Ah, okay. Well, in this case I feel one can know it is one or the other. Either there are absolute rights and wrongs or there are not. I don't see any in-between for this. So if you believe in God, you can easily believe there are absolute rights and wrongs, defined by our Creator. If you don't then in reality I don't see any true way to identify absolute rights and wrongs. Really, even those things which most atheists and agnostics hold to be right and wrong are only so because of values they have received in their culture. Even in religious cultures of ancient history, people did not value human life the way we do, and often would kill each other for various reasons without doing anything wrong, according to their cultural standards. Who is the atheist to judge them for doing so? They did what was right, according to their standards. Atheists have their own standards, which didn't just come to them as simply self-evident truths, but actually through a process of evolving culture. And as culture continues to evolve, the standards of mankind will continue to change. Thus, if there is no God, then there is no absolute right and wrong. See my point.
And I feel like I may be coming off as passive-aggressive yet again, but it seems to me that you often ignore the bulk of my arguments and attempt to deflate them by pointing out some small wording problem. Really, I think I present a very strong case, one that all non-believers must contend with as they argue their POV. Their standards aren't absolute.
As you said before, religion crams their morals down everyone's throats. I fail to see how the different morals of non-believers is not similarly crammed. There is no issue that has no moral grounding. Let's look at the VP debates last year. Joe Biden=Catholic. Paul Ryan=Catholic. The point was raised that this is the first time this has ever happened, and the logical question followed regarding the sanctity of life in the unborn child. Joe Biden's response: yes, I believe that unborn life is still sacred, and I personally oppose abortion, but I do not believe in forcing others to accept my moral viewpoint. How is that any different from any other law. Mandated healthcare is indeed forcing others to accept the viewpoint that we must all work together to ensure everyone's health can be taken care of, even though there is a valid argument that everyone should be more independent (that's a simplistic argument, but it shows what I'm getting at). Every action we take, every view we hold is based on some moral premise. And every time religion tries to cram some moral down someone's throat, some non-believer tries to cram some other moral down the religious person's throat. That is life in this world of individuals, I guess, and I'm tired of non-believers claiming that somehow they have risen above such "pettiness".