Morality of evolution and evolution of morality

Това ще е първият ми пост на английски - мислих да го направя като видео в Youtube, но понеже ме мързи го поствам тук. This is my first post in English - thought about making a youtube video, but was too lazy. Religous people often say that atheism in general and evolution in particular are amoral or even immoral. The argument goes that morality is the deep sense of right and wrong, given to us by God. Using reason and observing nature can be intelectual achievent, but it only gets us so far, without God to guide us we lose the so-called "moral compass" that implores us to do good and denouce evil. Evolution is often defined of the fittest individuals - purely egoistical, and even sometimes used as an excuse from selfish people to be jerks. Let me make it clear that I believe non-living nature to be immoral. A chemical reaction cannot be good or bad - it's jusr rearrangement of chemical bonds between atoms. An earthquake or volcano are releases of tension of the planet's crust. There is nothing moral in ran, or draught. Once living organisms are introduced things get a little more complicated. In the beginning there were many individuals, competing for food, light and space. A change in the envornonment may benefit a species or group of individuals, and so be good for them, and in the same time disadvantage another species, and exterminate them completely. When societies emerge things get really interesting. Some of the evolutionary pressure is taken from the individual members and passed on the society as a whole. A person risking his life to help a friend reduces his chance to benefit, but a society that encourages that provides for better chance of survival to its members. A more selfless society of unfit individuals may outcompete a more fit individual, or a more selfish society. Suddenly friendship and comradeship, altrusism and empathy, are important survival traits. Even when individuals are somewhat shielded from part of the pressure, evolutionary competition between societies can be fierce, given that they suffer not only from dealth of their members, but also from defection or assimilation of their members other societies. A society needs to grow in numbers to be prosperous, but it also needs to be united. It needs to be organised to face outside dangers, and stable so little effort and lives are wasted in internal conflict, if it is to survive. That's how "Thou shalt not kill (members of your society)"-type of laws emerged. Of cource more selfless societies risk being exploited by freeriders, individuals that use the benefits of societies, and are able but unwilling to do their share of work. A society that does not adress this issue would be outcompeted by a society that encourages justice and rules. That's how "Thou shalt not steal"-type of laws emerged. Keep in mind, this all happened gradually when individuals couldn't reson it. They had to be brought up this way, and encouraged or coerced to comply without questioning and bring up their own children this way, for the good of their society and by extension for their own good. If you live in a small community you probably know all your neighbours and feel some kind of attachment towards them. In bigger societies, a big city or a nation, this is not possible. Burocrats and judges can enforce the laws, but without the sense of comradeship between individuals that would be hard and inefficient, even when discarding the fact that the enforcers themselves may benefit themselves at the expense of the others. But an organised religion, that taught people to obey the laws and be fait not because of earthly punishment, but for a moral principle, could make things a lot more efficient. If people enforce the laws themselves it would save much effort that can be applied elsewhere. So yes, I believe religion emerged as, and still is, a form of society control and manipulation. Whether you believe this is good or bad is up to you. The fact is that up to a hundread yeras ago there was not one significant and prosperous self-sufficient (not depending on other societies for its protection) atheist society. It seems to me that while society stability and size were much more important than progress religious societies outperformed and outcompeted ahteist societies, even while engaging in religious wars. Now, when technology progress is more important than numbers, and violence is strictly controlled, religion falls out of place. And yet the fact remains, that a person doesn't need to be religious to be moral, and God is not needed for the emegence of morality. I do what I believe is right because I enjoy the protection of society, and while I achnowleage its flaws I do now wish to weaken it any further, but improve it, and, by extension, my own life.