Morals are determined according to observed negative or positive outcomes of actions, not derived from an authoritative source. Even if it were, the three major modern monotheistic religions (Jewish, Christian and Muslim) holy books contain morals that the majority of the population would objectively find deplorable. (slavery, genocide, misogyny, santioned murder, incest, pedophilia, etc.)
In what instances is it morally right to abuse and neglect an infant? I'd really like someone to tell me that. Knowing what we know, largely thanks to the sciences, rather than the bible, about what is conducive to the health and well being of our species, to the ability to prosper and lead fulfilling lives, how could we still think there is no good reason other than the promise of reward in some afterlife to behave towards each other and towards ourselves in the best manner possible?
Personally, I think there are lots of things which are morally reprehensible universally (genocide being another) and I find it baffling that anyone could argue otherwise. That's life though, that's people, they reserve the right to baffle us at every turn.
I believe that things can definitely be morally wrong, whether God exists or not. Whether or not we believe that God exists, the vast majority of us still realize that things like hurting others, stealing from others and killing people are still wrong. A belief in God only puts a different religious slant on morality.
I feel that morals openly exist independently of God or religion. While many people turn to God or religion for moral direction, there are many non-believers that are perfectly moral people who are kind, generous and caring. Since we are not sure that God exists, and we still operate under the blanket of morality, it should be noted that religion and morality may be linked, but they are not mutually exclusive.
As an atheist, I don't believe intrinsically objective morals exist. Throughout time, we have seen the acceptance and reprehension of very different and contradicting moral codes. Throughout various times in the past, we see the approval of slavery, human sacrifice, pedophilia, and many other practices which today are nearly axiomatically scorned; in fact, in some regions and cultures, these practices are still accepted as morally legitimate today. Therefore, if a truly objective morality exists, why does our perception of what is moral and immoral change drastically with the times? Obviously moral codes are a learned concept, not something naturally inherent within the individual, and all arguments to the contrary are impeded upon by the facts mentioned above. As we continue to progress and learn as a species, I believe we will be better equipped to identify which morals are most desirable, pragmatic, and advantageous for human society. If there is a divine standard of objective morality put in place by an omniscient deity, it is obviously not instilled within the human species as a whole; moreover, those who wish to define objective morality as "that which is put in place by God" must ultimately face the Euthyphro dilemma.
With god, there is objective meaning. Without a higher power, it is all relative. Might will be right, up will be down, and we will be dead soon. What else are morals going to come form. Not Nature. Not humans, they cannot agree. Either god or there are none.
The natural world is a perfect example of a world without morality; animals kill each other all the time without thinking. There is no higher authority, simply the law of the jungle. Humans are more sophisticated, and some endeavor to live for a higher purpose, but many others follow the same rough code of the natural world. Without a "final authority," there is no true, universal morality. Of course, since nobody knows whether or not God exists, that means nobody knows if there ultimately is some universal concept of morality either.