But their stupidity goes way beyond that. The main question would be what o they mean by morality? If they mean whatever "God" does and wants us to do, then it surely doesn't exist at all. Their god is a mere fantasy. If they mean the rules that come out of our interactions with each other, then morality exists. This is trivial.
OK, OK, but then they say who determines such stuff. Of course we do. What's the standard? Not their god, of course, since they say that god can do whatever and be glorified for doing so, then how would that be a standard? If I follow "God's" example (how the hell do we do that? We cannot know what an imaginary being would do, we can only know what they imagine their imaginary friend doing), as per their own words, then we should abort billions of babies and be glorified for doing so, but then they say no, we don't have that right. Then their god is not a standard. A standard is something we follow or try and imitate.
Of course, then they claim that shit about objective. OK, an imaginary being cannot be objective, but if we imagined that their god existed (oh the absurdity), they'd still have subjective morality, since it's them who like the idea of their god being what determines morality, either out of fear of punishment, or out of love for this god. In the end, it is still their subjective opinion.
It gets worse. Most of them will say they'd be criminals if their god was not watching. If so, then they're admitting that morality is not objective, since they'd rather be criminals. They're showing that they only have fear, not objective morality, but mere fear.
See ya later!