Matus Rajsky I appreciate the comment.
Couple of problems here.
I was talking about Naturalism if I remember correctly, “Darwinian decision.”
Also I don’t remember saying that Christians/Atheists were more superior than any of the other. My point was that the argument lays in the fact that Christians should have better reasons for being moral. But if those reasons for being more moral aren’t applicable, then you lose the argument that Christianity is the only source of credible objective moral laws. It’s obviously not if naturalism provides them as well (I gave the examples on altruism that has evolved in early species + included three articles that elaborated on that point).
And the term “naturalists” could just be used interchangeably with the term “humanists” in which case you could argue that that branch of secularism is more moral than others, since it is trying to argue the case for being a decent human being.
So just to sum up here, my argument is that God did not give us morality, but that it was evolved through the ages via trial and error and our upbringing.
And if you do question that I recommend you reading books like Morality: How Science Can Determine Human Values, or Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved, by Frans De Wall. But there has been so much written about this that it would be hard to disagree nowadays, one just needs to spend the time to try to understand the different view.
But I understand either way that you think the morality argument is not strong enough. So for you this is not very applicable, but some Christians (such as the author of that article or Ravi Zacharias) say that it is still a strong argument, which clearly it is not.