The argument from morality is scary.

[Captain Scarlet]

I have yet to see any semblance of a credible argument refuting the objections of Epicurus on the morality of such a claimed being.

I assume you are referring to the problem of evil? I think this is better served up inductively rather than the dilemma posed by Epicurus. However both these arguments do not seem as persuasive as the euthyphro dilemma, which theists dismiss all too quickly but never really answer without descending in non-cognitivism.

I cannot stress this undervalued book enough because it explains why morality is a product of biological evolution, "The New Atheism"

I haven't read the book, I will check it out. I like Stenger but not sure of his credentials in this matter though I think he is right to point out that there are purely naturalistic accounts for morality.

But all labels aside, the concept of an "omni" god is broken and cannot work , scientifically and much less morally.

I agree I think it is impossibly incoherent. Theists have continually sought to make meaningless accommodations to this concept as atheists have pointed out inconsistencies. The fact remains that Theists find these accommodations plausible, atheists do not.