Turning the Euthyphro Dilemma around on atheists

[Esquilax]

Not in the real world the rest of us are living in, buddy.

For instance, if it were the consensus that rape were good, we know what you would do.

I, and I hope most of the others here wouldn't agree with the consensus, though.

It's always so cute when you guys go to this example. And oh look, you went to nazis too, in doing so completely ignoring the rest of the argument, which has been broached approximately eight billion times, and it's this: the circumstances surrounding an action also need to be taken into account, not just the opinion of people. In both these cases, one of those circumstances is the demonstrable harm that the actions of rape or murder, and the effects on the rest of society if those things became commonplace.

It's simple: would we all be better or worse off if we allowed this thing?

Let's use a simple example:

Helping a friend move

Do you help a friend move because doing so is morally good, or is it good simply because you do it?

The former, and the second question to ask is why was that action morally good? The answer has nothing to do with some external force of goodness, but rather with the fact that the act was helpful to another human being, and performed in a spirit of cooperation with another human being.

Your entire "turning around" of this question makes no sense, because we aren't the ones making recourse to some singular being in order to attribute the source of our morals. But then, that's hardly surprising; petty sniping seems to be your stock in trade, when it comes to atheists.