Would you prefer to believe that humans need God for morals, or that we can be moral on our own?

Please read my words carefully:

If you see footmark in the sand, you'll say that someone passed from here...

If you see a piece of dog sh*t on the ground, you'll say that a dog passed from here...

So what about the enormous universe, the sky, stars, planets, earth and all the beauty in it, doesn't it lead to that someone made it?!!!

Some people say that everything is created by itself after the big-bang... I won't ask you about what caused the big-bang, but I'll ask you a simple question:

If you take all the letters of the alphabet, multiples of them, and you threw them randomly on the floor. Do you expect (by a chance of one in infinity) to get a poem like shakespear's??!!

Can't you see how organized our universe is, the planets, the eco-system on earth, look even in your own body... Can you control your heart-beat? Can you control your breath while you're sleeping? Who stopped your eye-lashes from growing after reaching a certain length? Who told the baby turtles to move towards the sea and not to the earth after they come out of their eggs? Who taught the bird how to make nests?

My friend, think with your heart and brain. If you're still lost, think about the following:

Do you know how to play safe?

Non-believer's case:

If there's no God and you do all what you want in life, then nothing will happen to you after life. But if there was God and you were mistaken, then you'll blame yourself FOREVER...

Believer's case:

If there's God and I followed His commands in life, then I'll be in Heaven after life FOREVER. But if there was no God and we're mistaken, then nothing bad will happen to us after life...

Now you know how to play-safe, in case you're not convinced?

I think that you miss the point,because the both above are human inventions.Sorry.To believe in both at the same time,Morals and God too(humans with God's morals or gods with humans'morals),or to LIVE with both as separated Belief is as possible,as with just one.God's morality or Human's morality.

What would give and is a real Eschizofrenia is that both were different and contradicting,unless we had some Sado Maso Society lead.

What seems innate to humans is to have some state of morality-even for inmorality-.God is less necessary for a living,but we put that in our lives,too.Maybe that is why is so "above" us,beyond_divine,not of our ordinary lives.Though for some peoples God have been their chicken,goose or cow.Their fire,their water,or their air,their food.Others preferred that is taboo,untouchable.

Same with Morality,for some is our daily mores included sexuality,death, plain eating rituals,(+/- flexible with times fashions)or something unreachable beyond idealism.

Both have been pretty/ugly plastic

PS_What I don't get is why to try to have not the HUMANE own's moral.If my god is a sacrificing Lamb,to live my Life as one for others to wolf you.And if my God is a Thunderer,why to go around splitting skulls and raping.So divine both,to eat and be eaten...(?)

By humane,I mean the tribe,clan,family,ape group morality. Bigger Society and Culture obey other interests,needs.But,even at that basic of primary states the equation is the Self or the group as Moral factor,and determinant.

If would be better for us to be able to be moral on our own. However, since this is obviously impossible thenn we need God.

I think it is impossible for us to be moral withouit God because of what is going on in the world today. The more and more the ACLU takes God out of society, the more problems are occuring particulary with morality.

If we could be moral on our own then that would be great. I think we would still need to recognize God in our lives.

This answer to this is binary, by that I mean two options.

The theist position is God is creator and hence all morality is from God. The atheist is that there is no God and therefor the human is responsible for our own morality.

You choose.

You don't need a god to be moral, but some people need an incentive keep themselves in line. I do believe in god by the way and my statment is not intended to be rude if that's how someone might interpret it.

anybody might desire to have a reference ingredient for their ethical gadget. in the different case what's solid and what's evil is relative. whether, certainty isn't relative. 2+2=4 not 5. 2+2 under no circumstances equals 5, no count what my opinion is. If murderers theory homicide replaced into solid. How ought to each physique oppose that concept ? might all of it come right down to a properly-liked vote ? If we respected their ethical code as being real for them, then we'd all finally end up interior the palms of a growing to be inhabitants of murderers. clean lines might desire to be drawn quicker or later. and lines are consistently being drawn. final 3 hundred and sixty 5 days (2009) we placed 40,000 new regulations into result interior the country while the recent 3 hundred and sixty 5 days rolled around. the international loves making regulations and curbing human habit for despite motives. what's properly ethical is printed interior the inhabitants. anybody does comprehend that homicide is incorrect. that is written on guy's heart. it fairly is observed as organic regulation. And that is an concept it fairly is even pondered interior the announcement of Independence. those recommendations are actually not observed in those modern-day days. yet anybody is conscious stealing is incorrect, telling lies is incorrect, and so on. there is no might desire to confuse the project. the elementary attitude to coping with ethical problems in our society is compromise and pragmatism. that could be a elementary flaw in our modern-day training philosophy. in certainty, our public training gadget is lacking plenty interior the component of epistemology. We lack a theory technique that a large style of the ancients excelled in. that isn't any twist of fate that philosophers spoke approximately geometry. the two issues are related. it fairly is a element of the project in this placed up-scientific revolution, placed up enlightenment, pragmatic, healing, age. no person can think of roughly certainty without resorting to empiricism. not each little thing is resolved on a petri dish.

Well, of course it would be better to think that people would be moral based on the desire to be good rather than fear of an angry god.

I know that we can be moral all on our own.

If God exists or not, people would still know that killing, stealing, etc were wrong.

Oh...I would MUCH rather people be inherently moral.

I'd prefer that we figure it out on our own... supernatural sanctions are more about fear than morality.