Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

I don't think you can - therefore no one can prove that their morality is superior to anyone else's. You can hold that opinion that genocide is immoral, for example, but you can't prove that it's immoral. That why an objective, universal code of morality is needed - but only God can provide an objective, universal code of morality.

Regardless of what laws a society comes up with, an atheist can choose to ignore them it do whatever he thinks he can get away with. A Christian who fears God doesn't enjoy this freedom, as he believes that all his deeds will be judged - which may result in eternal damnation.

Do you imagine a career criminal is more likely to be an atheist or a devout Christian?

If life is a result of some happy accident of nature, survival is meaningless because no life needs to exist.

Yes. I accept all my God's judgements as righteous and just. He doesn't do evil.

You keep using harm as a major part of your argument, but harm is actually not a good indicator of morality. For example, a dentist will harm you when he pulls your tooth out - then he harms you again when he gives you the bill. A professional boxer will get in a ring and bash someone in order to get money to provide food and shelter for his family. A soldier will shoot an opponent dead. A judge will harm you when he takes your licence away for six months for drink-driving. A policeman will harm you when he hands you a $300 ticket for speeding.

Sounds a bit tendentious to me. In the 20th century, non-religious morality proved much more dangerous and deadly than all the religion in history - just ask the six millions Jews that Hilter murdered ...

An evolved mind can create a delusion of meaning, but it can't create meaning.

It's possible that I'm even better at philosophy than I am at science!

I can't; but (assuming that my God exists) I don't have to prove that any of God's judgements are righteous and just ...

Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy? April 30, 1994

Perhaps you are right ... which religion did he follow? Please don't say Catholicism.

I can demonstrate my point by using The Parable of the Empty Box:An empty box is an empty box. Only a deluded/dysfunctional mind sees something in an empty box.This is a very deep concept, so don't get discouraged if you don't initially understand it. But persevere and keep thinking about it - finally the penny will drop.

A citation please.

Wiki' describes Jones as "an American comminist and cult leader". If he was also a Christian, he was a very poor example of one.

I know what you're getting at, but you can't separate reality into separate compartments. Darwinism is an idea that has undeniable ontological implications.

This is obvioius from the contrasting reactions of clerics and athesits to Darwin's book after it was published.

I'm not required to prove the points you suggested because I put myself in the same boat as everyone else - ie, I can't prove that my code of morality is any more correct than anyone else's. Never said I could.