In UK atheists considred more moral than theists.

[Angrboda]

But Jeffrey Dahmer did love his neighbor!  The only person being dumb here is you, Huggy.  I asked you where your morals come from and you quote me what you think are moral truths.  That doesn't answer the question of where these morals came from.  It only tells me that you think those commands are moral.  I presume that you think morals such as "love thy neighbor" come from God.  Which gets us back to the original question.  Where did God get his morals from?  If he didn't get them from anywhere but himself, then they are just arbitrary, they are simply whatever he happened to believe for no particular reason whatsoever, he just pulled them out of his ass.  If that's the case, then his morals are no better than ones that I make up on my own out of thin air.  If there is no foundation for his morals, then they are no more right than anybody else's ideas on morals.

So I'll ask you again, if you get your morals from God, where did he get his morals from?

Still playing dumb I see..

God is omniscient, which by definition means his decisions are always perfect, they cannot be improved upon.

If God's morals are based upon himself, and that truly is the foundation of morals, then they are still arbitrary. Knowing that something is such and so doesn't make it being such and so any less arbitrary. If I were to consider my views on abortion to be the foundation of proper views on abortion, my knowing that doesn't make those views any less arbitrary. The problem is the circularity involved in having God be the source of morals, and his simply knowing that he is the source of morals. Both may be true and yet his morals would still be arbitrary. The only way out of that conundrum is to base his morals on something else, but you have not argued that he does this, so we are left with the same arbitrariness which you find problematic about what you believe to be atheist morals.

God is love, and love encompasses everything that is right and good, therefore 'love' is inherently moral.

According to whom or what is that the case? If it's only according to God, then, as noted above, it's simply arbitrary. If that's the case, then you're hypocritical for faulting what you consider to be atheist morals for their arbitrariness because your morals suffer the same flaw.

Where there is no love, then there is need for law, for love does not need to be told how to behave.

If you love your spouse, you do not have to be told "thou shalt not commit adultery", because if you truly loved your spouse you would have no desire to have an affair.

Love is selfless: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

If love is selfless then it's behavior in a moral sense is always objective.

That's assuming an awful lot, but you're still not understanding the basic problem. I can agree that love is selfless, that it removes the need for law, and so forth, without ever granting that the raising of love to the standard for morals is not arbitrary. Again, the question isn't about it being the case both that morals are based upon God and that God says morals are such and so, and that God's omniscience leads us to that conclusion. The question is where God gets the idea that love encompasses what is right and good from? If only from himself, then his morals are no less arbitrary than what you are alluding to as atheist morals. (And I'll simply point out that being an atheist doesn't imply denying moral realism. I don't think you're acknowledging that.) Moreover, we have to ask why God's morals are the definition of what is right. If the answer to that question is "that's simply the way it is," then your morality is arbitrary in an additional sense. (So it's arbitrary for lacking a foundation, as well as being predicated on the idea that God is the source of morals, which, if true, is also arbitrary.)