I'll start by saying one thing just quickly... Nice choice of views "From thin air".

I do agree that religion did a good job of creating somewhat of a structure 2000 years ago. But today it's really not necessary. So yes I would agree religion assisted in the creation of societal RULES.

Morals however are very different. I'll try and not make this a debate of religion, because it is very VERY rarely even a debate by definition. Morals would have most likely originated from trial and error, alongside generational learning. One generation learns something, and passes it down to their children. The children improve upon it, and so on and so forth. If humans had morals since day dawn, we would see no increase in the success of societies. Are our societies the same as the societies 2000 years ago? No, they are far far different. Because morals change, they are learned, and improved upon.

One thing we have had since the beginning in my opinion, based on nature. Is the willingness to survive. To survive you are better off in groups (especially humans). When in groups the individuals MUST cooperate, they must, how else would the group survive without natural cooperation? Through cooperation comes the sharing of knowledge. Knowledge which becomes guidelines, rules, boundaries, etc. It's as simple as individual humans, becoming groups. Then groups, become societies. It's really not that complex.

To argue morals come from a God. One must first prove the existence of God, which has yet to be done. I refuse to acknoledge the belief our morals came from a higher being, when EVERY single theory of God is unfalsifiable. Meaning it can't be proven wrong. In the sense there is no way of proving it wrong. Meaning there is no way to test it.

Therefore, any theory based on another theory in which has not been proven, can also not be proven, nor SHOULD it be risen as a point of argument. Morals coming from a God is a theory, one which is based on the unproven, unfalsifiable theory that God even exists.