Replacing Religious Morality

[MindForgedManacle]

Morality is about how one should act within a given society or culture. It is about enculturation and conformity. Moralities change from society to society and from culture to culture.

And saying that demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of morality. Morality is about how one should act, period. It wouldn't matter if you were the only being left alive, how you acted would be dictated by your moral values.
Moralities don't just up an completely change among societies. For all the talk one tends to hear of cultural relativism, people tend to ignore how widespread most fundamental values (preservstion of life in most circumstances, especially) are.

Our moral values are not just something that we are born with, those values come from somewhere. And if you study morals, values and ethics not every single value or moral is based on reason, in fact most moral codes are based on something other than reason. It is our milieu, our cultural and social environment that dictates what we view as right or wrong. All moral values are cultural.

And why we have certain values are in fact largely in-built. Humans have natural dispositions toward and against certain things. Why do we usually care about those suffer in pain, and why do we value preventing suffering in the first place? Because we've always known what pain was like, and most people come built with some level of empathy. This is an embryo of how we actually develop our basal moral values. They're founded in how we are as creatures.

I will defend my claim once you define what an objective right or wrong is and give me an example thereof. By the way the burden of proof falls upon those making the positive claim not me. Just like theist have the burden of proof fall upon them when they make the positive claim that god exists, so that same burden falls upon those who claim an objective right or wrong.

And if an atheist says "There are no gods", they have just as much a BoP as theists who claim to know there is one. Your claim was that there is no objective right and wrong. I already defended my view of it in the post above yours.