(I'm new) Objective morality MUST exist.

1) Atheists say we as a society collectively determine our morals. And that they can sometimes change or evolve. So what happens if the larger majority of our collective society decide tomorrow that rape is morally acceptable because it propagates reproduction and therefore our species will grow and be stronger? Obviously this is hypothetical but I'm saying this to say that your, the atheists explanation is totally arbitrary. 2) Atheists always sound like they are evolutionists. But the foundation of the evolutionary theory is that "nature selects the strongest and the weak don't survive" so according to this worldview Hitler was right in trying to exterminate the Jews because he perceived that his race was the strongest and it is therefore his evolutionary prerogative to weed out the weak. That's the one of the foundational principles of evolution but yet you are not saying that when it comes to morality. Instead you say that nurturing and caring for the weak is how the species survive? Sounds a bit contradictory to me. 3) Atheists often quote Professor Larry Arnhart, he says that morality is basically social norms : > "Evolution has produced the requisites for morality: a tendency to develop social norms and enforce them, the capacities of empathy and sympathy, mutual aid and a sense of fairness, the mechanisms of conflict resolution, and so on. Evolution has also produced the unalterable needs and desires of our species: the need of the young for care, a desire for high status, the need to belong to a group, and so forth." (Arnhart) But some societies have norms that we would find deplorable. Cultures that still practice female mutilation, child sacrifice, and child rape. We would condemn that as evil but certain cultures see these behaviors as acceptable. My question to you would be who's right? Us or them? It sounds like according to your belief system if it's a social norm and culturally acceptable then it's ok? What I'm getting at is: A) Morality cannot just be a chemical reaction in our brain because if that were the case then we couldn't condemn any act of evil as wrong seeing that the perpetrator was just following a chemical reaction in his or her brain. and B) Morality cannot be just a set of social norms because there are cultures and societies with different norms. How do we know who ultimately has the "right" norm? Solution: See in the Christian Biblical worldview that answer is easy. Which norm is closer to Gods nature? That's the one that is ultimately right. How do we know Gods nature? We are created in his image so it is innate in us but not through evolution. Evolution if examined internally has no need for morality. Cats kill mice all the time without being condemned because that's what the stronger species is supposed to do on an evolutionary worldview. And to be clear I never stated that you had to believe in the God of the Bible in order to behave morally. But what I said was the God of the Bible has to exist in order for us to account for objective moral values. Without the Christian God all we would have is subjective morality. You make the rules. Do as you see fit. Or as your chemical brain reaction tells you to behave. But we could not live that way. Atheist and evolutionist alike depend on the Christian worldview to make sense of morality cogently. Without the Christian Biblical God one can only arbitrarily account for morality wit conjecture and personal opinion.