Without God there is no reason of morality

Due to a personal situation beyond my control, my last debate did not go well. Hopefully, my life will keep itself in order long enough for me to fulfill this obligation and complete this debate. May the best man win! For the time being, I accept my opponent's definition of morality, as it doesn't appear to suggest anything untoward. And there is, of course, a need to define the term. If one's definition had included something about religion, then I would've started there first. ;) I don't particularly like the example my opponent provides, but it isn't material to his argument, so I'll let it go unless it becomes an issue later. I do, however, wonder if my opponent is speaking of *all* gods, or just "the" God, which I would take to mean the Judeo-Christian God. This is of great importance to the debate, since he is claiming that all morality comes from that one source, and therefore must be universal in order to make his argument work. This debate requires me to write in essay form. I hope that my readers can forgive me. However, I find contentions to be inappropriate considering the way my opponent has presented the debate. He's given me little hint of his advocacy. This may become an issue later on, but I'm hoping it won't. My opponent asserts not only that morality cannot exist outside of God's influence, but that if there is no "God," then morality is both unreasonable and non-existent. He's set himself up with quite a burden already, and I don't think he'll be able to meet it. Allow me to explain. First and foremost, of course there are rules of right conduct outside of a religion. Furthermore, people have plenty of reason to conform to them outside of non-secular guilt. Let's start simple. We all, on a regular basis, adhere to the rules of the road, yes? But, you would be hard pressed to attribute our stopping at stoplights to God. State statutes are created, at least in this country, by a secular government in order to ensure public safety, and that concept can clearly exist outside of religious belief (see every social contract known to man). We follow rules of right conduct constantly without the divine being involved. But let's go deeper, to the core of moral beliefs. My opponent has alleged that even atheists and agnostics pull all their moral knowledge from the element of the religious in their environment, and that no fully atheist community could possibly conceive of right and wrong conduct. That's a huge burden of proof laid on my opponent, and though he can produce every example of moral code he pleases from any number of scriptures, none of that would serve to prove that morality is born exclusively from God. I would present a different picture, one of anthropological evolution in which religion can influence morality, but doesn't have exclusive rights to it. Human beings have instincts, just like any other animal. We seek to survive, and we do so using all of the tools at our disposal, and that includes our unique ability to rationalize a situation and adapt, unlike our other animal counterparts. This most clearly explains the fact that codes of conduct are not universal across societies. If, truly, morality was born of a single God, as my opponent suggests, we would not see such moral diversity amongst people in the SAME community, much less across different cultures. Religion is one way to dress up why we should, as people, follow the codes of conduct within a society. However, not all of these codes could possibly stem from a single being. In fact, it would seem that most moral codes that can be attributed to religion can, on a genetic or instinctual level, be traced straight back to genetics and the need for the species to survive. After all, that's what religion is, isn't it? A method by which to explain seemingly unexplainable natural phenomena? Religion helps us to cope with the rationalization of death. It helps us (in some cases) to be more altruistic and help our fellow man. It explains the origins of our universe, and why bad things happen to good people. Religion is merely a method of imposed rationalization for things that already existed outside of it. I would argue that most people know, inexplicably, not to kill other people. Is religion the only reason most of the population (with the exception of some very disturbed people who make up a vast minority of the human race) adheres to this basic rule? Doubtful. But, thus far, we've only talked about why it is that populations can find codes of conduct outside of God. Obviously, they can, and have, for millennia. Let's talk about why morality, whether via God or not, is not irrational. Take John Locke, for instance. He maintains that people who do not preserve their species (unless it comes into direct conflict with personal rights fulfillment or individual survival) as much as possible have entered into the domain of irrationality. Again we go back to our animal instincts, and our genetic desire to see our kind flourish. Granted, I'm taking stabs in the dark at this point because my opponent didn't actually tell us why morality is irrational or non-existent. He just said it must be, so we are to assume it is…? However, if we look at the definition of rational, which is: (1)Agreeable to reason, reasonable, or sensible; (2)Having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense. we see that my opponent needs to prove to you why furthering ourselves as individual organisms or our species as a whole is always unreasonable, insensible, or unsound. He then has to link that irrationality to the lack of God influencing our morality. He then has to prove that morality doesn't exist, which I assume means that he will maintain that God doesn't exist, so morality cannot. Where I'm really hoping this doesn't go is straight to "well, if every moral code we have is meant to further ourselves or our species, then why is it even good or rational to do that? " My preemptive answer (though I hate giving defensive arguments) would be that it is reasonable because it is what all living organisms, from amoebas to grey whales, want to do (it's in our very nature to do so). We use reason to further that one goal, at the end of everything. And I would also tack on that not all reasonable decisions which further the species inherently create life. They will usually save existing life, but if we take the practice of polygyny, for example, that is a rational, secular code of conduct that actually seeks to decrease new life. My opponent is, I think, attempting to paint morality as a bad thing because, in truth, his definition of morality only adheres to a single set of morals (my guess from the gay marriage comment being right-wing Christian American morals). Unfortunately, that's not what morality is, and that's not what it can be limited to. As an atheist, I would argue that, while I've been introduced to religion-based morality, I've chosen to formulate my ideological foundation based on rational decision-making that is free of God's influence. At that point, I've already won the debate.