Morals without God or Darwin, just Empathy

sometimes i wonder if some people realize this though, some people don't show any reason, its all black and white don't you have to define 'good' first?

A lot of christians don't realize this but it is incomplete, theres a lot of stuff that wasn't written down that people followed and stuff that was written down came from the stuff that wasn't, just reading the laws in the OT do not reflect the full meaning behind the morality in the OT, its not all there. does it have to be cake though? how about pie? i like pie that kind of comes off as circluar reasoning: they don't have morals so they are bad, they are bad because they have no morals, just pointing this out, since thats a common argument from the otherside for why you must have moralsthe reason people should have morals is because they are useally about peoples lives, safty and property. those without morals tend to eather be dangerous to themselves or to others, or both. also those without morals tend to not fit into society and are distrusted by others, thus living a short unhappy life. morals allow a frame work to base a society on, which if we didn't have some form of morals or ethics would lead to socal self destruction.

you can't prove a negative, the default is, there is no entity to pay, you have to show its real, not us showing it doesn't nor does it make the enitity real, eather, but having no belief in something is more logical than having a belief despite no evidence

so explain to me what 'morality' is first? how do you define what is and isn't morality?
unless you can show that there is some universal morality that every human who ever lived has, then all morality is learned through a cultureyou learn stealing from your family is wrong, murdering your family is wrong, destroying close reletives property is wrong, while on the other hand, you learn doing it to strangers is not.
or you learn doing things considered wrong or bares out negitive consiquences, to anyone is wrong.please show some morality that everyone shares, because i know from anthropology, that not everyone shares the same moralitycannibulism is considered only wrong if you are the one being eatten, but not to the cannibul

and this has what to do with what i said? what you are saying is irrelevent. what are you talking about? what does this even mean? i don't see how it relates to what i said about the default of the existince of god or the supernatural is it doesn't exist till shown it does where did i say anything about my belief or lack there of? i believe there is a force out there, belief is belief though, its a pure subjective thing. i do believe in a god, just not the christian personal god or the islamic or any of the religions that exist now, they are all wrong

you change the meaning of morals and what is considered a moral right in the middle of that paragraph, they arn't morals they are ethics anyway.becides you didn't answer my question, please show a morality people share, in all my time learning not one culture has shown the same morals in the same way as another has, they vary more than they are alike hmm well better is reletive to the society, thats my point, there is no concrete 'better' that is universal it varies greatly from culture to culture
as for saints and heroes, they are people who exemplify the ideal, it doesn't mean they really are better, they are just precieved to be.yes i agree that humans can think above even the cultural norms and rules and be better people, but i don't really see the bible as an example of this moral ideal, half of it is full of exclusionary laws and the other half has always set a conflicting view of what people were trying to present