I would disagree.
You can be in one of three states:
moral
ethical
legal
Without God you can not be moral, it maybe possible to be ethical.
Since ethics are in general based on morality it may not be possible to even be ethical.
So I believe without God the best state one can be in is legal.
“So I believe without God the best state one can be in is legal.”
You can believe whatever you want. What matters is behaviour. Does belief in God prevent a Mafia Don from ordering a hit? Is he more moral than the ‘atheist’ who goes to work every day to make an honest living?
You seem to be inventing your own definition of "moral," though -- essentially claiming that "moral" is equivalent to the absolute set of principles about which I spoke. But that's begging the question -- it is precisely the meaning of "moral" that is at issue here.
If, instead, we go to the dictionary, we find moral defined as follows:
1 a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical [moral judgments] b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior [a moral poem] c: conforming to a standard of right behavior d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment [a moral obligation]
There is no logical requirement for this definition to be grounded in any absolute sense -- as shown by the existence of various forms of moral relativism, such as the moral systems based on utilitarianism, social Darwinism, or hedonism.
To fully communicate the meaning, you've got to add in a modifier (e.g., "relative," or "subjective," or "absolute") to provide the proper sense of the term.
Without God you can not be moral, it maybe possible to be ethical. Since ethics are in general based on morality it may not be possible to even be ethical.
This is precisely what I'm talking about: one can certainly be "ethical" without reference to God, as ethical behavior is nothing more than "conforming to accepted standards of conduct." But even "might makes right" imposes standards.... and those standards which (as you note) are essentially defined by a moral system.
So I believe without God the best state one can be in is legal.
Legal is a rather vague term in this context -- I get the idea that you're using it in the sense of "conforming to or permitted by law or established rules." In that sense, it would seem to be a formalization of "ethical," but still in some sense based on an underlying moral system ... which, again, is not logically required to have any particular absolute basis.
The question is not morality per se, that is really at issue; but rather the nature and basis for morality.