The religious claim that there can be no morality without religion presumes a fixed, objective definition of "moral" which does not exist in the real world. What is "moral" changes from era to era, and even from culture to culture within a single era. Morality is determined by the needs — perceived or actual — of the community as a whole.

• The bible reveals a highly different sense of morality than the one with which we (including Evangelical Christians themselves) live today. For instance, slavery is a common practice in the bible (and was a common practice among bible-thumpers for nearly a century in this country). The bible suggests that offering your virgin daughter up for multiple rape is preferable to witnessing a homosexual act. It also dictates that if a man rapes a virgin woman, he has two choices: either marry her, or pay her father the going rate for virgins. Presumably — hopefully — people in the twenty-first century don't agree with these dictums. Similarly, we should ignore any religious tenet that advocates intolerance, hatred or violence.
• The Religious Right claims that morality is based on what God says is good or bad. On that basis, this "God" character acts contrary to his own judgment of morality many times throughout the bible.
• A child learns how to differentiate between good and bad behavior on the basis of what earns rewards and what incurs punishment. Children even learn safety precautions in this manner — they are shouted at when they try to touch an open flame, and will no longer try to touch the flame because they don't like the loud parental disapproval...the fact that the flame will hurt them is not an issue they consider until they are older. However, adults must be able to rationally adjudicate their own behavior based on what is best for them and others. Mutual benevolence — which is nicely summed up as "Do unto others as you would have done to you" — is the key to true morality. The religious threats of punishment and enticements of rewards — usually after death — should have no bearing on an adult's sense of morality.
• A common fundamentalist claim suggests that those without religion are egocentric (because they place themselves above any god), selfish (because they are less likely to do good deeds), and amoral (because they have no moral compass to guide them). We submit that quite the opposite is true. Assuming that there exists an all-powerful being, that you are created in its image, and that you can have an individual, personal relationship with it — that is egocentric. Doing good deeds for the sole purpose of getting into a paradisiacal afterlife means that every good deed done is actually self-serving — that is selfish. And needing to rely on rules and regulations set up by others in order to determine the difference between right and wrong — that indicates the lack of any moral compass.
• We can sum up these points with some sage advice from a very wise man:

  "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." — Albert Einstein, Religion and Science