Morality comes from religion

I'll accept your definition of religion, and morality doesn't necessarily have to be a 'code' in the sense of a list of laws. Furthermore, let's not beat around the bush; you ask me if its objective or subjective, well clearly this is a subdivision of this very argument. Those who assert morality comes from religion assert morality is absolute, and an atheist who rejects this statement doesn't mean he falls into moral relativism. Your task is to prove the pro for this argument; that without religion, people would no longer be moral. And you seem to have understood exactly what I meant when you wrote: """Just because "high standards" of morality can be found outside or religious books, it does not follow that morality doesn't come from religion."""" So now that I wasted almost 1000 characters on nothing, let's be serious and continue. I gave the practical implications for what I meant and I will repeat it: if religion were to dissolve instantaneously, people would lose their sense of kindness / dignity / morality and would all behave atrociously. Now; I am not sure if my opponent has read the Bible, but are you, in a serious debate which is readable to all across the internet actually going to attempt to relativize the barbaric stories of the old testament? Or the atrocious attempt to terrorize in the book of revelation? Genocide is not something to be made relative, and I say that without any divine guidance. And if you are still wondering about how I can say that, keep reading, but don't you put in quotation marks when I write 'high standards'. If you think the bible has anything close to worthy messages of morality, then you simply have not read the man-made manacle. When it comes to the falsehoods of religious texts, which are unknown to my opponent, it would take some time to list them all. I will say 2 things. One, the fact that my opponent is unaware of something does not make what I said an assertion. This is the argument from ignorance. You do not know about it, so you say I made an empty assertion. Second, the cosmogony of Genesis 1 borrows heavily on other orally transmitted stories from the same time in the surrounding area. You don't have to take my word on this, but you ought to at the very least know what the world is like in Gen 1: the earth is flat with a dome over it, which seals off the water from above. This is further emphasized right before the flood, as we are told that god opens a window in the firmament (which holds the water above) and thus creates an enormous rainfall. The two great sources of light, the sun and the moon, are again sign that these stories are man-made, since the moon is not a source of light (it reflects sunlight). You might try to make a metaphor out of these, or say that a reflection is still a source, but you would be cringing your teeth, as they thought the earth was flat and the sun moved around it, there is not much evidence that they thought the moon simply reflected light. """You provided the exact reason why evolution isn't a good explanation for morality. Evolution "selects" for survival-aimed behaviors, they do not necessarily confer truth or a good "morality detector" "" This is exactly what one says when they lack understanding in the theory. By survival-aimed behaviours, I assume you mean aggression and such. The truth is, being moral (at least in the sense of within your own tribe) is always going to be selected for. This also explains tribalism and on a larger scale, nationalism. Evolutionary morality does not say we will all be good, but ALL societies have had a similar foundation, contrary to what you think. NO society commits infanticide on a regular basis. So hopefully you have at least learned something when it comes to the truths of holy texts and evolution, and maybe next round you will actually demonstrate why religion is needed, and how it positively creates and maintains morality / good behavior, etc.