I haven't read much of this, since it's pretty pathetic, but...
1) 'Morality' so-called has gone through many gradations. Just in recorded history we know that it was first what was useful, and than second, what was against first moralities conception. Morality is nothing other than beliefs engraved into us through social conditioning. As society and religion changes every few thousand of years, moralities change. Not only does this prove that morality is simply a reaction to environment, but that morality is ambiguous and is not 'born in us'.
2) Social conditioning is quite apparent in you. Why? You suggest that 'god' is a singular male. In other words, you are socially conditioned by white-anglo Saxon's. If god exists, you think he is a mirror of us? Triangles would conceive of a 'triangle god'...
3) Judging through your conduct here, you are of weak morality.
4) Please do not bring that invalid Dawkins into this forum again.
1) Everything may substitute morality in your declarations, I really don't see the point of it. Everything changes in history, or else it wouldn't be and existence would be like a giant still photograph. I don't really know what to make of this since morality is not the main point of the article.
2) I never suggested that. That goes to show who is the real conditioned one: I never said God was a male, even less, a white one. I just said the word God, you don't know what this means to me and assumed I meant it as a divine white male. That's whacked.
3) Then provide some examples so I can improve.
4) That's not worthy of a response.
It would be better to make a direct analysis of the article.