The origin of human morality is an omnipotent god

In response to your argument 1 .Real moral obligation is a fact.2. Either the atheistic view of reality is correct or the "religious" one.3. But the atheistic one is incompatible with there being moral obligation.4.Therefore the "religious" view of reality is correct. #1, no, real moral expression is a fact, "obligation" is a completely separate matter which assumes an external entity we are obligated to. As far as morality, all we can assert plainly is an obligation to ourselves as that's what moral sense is. I might go so far to say we have an obligation to eachother, but this does not extend to an obligation to god. In #2 - #4 you're saying, "either atheists are right or theists are right. Since atheist's view isn't possibly compatible with moral obligation, theists must be right" This is a false dichonomy. Even if the atheistic view is wrong, it doesn't automatically make you right.In #3 you assert this without supporting evidence or reason. The atheist view of morality is in line with darwinian evolution and scientific fact. It also gives us a perfectly reasonable explanation for moral obligation: It is evolutionarily benefitial to exhibit behaviors analogous to what we humans call "moral," even if the individual does not survive or receive a direct benefit, it helps the species survive as a whole.----Many social animals... exhibit what Michael Shermer refers to as premoral sentiments.attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, deception and deception detection, community concern and caring about what others think about you, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group.http://en.wikipedia.org...----Regarding the source of morality1 From something less than me2 From me 3 From society 4 From godHere's one that you didn't include: From evolutionary pressures, slowly rewarding over millions of years the behaviors in social species that make them adhere to rules of fairness, reciprocity, mutual aid, cooperation and altruism. These pressures created the sense of "moral obligation" we have to ourselves, our families, and our broader community, because sometimes it was the species that developed a sense of "moral obligations" that survived. But sometimes not.Regarding "Is there really Moral Authority?""I will say that there needs to be moral authority in order for there to be some degree of objective morality" Moral authority--is that an obligator, or moral creator? Couldn't we have "objective morality" simply with a deistic god rather than a theistic? That is, a creator without judgement."if these moral authorities are bound to desire and want, then there is no moral standard on which desires can be judged"I don't really follow this sentence at all. Why are moral authorities bound to desire and want?"If there is a desire to feed the hungry, I would be stating something about my own wants and desires, nothing else."Maybe that's true. Maybe there is no such thing as true altruism: maybe people just do good things because it makes them feel good.Responding to your responsesYou mention the advocacy of slavery in the Bible. Slaves during biblical times in that area were treated very differently than slaves in the 19th century.Would it even matter if it were 'less bad' than some other form of slavery? Does it seem moral to hold captive someone from another place and keep them as a "low class worker" away from their own society and families? Who could be called moral and not question this?People choose which passages to focus on and how to interpret them to arrive at some sense of morality that's congruent with the culture and where and then they are. The history of bible interpretation shows it is blatantly linked to people's perception and objective at that time.----"Defenders of slavery noted that in the Bible, Abraham had slaves. They point to the Ten Commandments, noting that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, ... nor his manservant, nor his maidservant." In the New Testament, Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master, and, although slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, Jesus never spoke out against it."http://www.ushistory.org...-----Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.... You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)-----You are choosing which way you want to interpret it, and there are many readers of the bible that actively lobby for racism, for antisemitism, for homophobia and for war. You have no more “correctness” in your interpretation than any other person on the planet. When I say it is evil and not a good foundation for morality, it's because it objectively contains some widly wicked, crazy, horrible ideas about what consistutes moral behavior and what should be rewarded. That does not mean it’s impossible to forge good values from it, but you’re forging morality out of the bible, and the hammer you use is your true, darwinian and human, sense of morality.You also did not address my point: that you do not read something in the bible and just take it at face value as it commands you to do. You filter and choose which commandments to take and emphasize based on an arbitrary (that is, your personal) pre-existing moral sense.you have to consider the context of when God created these commandments. The Jews had just been worshiping a golden calf, so of course the commandment, "No graven images or likenesses" was at the forefront of God's mind. I would say please research the context of what you are saying.With all the rape, torture and warfare that was going on, not to mention an infant mortality rate of at best 1 in 3 (http://www.understandingyourancestors.com...), that's the best God could come up with? How about "thou shalt wash your hands before birthing", "thou shalt breast feed", or "thou shalt not judge others by the color of their skin". Sounds way more important than people looking at golden cows. This is a demonstration of flawed moral judgement.At best you've argued that god's teachings are out of date and doesn't reflect what you, I, or "the west" view as important. We have an updated sense of moral priority today, one that was hard faught for in the philosophy, anthropology, psychiatry and science departments, but not as much from the world’s religions.If anything, the fact that dolphins and other animals have created a moral system even more points to a creator.Just as people say that all of science points towards just how awesome their god is. The point is that the system works without the assumption of a god. You are going beyond the realm of what is knowable and provable and asserting something without evidence or reason to believe it to be true.Further, if 'some animals have moral behavior' says there must be a god, what does 'not all animals have moral behavior' say? One way or another? Why?