Yep, my take would be,
"God doesn't listen to you, why should I?"

Since there is no god, the conversation is an insanity. And the bible was written by stupendously ignorant men, so quoting the bible is another insanity.

I prefer to believe that morality is possible because there is no god.

He is right, the only way you can have objective morality is with a god. For me morality is both interesting and important, however, it is never objective, instead it is always subjective. It is subject to science. Here is a good argument against objective morality.

For me, whilst science doesn't tell us everything, it is the only thing that can tell us anything at all. Without science there is no morality. So just explain to this person that you can point out immorality in the bible based upon an open minded, secular, humanist and scientific approach to morality.

If, “He says the only place you get objective morality is from god” - then we know his entire premise is wrong. That leaves him fooling himself, not us, having acquired our morals from those we trusted and who cared enough to share theirs. Don’t let him set false guidelines, then claim you’ve not met them. He’s got the splaining to do - not you

You first have to agree on what morality is, then you have to agree on how one can decide whether an action is moral or not.

Personally I base my morality on wellbeing and the good of society. Would I want this done to me? If he says that morality only comes from his god, then he is amoral and cannot make moral judgements, because he must agree that the actions of his god are moral.

If he agrees that morality is based on the wellbeing of the individual and society, then there is no god needed.