Morality does not come from religion

First off, thank you to debate339 for accepting the challenge laid down. I will state that I am new to this site but am eager to gain experience in debating, so I welcome any advice from debate.org members and look forward to debating a topic I am passionate about. As the con side has put forward already, I will also attempt to focus on religion as a whole instead of nitpicking any single religion. My first objective is to expand on my definition of morality, by broadening the definition to increase its accuracy by stating that morality is made up of beliefs about what is right and wrong behavior. With this definition in mind, I think science has a great deal to contribute to the idea that a sense of morality, or a set of beliefs about what is right and what is wrong, is innate and not an entirely man-made structure. I will now try to expand upon the ideas I have laid out in the comments section of this debate. Throughout human evolution, language has been used to ensure our species survival from generation to generation by passing on collective knowledge to the next generation. An example of this would be that on presumably multiple occasions throughout human history, people have walked off of cliffs or fallen great distances to their deaths, so it would make sense to pass this knowledge on to future generations so we are not reinventing the wheel every generation when ignorance leads someone off the edge of a cliff. Thus, for this knowledge to be passed on to future generations, natural selection would need to construct children's brains in such a way that would lead them to believe what their parents and elders are telling and teaching them. This trusting obedience, while useful for survival, can result in slave-like obedience even in the face of some bad evidence, as is the case for the moral teachings of religion en masse. However, I will admit that children can construct a rudimentary framework for right and wrong thanks to authority figures in their lives, with an example being teaching children that it is wrong to hit others because that hurts them and we wouldn't like it if they hit us (we do not solve problems by punching them away). With natural selection shaping the structure of our brains, it would then seem to be a logical step that since religions are headed by authority figures (priests, rabbis, imams, etc.) that the moral teachings they offer to their followers would be accepted because they have more life experience than us and must have a pretty firm grasp on morality. We would be led by natural selection to blindly follow. However, contemporary religions and their followers show that this is not the case. With the divisiveness promoted by organized religion (in-group harmony towards those who follow my respective religion compared to out-group hostility towards those who follow other religions or no religion at all), we would expect each religion's moral framework to be passed on to anyone unfortunate enough to be raised in that particular religion, but the fact that atheists, agnostics, as well as those who don't accept particular moral principles of their respective religion exist in our world point to people having some sense about when they are receiving bad information. To those who posit that without religion there would be no moral code and thus no action would be considered truly immoral, if you mean to say that without god or your religious leaders keeping constant surveillance on your behavior that you would commit burglary, rape, and murder, then are you truly acting morally by not committing these acts or are you just restraining yourself because god is watching? If this same person would admit that they could and would be a good person without their respective religion and god(s) then the claim that we cannot know what behavior is truly right or wrong without religion is undermined. Again, the fact that people choose to disregard religious moral teaching means that we have some means for comparison - we are comparing the doctrines of our religions or various religions to some standard. My opinion is that this standard is in some way innate and that objective human suffering does factor in to our decisions about what is moral and what is immoral, and that numerous textual (texts of various religions) examples can be brought forward clearly showing that religion does not support this standard.