There are many people that say one cannot have an objective moral standard without god. I, naturally, disagree completely. I think that for a moral standard to be objective, it cannot be relative to a supposed god.
It is necessary to consider what it means for a standard to be objective. It means that, once set, it does not change. An old standard could be discarded and a new one used in its place; but the old standard would give the same measurements as it always did. As an example, the standard meter is defined as the distance between 2 marks on a specific platinum bar housed somewhere in Europe. It is objective, or nearly so, because the spacing of the marks does not change. (Actually, it does change slightly with temperature, so it is not completely objective.)
In the same way, we can get a sense for what would be an objective moral standard. For example a standard that says "It is always wrong to kill" would be objective. It would also have to be rejected because survival requires that we kill plants and/or animals. A standard that says "It is wrong to kill unless god commands the killing" would not be objective. Such a standard changes with the whims of the god -- or, more likely, whoever is claiming to speak for him.
I believe that there is an absolute objective moral standard, though I do not pretend to posess it. Such a standard is what we endeavor to approach as our knowledge of how actions affect other beings increases.