What is a person?

[Esquilax]

You are making an argument from authority to an embedded concept of "morality" as it exists in Western civilization. But that morality refers to theistic norms. In what sense does the concept of morality exist outside of this? 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.

Theistic morality simply co-opts existing morality and takes credit for it, unless you're seriously arguing that before the commandments were issued, people had literally no problems with killing and rape.

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

Alright. Fair's fair, though: we should also stop calling theistic ethics "morals" too, and stick with more accurate term "orders" since your morality comes from something external to you, and thus can change at any time based upon the whims of an incorporeal entity that can have no empathy for mortal, corporeal beings, and has a history of, well, genocide.

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.

Let me help you with that. Humans are social animals, I'm sure you could agree with that. We form groups in order to survive, family units to help each other, civilizations to keep out nature and external dangers. This, of course, extends back into the past, where co-operation was forged via necessity for survival. Anti-social behavior, like violence against the group and so on, would lead to either ejection from the group- even today, we remove troublemakers from society- or retaliation. Either way, anti-social proto humans would hardly be expected to survive long on their own, and certainly not to breed. In this way, empathetic and co-operative behaviors became genetically favorable, whereas violent and negative behaviors become less so.

And hence, we have the formation of morality, stemming from the health of the group. There's an explanation for everything, assuming you're willing to actually look.

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".

No intellectual rigor? Excuse me? I can- and just did- provide you with a summary of the basis of secular morality. Your answer, on the other hand, is one sentence: "God told me to." Which of us has put more thought into this, Strodel?

And yeah, people can discard secular morality: this is only an argument against it if you're arguing that it's impossible to discard biblical morality. And if that were true, why do you have a concept of sin and a need for forgiveness?