what are we supposed to say again when christians ask us where we get our morality?

[Rampant.A.I.]

The cockroach comparison is an insipid equivocation, as no one has claimed cockroaches have developed society complex enough to require moral codes.

You are wrong. The atheist claim being presented is that morality is a product of evolution. When pressed to explain the response is usually that the adaptation of our species is a disposition to empathy which gives us a reproductive advantage. Where is the morality in that? Sure we form complex social structures. That also is an evolved ability.

You keep getting stuck on the phrase "Evolved Ability." Being able to piss standing up is an evolved ability. If you can't differentiate between types of behavior and believe that is a moral display of empathy, I don't know what to tell you, other than to try doing it up a pole.

You also ignored the earlier explanation to repeat the same question:

A moral code is not the same thing as an instinct. There seems to be an instinctual impression of right and wrong, but finer distinctions seem to be cultural.

You're also conflating moral agents with empathy, congratulations on the strawman.

Reproductive advantages are not the only advantages a species can have. Cooperation benefits bipedal, relatively weak and hairless tribal creatures that would otherwise die before reproducing without help from others. And as such, tribal behavior is a basic part of human nature.

Native American tribes, even in times of war between tribes, would trade food and supplies needed to survive. If you cannot see where any inherent morality exists there, or why a basic sense of empathy is evolutionarily advantageous, again, I don't know what to tell you. You don't seem to be able to grasp "moral code," "moral behavior," "empathy," or "ethics" without an appeal to authority.

Our closest relatives display moral behavior. So do other animals.

The The "morality evolved" response is trivial. What it is basically saying is that any behavior that confers a reproductive advantage to the species as a whole is moral by definition. My point is that the same can be said about cockroach survival instincts.Very often, in fact most of the time, moral behaviors require that someone go against their natural instincts. In other words, a person must also apply reason, defer to authorities, or otherwise appeal to something beyond the evolutionary mandates of human nature. Thus evolved dispositions cannot serve as an adequate foundation for morality.

I don't know why I'm surprised, but you don't understand the basics of what's being proposed, or are pretending not to so you can continue to straw man it. There is no need to defer to authorities, or point to a parent figure. The social group recognizes the difference between immoral action and moral action. We have laws written because of this, among other factors, laws of a city, county, state, and country do not exist a priori floating in space that must be appealed to.

Codifying moral codes agreed upon by the majority of the social group works to the advantage of the species. We do not have the same morality as we would in a feudal state, and the laws reflect this. We do not live by the morality laid out in the bible, because it is outdated and barbaric. Pretty strange, considering it was supposed to be divinely inspired.