I must not have been clear; I apologize.

Of course I know that we can't have all of the attributes of God's character. We would be God if that was the case. Morality is the commands that God gives us to live lives that reflect His love and glory and ultimately bring a most satisfying life.

You're still confusing morality with what is best form an evolutionary standpoint. We as conscious creatures would obviously love to flourish and do what's best for us, but from a naturalistic viewpoint, who is to say that this particular way is objectively good? We aren't morally obligated to look out for the well-being of other people beyond the commands of other people.

Think of the naturalistic morality as a game of chess. You can make good moves and bad moves. You don't, however, call a bad move an "evil" move. Simultaniously, you can't call the Ravens a morally rightous team because they won the Super Bowl. THey're completely different things.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to equate morality with pleasure vs misery, which do not always correlate with each other, and thus, are not universally combatable and relatable. 

I personally don't believe in "absolute morality", and I can't even think of any rules "rules" that have always and everywhere been considered "good" or "bad". I mean, even killing people is not necessarily considered bad - we've invented endless exceptions, double standards etc.

In his famous book "clash of cultures", Samuel Huntington for example writes that double standards and hypocrisy is the inevitable price of universalistic/absolute presumptions, and I think there's a lot of truth to it. He even claims that maybe the most important reason for the increasing conflicts between "the west" and "the muslim world" is that they both have strong universalistic tendencies stemming from the missionary character of their historically prevailing religions (christianity / islam), which causes the people in these cultures to have the dangerous belief that they know what's good for just everyone - which is dangerous because it makes these people believe that they have a right or are even doing something "good" when they try to force their morals etc. on others.

By the way, you might want to read some of Nietzsche's great works on morality, like "beyond good and evil". Even if you don't agree with him at all, you'll find some interesting thoughts in his books.

Except again... not really.  You may not have covered this in history but these arguements have been made specifically due to these attrocities.  Including... the Holocaust.

Though also counting in general a huge number of horrfying eugentics experments that generally go unreported or forgotten and just outright unethical expierments on people in poorer countries paid by richer countries.

In general most attrocities you'd blame on a church also tended to have that kind of backing... and still does.

People who are against gay marriage aren't against it because some bearded guy from Jupiter doesn't like it, but because they believe it will have a negative effect on society that will lead to other things to happen that will ultimaitly cause way more pain and trouble for more people then would be accomplished via gay marriage.

Most religious moral codes are actually just community moral codes hidden within religion to make them a bit more likely to be followed.

If morality is "the commands that God gives us to live lives that reflext His love and glory...." then of course morality would require a supernatural force. But that's because you tied the definition of morality to a supernatural force. Can you give a definition of "good" without the definition necessiating the existence of God? 

Tell me what makes your definition of "good" (meaning God's character) more accurate than my definition of "good" (what's best for most people).

Well, of course I can't define good without necessiting the existance of God, because there are none without God!

God's character  establishes moral values because He is by definition the greatest conceivable being and highest good. God's attributers of being wholly loving, fair, faithful, etc. provides an absolute standard to measure all actions, and allowing morality to exist fully beyond humans.

God's commandments, being consistent with His holy nature, also provide a solid ground for objective moral duties, the two greatest being loving God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and also to love your neighbor as yourself.

Now don't get me wrong, atheist can very well live a happy, moral, wonderful life that can put many Christians to shame. That's not my arguement, however. The morality offered up as "best for most people" cannot be morality in an objective sense, because looking at the large picture, we're not doing what's best for the whole planet, let alone the universe. We have an unjustified bias in our own species, if you will. Why is making the human's best well-being objectively good? Because it is what's best for our species? That's just circular reasoning.

Let me try to be clear one more time: Trying to do what's best for our species as a whole cannot always be objectively moral. Even if we are naturally "moral" to each other, there is no guarantee or moral obligation beyond what other humans tell us what to do and what not to do. Why listen to said humans? Why do they know any better? We are simply animals  on a spinning rock around a hot star.

I had to take a day to think about this, because you make a good case. Anyway, here is my late response.

You're right that most religious moral codes are old community moral codes that are contained within the religion. This is because the religion is a reflection of the culture at the time in the area where it was born, and affects the culture wherever it is imposed. Religion allows for old morals and customs to survive where they would have otherwise been discarded by a modern society.

If "the most amount of human suffering is immorality, and the least is morality" is a bad definition of morality, what is a better one?