Morality comes from religion

I'd like for my opponent to clarify as to what he means by the terms "morality" ad "religion". Is imorality objective or subjective? So, I propose the following definitions: Morality: "an ideal code of belief and conduct which would be preferred by the sane 'moral' person, under specified conditions." [1] Religion: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." [2] "Morality comes from religion = without religion (anyone in particular, or any or all faiths), we would not / could not be moral." I'd like to ask my opponent to clarify before I mistakenly attack something he did not mean. Does he mean "morality comes from religion" in a metaphysical sense in that morality depend on religion for it's very ontological existence and if there was no religion there would literally be no morality? Or does he mean "morality comes from religion" in an epistemological sense in that we have knowledge of morality that only comes from religion and if there were no religion we would literally have no knowledge of how to act moral? Or both? "Firstly, religious books such as the Bible are not exactly articles which contain high standards of morality, or at least not exclusively." My opponent seems to assert this as an absolute statement - that religious books do not contain "high standards" of morality. My question would be what counts as a "high standard"? And my second point would be this does not support his conclusion that morality does not come from religion. Why? Just because something comes from something else doesn't mean that it would not be found outside that domain. An analogy: just because McDonald's are found not exclusively in America (the birthplace of McDonalds) it does not follow that the McDonald's food chain does not come from America. It is the same way with religion. Just because "high standards" of morality can be found outside or religious books, it does not follow that morality doesn't come from religion. "Secondly, religious texts, from the book of Mormons to the Koran to the Bible to Enuma Elish to Hesiod's Theogony are fabrications which contain very little if hardly any metaphysical truths or truths about the origin of our species or cosmos or the world. The fact that the foundations of religion are epistemologically false burdens it greatly, and to say that morality can be based on false teachings is self-refuting" This as it stands is just a completely bare assertion that I ask my opponent to demonstrate. These "facts" and derth of metaphysical truths are not known to me. "Thirdly, and keep in mind I am only outlining these arguments, I think the natural argument for the development of morality is good or at least better than the supernatural one. Our species developed culture, and culture, as anthropology tells us, wasn't just a new manifestation of evolution but an actual tool in itself for survival." 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" or a conscience for lack of better words; if it did evolve one how do you explain the fact there is radically different conclusions to moral questions? There is no reason to assume that there is a necessary connection between survival-aimed behaviors and the truth about morality or what is "good" for example. Either the connection is there or it isn't. Interestingly something like the Euthyphro Dilemna can be made: "is X good because it is loved by our genes, or loved by our genes because it is goodl?" [3] You are left in a pickle explaining "goodness". Seeing as I need clarifications I will get into my positive argument for morality from religion in th