How can you "prove" that anything is immoral? Can anyone do that? Atheist, theist or anybody else? Can you prove to me that a given action is immoral?
Moral judgements are human decisions. That doesn't mean they can't have a rational basis. In fact, like most decisions, I would argue that moral decisions would benefit from having a rational basis.
As someone said previously, in liberal secular societies the rational basis is derived from notions of freedom, harm to others and well-being. I'm not sure which part of that you are failing to grasp?
In evolutionary terms - Social beings inclined to act in ways that help the group, and therefore the individuals within it, thrive - Clearly have an advantage.
Imagine a pack of individualistic psychopaths in comparison and it's not difficult to see where the evolutionary roots of morality lie. But there is plenty of literature on this sort of thing if you are genuinely interested in the evolution of human morality.
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.
By your own standards of proof you are now required to prove the following such that this "objective universal code of morality" can be accepted as able to tell us anything
1) Prove that God exists 2) Prove that God is the source of objective morality 3) Prove that the action in question (e.g. genocide) is moral/immoral according to God's objective morality
Good luck with that.....
Do you imagine a career criminal is more likely to be an atheist or a devout Christian?
It is my understanding that statistically the least religious societies are no more prone to crime than religious ones and that, if anything, they are less prone to violent crime. I guess we can research the facts on that if you think it relevant?
Do you think humans need to exist?
My position is that human morality is a collective human decision. Therefore it should come as no surprise that things which promote the ongoing existence and well-being of humanity are likely to be deemed morally noble whilst those which act counter to that are deemed morally dubious.
It's not perfect (who we define as fellow humans can be highly subjective and selective) and I make no claim that it is objective.
But it's not un-reasoned. And it does form the basis of how morality can be rationally explained, whether you accept that or not.
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.
Then, by your own terms, your God derived absolute morality is unfounded and dispensable.
My point is that non-absolute subjective, non-God,derived morality is, if anything, more rational and able to be explained than that which you are proposing.
No, I don't think you can - because such facts would be nigh on impossible to get.
We can compare the religiosity of different societies and the respective crime rates and violent crime rates in those societies. I am not sure why you are saying we can't?
You are equating morality with survival.
Not really. I am saying that subjective moral tendencies have their roots in genetic propagation. There are plenty of evolutionary explanations for altruism and self-sacrifice. You just need to learn about them.
Kinship theory, non-zero sum game theory etc. I suggest the books of Robert Wright as an introduction to such ideas.
If a decrease in morality results in a decrease in the survival chances of humans, so what? Humans don't need to survive, so there is no need for morality.
Define "need" in this context....?
The idea that humans "need" to survive and that there will be a tendency towards moral imperatives that aid human survival (previous caveats implicit) is not the same thing.
As for the "need" for morality - Well, in evolutionary terms anything that enhances survival (more accurately gene propagation) will flourish. I am not sure of which part of that you are disagreeing with?