Morality does not require the existence of a god

Ok, let me see if I can tie everything together here and finalize my argument: My original premise was an attempt to counter the following widespread belief, that the human race would not have morality if it were not sourced from a greater being in one form or another. It seems to be prevalent in all the major religions as well as generally accepted by a large number of agnostics. This seems to be the last bastion of religion, the only thing left that science has not taken away completely. I must insist that we hold to the initial wording of the debate. You seem to be changing it to whether or not people BELIEVE in a god. I want to prove that morality can, and in fact does, exist without any Supreme beings. Your counter claim seems, to me, to be the same as claiming that generosity, familial closeness and love exhibited during the final week of December would not exist were it not for the belief in Santa Claus. I think it is a spurious claim. Many cultures have celebrations of family and closeness, and also value generosity without the myth of Santa Claus. It seems to indicate that there is something deeper in our psyche that draws us to those values. Santa is merely a focus point, not the progenitor of those feelings. In the same way, I am postulating that our current moral system is not merely an instinctual urge, but that it is that as well as a multifaceted, complex system layered with our evolved language and societal constructs. Although you are correct that believing in a god AIDS in supporting the values of a moral system, that is by no means necessary for the original principles. Those principles, namely, helping similar creatures instead of harming, were hammered out by millions of years of evolution. They are proven to WORK in the real world. They do not need to be fabricated by gods and handed to men. Another example: Let us imagine you walk into your living room one day and find your eldest son helping his sibling clean up a mess that the younger one made. The elder son, say 10 years old or so, did nothing wrong and is helping out his little brother without any direction from anyone else. You say, "Thanks son, I am proud of you for helping out!" He turns to you and says, "Of course dad, I want to get good presents from Santa this year!" Well, I think it is natural to feel a little let down. The sign of a mature, civilized adult is to help someone without outside threats or rewards. You hope, as all parents do, that he will outgrow this need for Santa's gifts to encourage common decency. So, too, I feel that the christian attitude of being good in expectation of the reward of heaven or the threat of hell is that of a not yet fully evolved or civilized human being. And much like the domesticated animals we keep in our societies, we have need of the trappings of religion to prevent these immature people from harming themselves or others. To sum up, Morality is a constantly evolving and fluid thing. NOT an ironclad, immutable foundation that was set in stone by any god or gods. The most common complaint I hear from christians about this fact is that if morality is relative than no one is BOUND to obey anyone else's idea. This is true. Welcome to freewill. This complaint of not HAVING to adhere to any laws made by men is akin to complaining that the mastery of fire was not actually given to men by the gods after all, so therefore I can treat fire in any way that I wish. The rules of morality work. They make society better. We do not need any more than that.