Please clarify your comment. Are you claiming that there is no objective morality (nothing that is intrinsically good or intrinsically bad REGARDLESS of anyone's opinions on the topic or the alleged consequences thereof)? Are you claiming that there is no objective reality (nothing that exists w/o any observers & REGARDLESS of what any observer(s) may think)? If not, then what are the sources of objective morality or objective reality? I think you'll see that these sources are functional equivalents of god. If, however, you deny objective morality & objective reality, I think you'll see that your thoughts are pretty meaningless & petty - after all, what does it matter if there's no reality & no morality? It's all arbitrary at that point.

Look, I'll be clear: I doubt you think the Holocaust was bad because people think it was bad. I doubt you think the morality of slavery depends upon the net consequences of slavery. I doubt you think the universe is only a fantasy or that we can't be sure it really exists. All of your thoughts depend upon some sense of objective morality & reality, there are some things you believe are TRUE, but can't be proven in any meaningful sense. Therefore, there must be some source of truth, which is your god, the thing you worship.

We can play semantic games, but that's just the facts: we need some god or we can't manage any higher thoughts. Even the most complex math depends upon the idea that 2 + 2 = 4 (some truth that we agree is true, but can't really be proven because 2 is simply defined to be that which, when added to itself, is that which we define as 4, and we agree this is real truth - not just consensus or tautology - because math works, it's real. If we won't make that assumption, we can't do math - we're just doodling in #'s.)

At some point, we all hit upon god; we're just fighting over which one(s).