Humans can have morality without God.

' I am inclined to question the relevance of your "examples" to the argument of human morality. Firstly there is no need to use the plural 'examples' as you have actually only provided one example "Dogs don't believe in God but yet they can still learn to love you, respect you through building a relationship and mutual love, and not act like they caught rabies." Comparing the human capacity to understand right from wrong to that of a dog is a weak statement.' My examples: 1) Any child who grows up in an atheist society wouldn't behave like a bear or gun down everyone they see, even if they have never heard of God. -Round 1. Ignored. 2) Parents can teach the child right from wrong, not to stab people with pencils or burn animals or something. This is all done through learning from outward sources and not innate, and also that it has nothing to do with religion. -Round 2. Ignored. 3) Something to consider: even theists agree that the Bible or any other holy book was written by man, inspired by God; or that Prophets like Jesus or Muhammad were sent by God, giving us the first ever connection between man and God. So how did people acquire morality before that? Did everybody in the world need saving by your savior before he arrived here? -Round 2. Ignored. 4) Dogs don't believe in God but yet they can still learn to love you, respect you through building a relationship and mutual love, and not act like they caught rabies. -Round 2. Placed very special emphasis upon. 5) And the people who were in Africa or China or wherever Jesus couldn't reach, are they doomed to a fate where they have no morality? -Round 2. Placed very special emphasis upon. I will deal with the example about the dog first, no. 5 later on. 'Comparing the human capacity to understand right from wrong to that of a dog is a weak statement. One of the main features of human society that sets us apart from the animal word is our ability to have such strong beliefs therefore you cannot so simply compare human behaviour to that of an animal.' So, in that, do you mean the human ability to understand morality is because they have beliefs? Does that mean that all little pooches have to act mad because they have no particular religion? I fail to comprehend why this is a weak statement, as well as why I cannot compare the two, as you have given no relevant reasons. Again, anyone and anything can be taught morality without religion. 'Religion has been a significant part of our heritage for many years and religious teachings have, over time, been embedded into modern culture whether you recognise the existence of God or not. You have no evidence that religion has "nothing to do" learning what is right or wrong furthermore, by making this statement you are disregarding the influence religion has had on creating the society we recognise today. By this I am referring to the core teachings of many religions such as to be kind, to give charitably, to love, not to murder and not to thieve. These teachings that have been passed down the generations always influencing what we believe to be right and what we deem as wrong.', along with your P.s and the 5th example. This is the fun part. Again, who stopped the writers of the Bible from killing each other before they wrote the book? What prevented everyone from murdering anyone they see, what made them love and to do charity before the writing of the holy books? Obvious as it is, it was man that wrote the holy book that made religion's teachings, and therefore religious teachings came from man! Even if you say religion existed before the holy book, then who made the teachings then? Did some angel swoop down and said the secrets to live a righteous life? It was all still man. 'I invite you to add some substance to your point of view rather than just criticising mine. I think you will find that attacking your opponent for the majority of your debate is a poor way to convey any real reasoning behind your own conclusion.' Thanks for the invitation, I feel very welcome. But so far, all of my points of view still stand, and none of yours remain alive. And no, I find that attacking my opponent is a great way to convey my reasons, as I am doing now. Also, do you realize that only one of your statements now do not go out of topic? All the while you have been saying religion, religion, religion. Read the title again, it says God! The one statement: 'Religion has always played a vital role in that human society as always deemed moral and it is impossible to prove that we would be the same without it. Therefore I reject the notion that the human race can be moral without god.' 'I'm not suggesting that you have to believe in God in order to have a moral compass.' -Round 1.