Theists are no more moral than the irreligious

I find it interesting that you denied to address my request. You say you're refusing charges against Christianity, for the 'burden' of proof is on me; strange, really: Surely you must prove that Christianity augments a person's morals or furnishes them with better morals? I hold the default in that a person is moral. You indirectly propound that with religion they are more moral. So the burdening of proof works both ways, and cannot be used as a cop-out when faced with challenges I assume you cannot contend with (I happily answered your enumerated requests which I assume you used as a clever snare--that unfortunately fails). Firstly, evolution is not 'my' theory: It is the theory which explains the diversification of species (but not where life came from). I acknowledge that this debate does not regard whether evolution is true or not (but it is), and I assume you don't believe in it. It appears that you've only just glossed over the facts of evolution, and have distorted them to justify that they didn't birth morality. Evolution is the slow process in which species change over time through random mutations, whereby the most beneficial ones are carried through via natural selection. "Murder) why must a life live to its fullest extent? Why should it be considered inherent life is better than death? Why should pain of another concern you over your own desires? These questions all take on a serious new life of bringing skepticism to your claims there is a morality at all when put under the standard of ‘evolution’. Perhaps your not familiar with your own theory but evolution…it works through natural selection, it works through death, it works through survival of the fittest. For evolution to progress the weak who cannot ensure there own survival must die. A mass murderer is the future genetics provider for the whole race because he cancles out others DNA and may ensure the progression of his own if this Clyde can hook up with a Bonnie." I don't know what's more laughable: your understanding of evolution or your grammar. It is not, "Oh, I'm superior, so I have to pass on my genes, so I can have humanity evolve." Remember, up until the 19th century, we weren't properly sure of the existence of the concept of evolution. No, for 2,000 thousand years, it has been your tenuous idea of Adam and Eve that has reigned the Middle East and the West. And how glorious was life then? How moral was it? Morality isn't underpinned by man's urge to evolve; it is underpinned by man's urge to simply survive. You could raise an isolated, feral child in the wilderness, bereft of education, and he will intrinsically feel the need to not die. Evolution is not a concept that knows itself, or was waiting for us to discover it: It is just a process that we've categorised as a science. There's no sentient force that says, "That creature is weak; if we don't kill it, the species won't evolve optimally." You have misunderstood and overcomplicated an indifferent process of slow, random--but efficient--change. Man's exponential growth in intelligence has given rise to many moral problems that we've had to address. But don't you think that because there's some flux, a book of dubious origin with bronze-age, patriarchal myths, doubtful historical information and no evidence can guide us, let alone gift us morality. I am sure you don't agree with the endorsed slavery in the Old Testament, or the decree that women are inferior to men in the New Testament (look at my previous Corinthians source). Why not? Where did your morals come to ignore the sordid aspects within the bibe? "There is a fundamental problem with evolution as a standard source for morality (from your perspective anyway) because it makes too many baseless assumptions. For example most of yours is ‘we must do moral things so society is benefited and the species goes on.’ But When was a reason given for why we must help the human race ‘go on’? why not just let all society die out, advocate anarchy and have some short-lived but amazing ‘sinful fun’." Evolution is not a 'source' of morality. Morality is a product specifically of the evolution of humans. Imagine this. Humans first kept moral tenets to be adhered within their own group. It was wrong to kill a member of your own clan: they looked like you, they protected you and they were similar to you. As groups merged and more information was acquired about other clans, morals became extrapolated to others: That's why Jesus was so sneering of the non-Hebrew woman--she was not part of his group, the Hebrews (of whom he came to save). You question why society should continue if there's no purpose, such as God. Why not descend into anarchy? Well, it is about human selfishness. Humans have a tendency to co-operate because of their selfishness: more can be gained through work with a group and dependence than from a solitary life. We are born dependent on others (your parents or guardian), and it is a firmly ingrained principle. Scandinavia is perhaps the most atheistic region in the world, and you don't see the Norwegians burning town halls: rather, the Nordic states have the highest standards of living and have arguably the happiest residents in the world. "To quote Aristotle “Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence.”What he means by that is everything we try to do is in some shape or form a means to the ends of happiness. There are no other true ends we try to achieve." You're not telling me if you're agreeing with this statement or not. If you are, then your arguments about my evolutionary morality being solely for pleasure are hypocritical. If you're not, then explain, with your own principles, how Christianity provides a purpose. Do not arbitrarily quote a philosopher who thought we only had 5 senses and expect to benefit from it. "So because while doing what you perceive as ‘moral’ may make you happy, it wont necessarily make someone else happy and even be abrasive to there happiness sometimes. So they would end up with a different ‘morality’ than you that better suits there pursuit for happiness. And if any ‘morality’ cant apply to all objectively, independent of what anyone ‘thinks’ or ‘feels’ then there really is no such thing as ‘morality’ at all." Any morality? I'm sorry, but are there types of morality like there are types of chocolate bars? You say that proper morality must exist independent of what we think... No, you're are very wrong. Morality is what we think, for all assumptions we make and deduce are from thought. Morality is not objective. If it were, then we'd still have institutionalized slavery, segregation and rampant, public sexism. You make the boldest of claims without a second thought. You don't take into account that your own faith comes into fire from your remarks. And you fail to understand the principles of evolution, instead twisting it to suit your own primitive idea of what morality 'is'. I apologize for the length of my retory, but abundant foolishness calls for an abundant response. And, as I mentioned at the start, perhaps you'd better start expounding on your own faith and morality to seem more credible.