later tonight, but this was bugging me so I wanted to get it down.
And, for the record, I think meaning and morality are inherently subjective premises, and the most valid way to sort out which elements can be extended beyond the individual is pragmatism.
*I'm capitalizing it because I'm using the term to refer to a single, omnipotent, universal entity, rather than the broader sense of god which would include more limited, personal gods like Zeus or Jesus.