Does Objective Morality Require God?

Does objective morality really require God?  Some say yes, others say no.  It has always seemed absurd to me that an atheist would say that there can be objective morality without God, sense there are no possible grounds for truly objective morality other than a supernatural.  If the grounds are natural, after all, they could not be objective because they would rely on nature, which is finite.  Furthermore, it would be impossible to determine which natural basis for morality would be the correct one.

However, there are many perfectly intelligent people who believe otherwise, so to see if I could find a good argument for such a view, I googled "does objective morality require God".  As I expected, all of the arguments I wasted my time reading were founded on a complete misunderstand of what objective means, or at least what I mean by it.  By objective morality, I mean morality that is not reliant on subjective opinions or mere preferences, but that everyone would be unquestionably compelled to obey.  The most popular arguments were that objective morality exists without God because it is actually based on evolving cultural trends, based on the fact that when society benefits, the individual benefits as well.  They claim that the feeling based inside every one of us that certain things are right and others are wrong are there because of human evolution within society.  Although I suppose this might sound great at first, I just don't think it holds any water.

When you think about it, although it seems rational enough, this argument requires the premise that it is obligatory to do what's best for yourself or society.  (I say "or" because I do not think that benefiting society benefits the individual in all cases.)  This premise is completely unfounded.  If there is no God, life is an accident and it has no meaning.  If life has no meaning, there is no reason why anyone should be obliged to benefit anyone, including themselves.  If there is no God, then there is no reason why anyone should do anything in particular.  With no heaven or hell, then there would be nothing wrong with everyone doing what was right in their own eyes.  Just because someone wants to benefit society or themselves doesn't mean that they are any better someone who wants to enjoy themselves recklessly and ruin their own lives and the lives of others.  With this premise disproved, the argument is completely illogical.  After all, although one could certainly have morality of some sort, it would not be objective morality.

Why is objective morality important?  Can't we just all live our lives according to our own moral values?  Some say that it isn't, but if anyone wants pass judgement on any actions then they must have a reason that their morality is better than everyone else's.  The only way to really validate such a claim is if there is objective morality.  Otherwise there is really no reason to be able to say that Hitler's actions were better than Mother Teresa's.  One could say that Mother Teresa benefited society and herself, but one could not say that Hitler was morally obligated to benefit society.  The vast majority of people may agree that Hitler's actions were worse, but without objective morality they would have no reason for their assertion that therefor Hitler's actions were worse.  I won't go as far as to assert that the existence of these human feelings proves that there is objective morality, because I can't really say for sure that evolution wouldn't be able to create such arbitrary feelings, but I think it at least puts the atheist in a rather uncomfortable position, since they can't legitimately say that religion is evil anymore, since they're worldview isn't even compatible with objective good and evil.  (Plus, there are plenty of other good arguments for the existence of a God.)