Where do atheists get their morality from?

[DeistPaladin]

Would you agree then that a conscious being able to create the universe, must necessarily have greater power and knowledge than that within the universe which would otherwise be or would be the most powerful and/or most knowledgable?

No.

Just as I found Dawkins' argument that God would have to be more complex than the universe to be very weak. Why would it necessarily be so. We as humans create things far more complex than ourselves.

This gives us a being of great power and intelligence; a independent being itself, which humans and all of existence are contingent upon (thus objective). This, to me at least, makes for (literally) a great authority. This was essentially what was meant from:

You keep using the word "objective" in ways I don't think the word was intended. Simply being an outsider doesn't make your opinion "objective". Neither does being a founder of something make your opinion "objective".

"Objective" as I cited the definition earlier, means independent of any opinions, thoughts, feelings or mind of any other being, no matter the authority, wisdom, power or proximity (insider or outsider) to the subject being discussed.

Yes, the Euthyphro Dilemma, though you've added what I would answer in #3- God wills something because he is good. If I were to then be accused of special pleading, or that the concept is incoherent/circular,

...yes, the argument is both circular (God is good because God wills what God wills and since God's will is how we define good, we know God's will is good and so God must be good because God wills what God wills...) and relies upon a contrived definition/assumption (we assume A and then use A to prove B, or in this case, we define God as good and then use that definition to prove that God's will is good and so you can't have morality without God because we've defined good as coming from God...).

I could point to an opponent's own subjective appeals to moral values & duties, i.e.: "it's bad to murder in society because murder would be bad for society."

This is the kind of Tu Quoque fallacy often encountered with presuppositionalists, or "Yes, I know my logic is circular but so's yours". In the first place, more detail of the harm to society can be provided and examined. A host of statistics, from productivity loss to hospital costs, can be provided to objectively measure the cost to society, for just one example. The pain of individuals who have survived attacks or grieving relatives can also be compiled.

Compare this with the bare assertion about the existence of God or the contrived definition of "Good = God's will" that can't be examined or objectively substantiated at all.

The "Social Contract" is indeed a useful tool to discuss this issue- these societies that practice these things you find wrong created these very social contracts!

I didn't say "A" social contract. I said "THE" Social Contract.

Jesus preached something like it when he said "Do unto others..." This was not his original invention. Moral philosophers for a long time have said the same thing and this is a classic case for what morality is.

Would the men of Islamic society be willing to be stoned for adultery? If not, they are committing a clear case of hypocrisy. They are treating others in ways they would not wish to be treated.

"Cruelty," "rights violations," etc., would all be subjective terms- merely your opinion on the matter (and one not apparently shared by the people of that society), and in fact altogther baseless.

...and so we get back to my analogy of business. Subjective opinion =/= baseless nor are all subjective evaluations equal. Subjective opinions can be rationally argued and inspected, supported or derailed by objective data.

Perhaps practicing these alleged 'atrocities' does in fact better the society as a whole beyond our immediate vision- how can we possibly say it doesn't?

Argument from ignorance. The burden of proof would be on the one making such an assertion.

How could it, especially if one says our morality is "evolving?"

Indeed, which is a potent argument for secular morality and against Biblical morality. We have evolved to the point where we now realize the wrongness of slavery or war crimes, behaviors tolerated or even defended before the 20th century. The practices regrettably still persist but human civilization is now working to eradicate them where possible.

Compare this with the Bible's stances on such now no-brainer issues as rape, slavery and war crimes. The Bible seems, to put it kindly, primitive, not the Word of a wise and all good God.

Human morality has evolved to the point where we can better evaluate moral issues. The Bible has remained unchanged and its wrongness can't be corrected.

So, are morals then personally-relative to everyone (subjective), or are some things in fact really wrong, regardless of what people actually think of those things?

Yes.

Our wisdom isn't always perfect. The issues can be complex. We don't always have all the information. But that doesn't justify throwing our hands in the air and saying "anything goes I guess" nor is anything gained by assuming a higher celestial judge.