God is required for morality or morals to exist

Theist proponents often assert individual atheists can be good or moral but that there is no rationale for any objective moral standards without a God. Theists assert that a morally perfect lawgiver is required for objective morality to exist. They will also refer to the Bible and reference that in a number of places the Bible states that "God has written the law on our hearts" as a statement that he has provided us with an objective law or morality. These claims by theists don't hold for couple of different reasons and I will examine them here. C1: The God of the Christian Bible is not a morally perfect by current standards of morality in society a) God promotes Murder "Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death...(Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT) "Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death" (Exodus 21:15 NAB) Murder is also promoted in the Bible in Hosea 9:11-16, Isaiah 14:21, and in a few places in Exodus and 1 Kings b) God endorses slavery and prescribes the rules for it Exodus 21:7-11 discussing the selling of daughters into slavery. "Slaves obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve the sincerely as you would serve Christ (Ephesians 6:5 NLT) Exodus 21:2-6 prescribes rules for owning Hebrew slaves. "The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will only be punished lightly. Much is required from those whom much more is given. (Luke 12:47-48 NLT) I would submit to pro that any assertion based on these alone is enough to disqualify the God of the Bible as a morally perfect being. C2: Moral standards do not require a supreme being Morality is the product of human beings interacting as a social species. Let's examine a more precise framework of what morality is. Morality is a system by which to determine how one ought to act. It defines certain actions as good and others as bad. The pivotal question is this: good for what and bad for what? Can a certain act be bad for the rocks in the Earth or good for the stars in the sky? Only metaphorically. Nothing is good or bad to inanimate matter, but to human beings, it can be so. You can poison the soil, but that is not bad for the soil; it is as well off polluted as pristine. It is only bad for the creatures that depend on the soil. Therefore, morality can be better defined as a system by which to determine how one ought to act to the benefit of human beings. Based on this concept of morality we can see that what is moral is what produces the greatest benefit for the greatest number. We determine this based on reason and empathy. We understand for example that murder is not beneficial to the greatest number of humans and we avoid that activity and punish it. The development of this objective framework of rules does not require the authoritarianism of a supreme being or God. Humans have developed ethics and morality based on social conventions and utility not divine rule. This is why the civil law often does not correspond to the laws of a particular religious faith. I look forward to Pro's arguments.