The Biblical God is Immoral

Pro has decided that morality is objective. If pro was raised in an Islamic country, which I doubt, he realizes that Muslims would not deem this as immoral. Islam composes 1/3 of the world's population. 1/3 of the world at minimal, disagrees with pro. If Pro was born and raised in a Christianized country, he is basing his "morality" off of Christian "morality". There was a time in history, not all that long ago, where Atheism had no real voice and was not even a logical stance due to there being no other realistic argument outside of god(s). Every region of Earth has been significantly influenced by a religion. -Richard Dawkins- "The majority of children born into the world tend to inherit the beliefs of their parents." This would include Pro. For example, if Pro was born in the U.S. or Europe, both areas were heavily influenced by Christianity, which decided laws and morality concepts passed down in these cultures. In Islamic countries, where Christianity has little to no influence, morality is defined different. Muslims would deem the actions of God that Pro deemed "immoral" as perfectly moral. Saudi Arabia executed at least 157 people by beheading last year for breaking "morality laws" under the Sharia. The death sentence is not deemed as immoral to them. http://www.theguardian.com... Muslims approve of stoning adulterers. So breaking "morality laws" is a death sentence under the Sharia. The death sentence is not deemed immoral. http://www.pewresearch.org... So I ask the question, "What does Pro define as 'moral', and how does he determine what is moral?" Pro is an Atheist. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god(s). So there is no objective morality to Pro. There is no power declaring what is moral and what is not moral to an Atheist. Pro has taken it upon himself to declare what is "moral" based on his Christian culture passing down a sense of what is moral to him despite now being an Atheist. Atheism concludes that we are simply the remenant of natural selection. -Richard Dawkins- "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life) Without a God, there is no morality. There is no right. There is no wrong. We are just animals replicating dna and trying to survive through "survival of the fittest". An Atheist can not deem me "immoral" for doing what I need to do to consume and destroy anything other than myself. If there is an omnipotent God, He decides what is moral, thus He cannot be immoral because He defines morality based off of who He is and what He would do. -Richard Dawkins- "We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment." (Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene) -- My next point is that Pro does not believe the Biblical God exists. So how can you claim someone who "does not exist" is immoral? -- Pro must show us why the Biblical God commanded in Exodus 35:2 “Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.” Pro must show us the Biblical God's motives and the reason for this command. Then Pro must define morality and explain to us why his version of morality is correct without a God to define any objective morality in the first place. Pro, who is an Atheist, must show us why morality exists at all if we are simply the products of natural selection, the survival of the fittest.