What is a person?

[genkaus]

You are making an argument from authority to an embedded concept of "morality" as it exists in Western civilization.

Exactly whose authority am I arguing from?

But that morality refers to theistic norms.

It may resemble the concept of morality which exists in Western Civilization and which you consider derived from theistic norms - but that does not mean it works on the same principles or has the same premises.

In what sense does the concept of morality exist outside of this?

Outside of what? The theistic norms?

Morality in a theistic context has a specific reference and does not exist as a postulate of social control but is intended to point to the nature of human life. I do not see how this is tenable given naturalism.

Then you need to study more about morality. It is, by definition, a guide for your actions. It has no limitation to be applicable only at societal level. In fact, a lot of naturalistic and atheistic philosophies treat it as more that a postulate of social control

What about instead of calling the ethics of atheists "morals", instead the more accurate term "opinions" was used?

Then that term would be equally applicable to theists as well. More so, in fact, given the ethical "opinions" of atheists tend to be based on a degree of evidence.

This is far more correct, as the sort of postulate of social control that atheists typically advocate has much more in common with an opinion than an intricate ethical system intended to describe not only what humans should do but what they are.

That some atheists may postulate morality as a measure of social control does not limit it to that nor does limiting it in such a way reduce it to their opinions. Further, morality is based on what humans are - so it is not necessary for it to describe it but it helps with the justification.

I do not see anywhere in evolutionary theory where attributes such reflecting on the consequences of actions would be defined in any significant way. This is more of a postulate of good behavior, but other postulates could be found.

And why would those other postulates be significant to morality?

I think that you have shown that atheists can have moral opinions. But there is really no intellectual rigor associated with the opinions and people could easily discard them, with a sarcastic look with techno music blaring and call them "fairy tales".

If they could then they should. As they should discard theistic morals as fairy tales.