Then please enlighten me, what is the objective basis for “morals” without God. Nobody has ever been able to answer the question before but maybe you’ll be the first. I anxiously await the response.
***********************************************************
With your supposition that there is/must be a God it is obviously impossible to address your question. Later you said that a religion is ‘required’ to set moral standards. That is your ‘belief’, nothing more. Its unfortunate tho that implicitly you must believe that you can live a higher moral life than I. Hmmmmmm ‘unfortunate’ isn’t the right word.
Actually I never said whether I believe in a God one way or the other. I merely said without God there is no objective basis for what you call morality or right or wrong. An atheist can easily live a "higher moral life" than a theist but only as defined by the theist. Merely because one presupposes a God doesn't mean they live up to the standards set by that God any better than one who doesn't believe in a God. But if one doesn't believe in a God then there are no standards, only what they personally chose to do or whatever makes them feel best about themseles. Without a God there is no objective basis for saying Hitler was any "worse" a person than Mother Theresa. Every serious philosopher has acknowledged this, even Kant with his cop out of the catagorical imperative.