Where do Atheists get their morality?

Where do Atheists get their morality?
That is a good question. I was listening to an argument given by an 'educated' person. Their argument was part of a debate being re-broad cast on the radio. The host was an apologetic and well prepared to the argument. In fact, more prepared than the atheist.  The atheist, interestingly gave this first statement "The Bible is the most important book in Western Civilization". I can't disagree with that and neither could the apologetic, in fact, that person said "Oh, thank you. And, now tell me how do you know that.? The atheist was quiet, and then said, it is common knowledge. The apologetic again said "Thank you." The atheist began his position by saying that God misled Job and this is how he knows that God does not exist. The apologetic said again thank you. The atheist said for what? The apologetic said because you just acknowledged God and in fact, you state that you know him by saying that he misled Job. The atheist did not understand. The atheist finally said that everyone knows this story and that Job was trying to do what was right and that he alone Job knew what was right simply because he was a man of conviction. The apologetic said thank you again. The atheist said for what? Because said the apologetic, you just acknowledge God by saying that Job acted on conviction. Yes, said the atheist but Job acted on his own conviction. The apologetic said no he did not. Because Job was not a relativist. Job later realized that he was so blinded by his over confidence that he failed to see God’s fairness... for that he abhorred himself and repented in dust and ashes. (Job 42:3-6). Only someone who acknowledges an absolute good and evil with an absolute source can repent. A relativist does not need to reflect on his or her life or actions and does not need to repent; because, a relativist is always in the mode of making the best decision for him/herself in the moment. Unless, they are careless about their decisions and actions which means that they are not convicted about anything let alone about their own decisions and actions. Effectively, they cannot be convicted about anything. To have conviction(s) means to have a strong set of beliefs, and such beliefs can only be strong because they have an absolute source. If Job were convicted only to himself, he would be a relativist and that would apply also to everyone else around him, convicted in their own beliefs. Relativism means that every  man/woman is an island of 'every man is his/her own universe. Therefore, every man/woman is their own source  for the  concepts, beliefs that they have. They are not absolute nor are they collective. Collective conviction among people means that they recognize one source, an absolute so that everyone agrees that this is the way and there is no other. In this way, every man/woman as part of a group can experience true conviction as it is recognized as absolute, collective agreement that there is one creator of all the heavens and earth and is eternal light. That eternal light is knowable in that it is absolute in its 'His' light, there is no other and from that light there comes one ideal of true goodness.
Atheists steal someone else's morality and claim it as their own. Whose? For this discussion... Christian morality. A moral society cannot exist without morality, this atheists understand. However, their argument is flawed as they act according to what they think is good, lawful and just. Yet, when you ask them where those ideas about what is good, lawful and just come from, they have either no answer or that everyone understands them since they are universal or that intelligent people know them. Firstly, there cannot be universal concepts for all because each man/woman is their own source. Atheists cannot recognize cultures or that cultural differences exist when it comes to understanding and practicing such concepts because there is no absolute. Yet, they still continue to argue that all intelligent people understand and practice what is good, lawful and just regardless of cultural differences. To make such a statement only means that one has projected one's one culture or world view onto someone else. Morality has absolutes. I might agree that people can be ethical if they agree on the source of those ethics.  However, when asked where are they getting ideas about what is ethical, they rely on morality, the irony is that what is moral depends on absolutes. What is fair and just and lawful 'what is ethical' is difficult for different cultures and even for the same culture of 'intelligent' people to agree on. Atheists do not understand that you cannot have morality in a Godless society. Morality comes from knowing there there exists an absolute goodness and an absolute evil. In recognizing that, you also recognize that there is an absolute source for goodness and evil. From there, you can have 'establish' morality. Atheists, do not and cannot accept that morality cannot come from a relative source. Some people who claim to be intellectuals have said that you are your own universe and likely because we are all human, have the same universals built in. That suggests an absolute source, saying something is built into a system or thing.  Random things have no need to seek out and try to understand other random things. In fact, if we understand and agree on what is random it is only because we have already agree on an absolute.
Some argue that you don't need an absolute to be kind to others, show compassion; maybe, but it will be selective basing on your own relativistic goals and desires. Some argue that it is possible to be kind and compassionate without being selective. That suggests that a person is making a choice to be altruistic. If you think that atheists are driven to the altruistic, then what end would that achieve when atheists don't believe in an after life. Some argue that they don't have to believe in an after life to be altruistic. That maybe true. However, the problem with that statement is in how they come to that decision to be altruistic; moreover it suggests that all atheists can come to the same decision which suggests that there is an absolute in being altruist. Since we can recognize altruism.  Some might suggest looking at what motivates them to be altruistic? Yes, but what is that they cannot answer. The Christian knows. Atheists argue that Christians only behave kindly or altruistically because they are afraid. Maybe, but they know what their motives are and can defend their choice because they recognize an absolute goodness and evil. Christians also know that their works will not be the only factor in their salvation; it is believing in God, the absolute creator of heaven and earth who has the ultimate absolute power, the last say. It is their fear 'awe' in this absolute that stirs the Christian to be altruistic or good rather than evil. Atheists cannot state what stirs them. Neither can they say why another atheists would make that choice; hence, they cannot make other people be moral, because what someone else thinks is moral is not the same for another atheist. Some would and do argue that the source to be altruistic is man, a higher kind of man that they strive to be... but the problem with that argument is that whose higher kind of man are we talking about? ???