[Alex Nevsky]

Theistic morality is utterly useless.
Instead of engaging in talk on what is to be done, this is delegated or tried to delegate or pretended to delegate to a deity. And then all arguments come from authority

Authority is helpful. Without it, every tom, dick, and harry will devise their own version of what is moral.
Without uniformity, morality is anarchism.

With the argument of "god says so", you cannot condemn even the most heinous crimes of Boko Haram or ISIS, because their god told them otherwise.

What their god told them is not relevant to us, as we don't follow the rules of their god.

Taking your morals "from god" would be completely arbitrary and random.
You don't even know what god you are taking them from.

i sure do. He is the God of Abraham. His Ten Commandments and other rules are listed very plainly in the Torah.
Jews and Christians follow His rules of morality. Muslims say they do, too, but I doubt it.

In fact most people don't do that. They rely on their compassion and reason and then select the parts of their holy books that fit.

You haven't been around many devout Catholics, Protestants or Jews. We all quote the same bible.

[taltom]

Seriously? This is a real debate still? How quaint.

It's now well established, thanks to equipment that can determine what areas of the brain activate under stimulus, that almost all humans are born with sympathy, at least for one's own group members. This are the famous and misnamed "mirror neurons". This rough sympathy is soon directed and honed after birth by one's society, which may include lessons that are said to come from a deity, but in reality are simply inventions of the group with a fillip of additional authority. Those born without the "mirror neurons" are narcissists.

There is no need for the god hypothesis. Nor is there any situation quite as simple as some here seem to think. If you doubt that, consider the trolley problem, a classic in game theory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

This is but one of the many confounders that game theorists have discovered. This is why we have courts to interpret even very clear laws, because reality makes a mockery of rules. Theft is wrong, but if my neighbor is unknowing playing with an explosive device that is set to explode momentarily, summarily relieving him of it may be theft but it is also an attempt to save his life. If I were to adhere strictly to the confused, patchwork Torah, I would let him keep the thing because nowhere does it say that I have to save my neighbor from an explosive. Such exceptions abound, illustrating clearly that if a god imposed these rules on us, he/she gave the matter too little thought.

[Unthinking Majority]

Morality certainly exists without religion. It just means that individuals and society are able to to decide their own morality instead of having their morality decided for them by the lies of "prophets" and hierarchical institutions that decide morality for everyone else to follow. Without religion, people are free to think for themselves. The only danger is that sometimes these non-religious free-thinkers (like Hitler) can come up with dangerous moral ideologies, but this isn't any more dangerous than the moral codes that many religious fundamentalists follow.

[Princip]

Primitive morality relying on empathy existed before organized religion. Also, as long as religious violence exists (and undisputably it existed from the earliest days of religion and still does, see Islamic State for example) assuming that religion can effectively determine what is wrong and right is just ridiculous.