Kinda an update, but more in reality, discombulated thoughts

Last night taught on Nietzsche. I don't think the class understood the significance of the following claim with reference to morality. I will call this claim the MacIntyre claim or MI for short.

MI: One can either be a theist and believe in some type of supernatural deity and have a basis for morality, OR, one can be a naturalist such as Nietzsche, deny the existence of any type of supernatural being, and hold to morality based upon instinct and emotions.

What is the significance of this claim? There's no basis for morality without belief in some type of God. One does not even have to believe in the "Christian" God. An example of this is Aristotle and Plato, neither one of them held to any type of belief in a Judeao-Christian God, yet they held to a created order in the universe that was a result of some type of deity. But for Nietzsche, everything is random and by chance, one raises one's self above the primordial ooze, so to speak. One's morality is based upon one's passions, if you have the passion to have sex and women refuse your advances, rape is acceptable, because you ought not deny your desires. If you are an artist, all actions are permissable because you are a creator. Nietzsche excuses all actions of artists because they are the closest thing in the world to a 'god.'

Well, why should the class react to this? Because you cannot be moral if you are a non-believer. If you are an atheist, and you are moral, you are moral because you are foolish and weak; you are not strong enough (or smart enough) to be immoral. If you act moral and deny the existence of God, you do not really believe that "God is dead" because you are still living as if there is a God, as if there is order in the universe.

So if I am an atheist, I do not like Nietzsce's claim... if I want to hold to some type of morality.