I think there's more than one source of morality. I have good morals, and since I'm atheist, I don't believe that you have to be religious or a believer in God to have good morals. I think I came upon them thanks to a great upbringing by 2 parents who were good people who had a good sense of what's right and wrong.

It's Inate without it no group would survive

Your sense of right or wrong, a very debatable subject, is a "source of morality." It requires good judgement and high ethical standards. What may be right to you maybe wrong to another person. What may be a morally righteous deed to others could simply be disagreeable to you. If you are a naturally decent and upright and righteous person you certainly would have good judgement or good sense of right or wrong and that's what morality is all about, or, so I thought, hhhhmmmmm . . . hey (King) Solomon, are you there?

. . . excuse me, but I'm getting dizzy going around in circles trying to make sense of what I'm writing - somebody please try to pin down what I'm trying to say here ! ! !

The Bible or whatever Holy Book like the Koran is a good “source of morality” and so are the Eastern and Oriental Books Of Wisdom. Nobody's got a monopoly of "source of morality". Consitutions, basic laws of the land and tribes, codes of ethics and high standards of values . . .

. . . is Tylenol still available in the corner drugstore?

Well, I would say morality works in similar ways to evolution. Slow change over time and over regions. If the Bible had been written today we would still have plenty to poke at but far less gross immorality than what we see. The 10 commandments wouldn't put women on the same line with cattle and slavery would be a shall not instead of when you do you must do this. Killing your bride for not being a virgin on her wedding night and placing her dead body on her father's doorstep probably wouldn't be in a modern canon of the Bible. So from that, we can at least demonstrate that God isn't the milestone they claim him to be.