Why be good?

[Esquilax]

I can't be arsed to go through nine pages, but I have to say this.  Every time someone asks, "Why be good without God?" I hear the person saying, "I only do good for a reward."

Then you're not really listening to the question.

Oh, so you can see a reason to be moral that isn't just "god says!"? And you feel that this would escape us... why?

If you Google the terms "theory of evolution' and "natural selection", you can read about the "survival of the fittest".

Yes, you absolutely can! And surprising absolutely fucking nobody, your strawman is not what we find. 

Interpreted as a theory of species survival, the theory that the fittest species survive is undermined by evidence that while direct competition is observed between individuals, populations and species, there is little evidence that competition has been the driving force in the evolution of large groups. For example, between amphibians, reptiles and mammals; rather these animals have evolved by expanding into empty ecological niches.[8] In the punctuated equilibrium model of environmental and biological change, the factor determining survival is often not superiority over another in competition but ability to survive dramatic changes in environmental conditions, such as after a meteor impact energetic enough to greatly change the environment globally. The main land dwelling animals to survive the K-Pg impact 66 million years ago had the ability to live in underground tunnels, for example.

In 2010 Sahney et al. argued that there is little evidence that intrinsic, biological factors such as competition have been the driving force in the evolution of large groups. Instead, they cited extrinsic, abiotic factors such as expansion as the driving factor on a large evolutionary scale. The rise of dominant groups such as amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds occurred by opportunistic expansion into empty ecological niches and the extinction of groups happened due to large shifts in the abiotic environment.[8]

That's the section on survival of the fittest from a biological perspective, by the way. There's a section on the way creationists use it too, I think you might find it interesting:

Critics of theories of evolution have argued that "survival of the fittest" provides a justification for behaviour that undermines moral standards by letting the strong set standards of justice to the detriment of the weak.[11] However, any use of evolutionary descriptions to set moral standards would be a naturalistic fallacy (or more specifically the is-ought problem), as prescriptive moral statements cannot be derived from purely descriptive premises. Describing how things are does not imply that things ought to be that way. It is also suggested that "survival of the fittest" implies treating the weak badly, even though in some cases of good social behaviour – co-operating with others and treating them well – might improve evolutionary fitness.[9][12] This however does not resolve the is-ought problem.

You shot yourself in the foot on this one. The big question remaining is whether, now that your own suggestion to do some research has so wonderfully showed that you have done none yourself, you'll let go of this infantile and increasingly dishonest strawman, or whether you'll continue to lie to us by persisting, in the process showing how little you, personally, care for your supposed transcendent moral laws.