Where do atheists get their morality from?

[Boccaccio]

Your "ought" appears to be power-based alone.

Only somewhat correct. If God exists, he is the creator and sustainer of the universe, and I am only a contingent being. <etc>

Thank you for agreeing. This is no revelation.

Saying "only self-identified" and "arbitrary" appears to me...

I don't feel I need to point out the irony in this statement.

Whereas I do need to point out that you have quote-mined and misrepresented my text so as to make a false claim. The topic is where atheists get their morality but my statement from which you quote-mined the above deals specifically with your logical and perceptual failures noted by more than one responder to you. Are you trying to tell us here that you are not failing but that your misrepresentations are deliberate lies?

What I am not understanding is here, you eschew the need for an independent entity to inform your moral duties, saying what you yourself discover via observation & experience will suffice. That's all well and good, however you then turn around and make appeals to entities independent of yourself [emphases mine]:

Which of us is wrong is measurable in accord with the moral objectives.

Demonstrably, this is not a successful strategy for humans.

Human group morality gradually learns to avoid these problems.

The concept is simple. We are all people. For me in the above you can substitute any person. What else is a group, a society? I influence the behaviour of others as they influence me. The question, as DeistPaladin has also taken up extensively, is what behaviours show measurable success and how do we refine those behaviours and remove or control deleterious behaviours in society.

I see you have abandoned your contention that in subjective morality rape must be a good strategy. I guess you got that idea from the bible, where rape is sufficiently atoned by paying the father some shekels and marrying the victim. This would be the law fulfilled?

Why did god need slavery, rape, stonings and genocide fulfilled before he thought (in people's reinterpretations) that you did not need it any more? Why did god think that BCE Jews needed laws and legal systems more primitive than those of societies run by other gods? Isn't your god really a bit of a dumb dick?

I may make the very same appeals you have regarding the 'strategies' and 'measured success' to help make that interpretation.

Then god is otiose.
You have granted the correctness of a very early post here in answer to the question of where do atheists get their morality. From themselves, from society, the same as you do. You merely invent stories about it.

Given I believe the law is written on our hearts/we have been imbued with a conscience, we should hardly find it surprising our moral discoveries often square with scripture. It is the atheist however, that lacks such a governing and immutable authority.

Dead right we lack a governing and immutable authority. So do you, but you like the idea of a personal pixie to justify yourself when you decline to look at measurable results.

There is nothing to say one must interpret 'the numbers' or 'the measurement' one way or another regarding moral duties.

One measures in relation to moral objectives, not in vacuo. This is trivial to understand if you are not already over-laden with authoritarian assumptions.

That is a false dilemma – we don’t need to pick either of those two horns, but rather the correct alternative is to say that God wills something because he is good. God’s own nature is what Plato called “The Good,” and his will expresses that toward us in the form of commandments which constitute our moral duties.

I asked you in there whether your god controlled his own nature. Please answer.

You are certainly entitled to allow a coin flip to determine choice to moral dilemmas. However, the coin does not issue moral commands. Besides, your premise is flawed: what says that every moral dilemma requires a 'yes' or 'no' answer? For instance, is killing someone always bad? What about the death penalty? Or vegetative state cases? It requires your presuppositions to determine what are moral 'dilemmas' in the first place- it's plausible you would never not be flipping coins! Thus we see this argument is question-begging.

Really? What question did it beg? I did not claim to present something I consider a sensible morality but I note that you protest vigorously against the result which, like me, you see as absurd. What you do not argue at all is my salient point, that it is an external basis for moral decisions independent from human judgement. A god is not needed for an "objective" morality but an "objective" morality without an epistemology and moral objectives is ludicrous. You are unable to produce a coherent set of moral strictures from the bible (churches were funding and running slavery only a few centuries ago) nor explain how they change other than by churches catching up with societies, with human subjectively refined morality, nor answer the Epley et al study to which I linked you and which you have here avoided.

If there is merit in your commands from god and from your bible, then you would hypothesise that christians would cope better with novel moral problems, would you not? If you agree, then I will point you to another study which falsifies that claim. If you do not agree that christians would perform better then allow me to introduce you to Ockham's Fucking Great Chainsaw. Your god-specific rather than human beliefs are demonstrably of no value to moral decisions.

Stephen, can you point me to reliable instances of a functional mind without a functioning brain?

Though I would point out what the attributes of God, if he exists, would necessarily have to be, as well as near-death experiences, I am loath to head down this rabbit trail as it would significantly stray from the OP...

Not working. Claiming that "god would have to be such-and-such" directly fails my request for an actual instance. Speaking even of near death experiences does not help you, despite that you would hope to interpret them favourably. When brain function ceases, yo iz ded, and there is no disembodied mind prancing about the place regardless of hallucinations experienced when the brain is close to shutdown.

It is trivial to define this objectively.

If it is, then why is this ok to define objectively:

Which of us is wrong is measurable in accord with the moral objectives.

This is special pleading.

Still confused about objectives and objective moral values, aren't you Stephen. There is no special pleading because I have not cited, claimed or supported at any point objective moral values as you define them. My statements are completely consistent, supporting optimisation of behaviours toward human objectives, which we grace with the word 'moral'.

You may reference this gentleman's site for statistics, adopted from Statistics of Democide:

Indeed I may, and his results through history are consistent with those published by Pinker. Indeed, Pinker may use some of his material. The question is not absolute numbers but death rates. The rate has been declining. As I said and you do not dispute, you are less likely to be killed by other people today than at any time in history.

As slandered as he has been here, I can't disagree with Vinny

I know you can't, and like Vinny, you are at a loss for arguments how it is that secular and atheist societies function increasingly well with increases in democracy, reduction in authoritarianism, rule of law, and overthrowing religious strictures born of patriarchal tribal societies with arse-licking beliefs in personal salvation over social good.