[@Bishop]

Material as in anything with a physical or logical (or any other ical that I'm missing) basis. i.e concrete, not abstract, can be broken down into trivially provable facts.

Perhaps, but do we know that people won't self-govern well enough? Whether they will or not, the idea of anarchy isn't that it's superior because it leads to more happiness (not enough data to conclusively say), but rather that it is the most logical state to be in. Logic doesn't take human thoughts or feelings into account. So in the end, I'm not saying that a naturalistic point of view means that you should end up believing you'd be happier in anarchy, satisfied, or in any way better off. Instead, I'm saying that logically speaking, anarchy is the path to go down when taking pure facts and concrete truths into consideration—it's part of why the animal kingdom is in anarchy—it doesn't exactly have a system of feelings and ideas of what "ought" to be.

Christianity clearly outlines good and evil and how to live according to each. It also states that no matter how evil someone is, if they turn from it (and turn [i]to[/i] God—that's important), they they're saved.

No, the meanings of words are more abstract than the words themselves. A word is just a series of characters separated by a delimiter such as a space. We also have very formal definitions for the meanings of some words, while others are very abstract—I would be inclined to agree with you for those words that are. However, that circles back to my original point that morality is one of those abstract words without a concrete meaning, so we can't have something that is truly "moral" in the naturalistic point of view without succumbing to abstraction.