In anycase from boots definition morals would work without god

What if there are no consequences? What if jail doesn't strike fear? I've probably made a thousand arrests. The vast majority were repeat offenders.

No, they wouldn't.

They wouldn't be morals anymore.

They would be laws.

If jail doesnt strike fear how does god?

Fear of society shunning you for doing wrong.

God sends you to Hell. Forever.

Laws are different from codes and statues. B

Of course, there will always be excepts, but that's why we call them excepts.

But they dont care about god or hell

Again, excepts.

Just like people dont care about laws sometimes

"Hey, look, there's a tall woman! Your statement is false!" - Non-arguments.

And those people are exceptions.

You're right, because they don't believe in a god.

So religion works except when it doesnt...

And laws work except when it doesn't.

Well not in the traditional sense. Everyone believes in a god. But for an atheist, that god is himself.

you may not fear Hell in your normal life, but if you actually believe in Hell or think there is a chance, and you think you could go there, you will fear it and you will have an uncomfortable death

The point being laws apply even if you dont believe them

And Laws have a much easier habit of resulting in tyranny.

Morals do not.

Religion resulted in tyranny when it was the law

Morals arent religion

Depending on the religion yes

You can have morals without religion

Tell me what right a man has to decide what is moral

Not so much the other way

However, religion is the best entity of actually getting people to agree with your morality.

Also, religion was the result of the need for explanations and was the result of society agreeing on common principles and figures.

Man can weigh the good and make decisions based on that

Ehzek, define "good."

With the highest morality comming from what is best for you and others

Who decides what is best?

Alright, what is the best for you and others?

In fact, tell me what can be considered "good" in an objective manner?

What is "best" for a poor family is to slaughter a rich family and take everything from them. As has happened in every godless communist revolution

When you treat others as yourself and wouldnt do something to others that you wouldnt want done to you

Except that slaughter is bad because slaughtering the poor family would be bad for the poor family

What if I deem it better to take your things so I can "help" others?