How much pain can atheists withstand ?

[The End of Atheism]

For what it's worth, appealing to God's nature rather than his subjectivity has the same problem as noted in the original formulation of the Euthyphro Dilemma.  In the original dilemma addressing Divine Command Theory, the Euthyphro asks whether God's commandments are moral because God commands it, or whether God commands it because it is moral.  Replacing the subjective element with that of God's nature yields a comparable dilemma.  Are God's commandments based upon his nature good because it is God's nature, or are the commandments moral because God's nature is good?  In the former, God's goodness is merely definitional, in the latter, the good has definition independent of God.  Nerither horn of the dilemma yields you a moral commandment that is moral by virtue of it coming from God.  Indeed, in the latter case, if the good has a definition that God's nature meets, then God becomes entirely superfluous and we can just dispense with the middleman, God, and appeal directly to what is good and moral.  In neither case is God the source of morals.

Although I'm not really familiar with the dilemma, it sounds too good to be true. If you're right, we have a prima facie reason to dismiss classical theism. It's well known though, that there are no clinching arguments against theism. I'm not saying that because I'm a theist, no, that's simply what the leading atheist philosophers today are saying.

Here's my (attempted) response to the dilemma above: you can't coherently define what's good outside the religious framework, maybe we can even say that good is exactly what God does, without being incoherent. With this defintiion, it doesn't seem to me that there is a dilemma.