Yarg, you all sure make it hard to lurk successfully.
As others have said, it does depend on what you mean by morality. If morals are relative, of course there doesn't need to be a basis on God. Relativity implies that there is no basis, it's a free-for-all, essentially. That is generally what the moral argument for God is about. If one can prove that morals exist in an a priori, infinite, and universal way, then their cause would, by definition, be God. Whether or not it's the Christian God would still be up for debate, but the point is that they would be grounded in some superior, immutable *being*. If this being doesn't exist, then there's no immutable law, because we would have preceeded it. "Existence preceeds essence", right?
This is basically existentialism. In spite of the massive amount of "yes" votes on this poll, several notable atheists would vote no. Nietzsche would obviously be one, as well as Sartre.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm
PS: Hey there, all. I've been lurking here for years and never really bothered to post. How goes it? I hope this isn't a poor way to stroll onto the scene, sort of...
