Watasch and Freemont, I think this is a fascinating discussion, and props to you both.
The problem with debating "morality," its origins, its causes, and its effects is that a definition of "morality" will always be imprecise, subjective and ilusive. As Watasch puts it:
"Any group can claim to have morals, that is one thing most groups do claim. However what may be moral in one group may well be deemed immoral by another. Who is to say "your moral is better than mine" is the question."
The question here seems to be two-fold: First, can there be a morality with the existence of God or, at least, without the belief in God? And second, is morality objective, or is it defined by socio-cultural mores, and mores that apply in a given place at a given time?
Freemont, I'm very unclear what you mean when you say, "I do not think any Deity is needed for Morality to exist. Darwin takes care of that." Over and above the fact that, as Watasch points out, "Survival of the Fittest" is not a Darwinian concept (it is, rather, a sociological metaphor formed from Darwin's biological observations), morality is, in essence, anti-Darwinian, since morality, in its most basic definition, means taking steps to contradict this theory and take actions -- be they laws, social mores, communal peer pressure, etc. -- to ensure that the weakest survive and the strongest do not triumph.
So, why act morally? Or, looping back to this thread's topic, can morality exist without God? Though a definition of God as "first cause" (Aristotle) or "un-caused cause" (Aquinas) is traditional, at least in the West, religion, or a belief in God, includes more than that, positioning God as a fatherly providence, a loving guide, and the like. Thus, in this context, morality flows either perfectly, out of a desire not to offend God, or imperfectly, out of a desire not to be subject to God's punishment, either in this life, or in the afterlife. This essentially sums up the Judeo-Christian, and in many ways, Western tradition.
Yet people do act morally, again under the looser definition of the term, without this belief in God, either as Father or as Punisher. I would argue that the arguments regarding repressive tyrants ultimately meeting their end -- "Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, Mao, Pol Pot" (and dozens of others throughout human history) -- does not flow from a lack of morality, but rather, the combination of many causes and forces working together (e.g. the basic human desire to exercise basic human freedoms). But despite the flaws in this particular example, it is clear from even a cursory examination of history that people, and even entire societies, so act morally for "human" reasons, and not strictly based on a belief in God.
It's worthwhile to note that questioning the existence of an "objective morality" (with or without God) is a relatively modern concept. The belief in the existence of an objective morality was posited by most societies throughout history up until recent times. To take just one example, contrary to the widely-held myth, when Jefferson compose the text to the Declaration of Independence, the document was not accepted as a whole and as is, but it was subject to fierce debate, and a long series of edits and emendations. Yet the most famous words from the document, which begin the text after the introduction -- "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." -- were accepted without question or comment. The existence of objective truth (or truths) was universally assumed.
It's interesting to apply this discussion by examining the basic tenets of modern-day Western liberalism. Despite it's flaws and contradictions -- and a healthy dollop of self-service -- it posits a need to respect, by law if necessary, other people, especially those outside the majority, based on their common humanity. And violation of these tenets of respect and support are deemed wrong based on the denial of those minorities of the basic tenets of humanity. Though it's by and large a secular undertaking, it's still an example of a belief in a common, perhaps even objective, morality.
Finally, while I agree with Watasch that "KB is not a religious nor philosophical board," it is, as per the vision of its Founder, a discussion Board, and discussions about religion and philosophy -- and morality -- have as much a place here as discussions related to sex, in its many forms and expressions. I admit that while pondering these profound topics I've had a hard time keeping my mind from drifting to that mouth-watering little gif that IdleBoast posted the other day. But I don't see these two things as in any way incompatible.