Again, you are missing that an internal sense of objective morality obviates the need for some external authority to decree that same morality. After all, a belief that God decrees the same morals only serves to create an internal sense of objective morality.
And I think you’re in dangerous waters claiming that only societies that believe in God as you believe God to be can be and historically have been moral. Many Buddhist cultures have been highly moral, as arguably are many current, atheistic European countries. (Yes, I realize that those who decide that pro-abortion societies aren’t moral limit the number of cultures that would be considered moral—including our own.)
It doesn't obviate the need for some external authority it proves it. Where does that "internal sense" come from? If it is just a evolutionary appendage the it isn't objective it is merely relative and can be discarded as there is no truth behind it. Without God it isn't objectively true.
"And I think youre in dangerous waters claiming that only societies that believe in God as you believe God to be can be and historically have been moral."
I never said anything like "as I believe in God". I merely say that without a transcendent God there is no basis for objective morality. Without a trasncendant God the word "moralilty" loses all objectivity and becomes meaningless relativism, it becomes merely personal preference or social convention.
"Many Buddhist cultures have been highly moral, as arguably are many current, atheistic European countries."
"Moral" based on what? What defines "moral" in this context? What is the standard? What makes these societies any more "moral" than Nazi Germany or the Reign of Terror in 1796 France? Apart from a transcendent God the word "moral" becomes nothing more than a relativistic social construct which can and does change with the wind.