So what your are telling me morals are what you decide them to be and what I choose them to be how will we ever know if one society is right to think all people should have value and love their neighbor or if it is right of those who choose to eat their neighbor.
Morals are man made, so, yes, morals are what we (not I, not even close) decide - all of us, not just a small number of people. This is where science comes in. Humans are social creatures and as all social creatures we need certain rules in order to survive. We're slow, clumsy and quite badly equipped to survive alone, not to mention the fact that our offspring takes forever to develop enough to be able to survive. That's why we formed societies. And we figured out pretty early on that cooperation works best. If we look out for others, they will look out for us in return. This way we can be safer, better fed and better off in general. Not killing our neighbours (or better, not killing members of our community - your god, the lawmaker, the foundation of morality, doesn't seem to frown on killing neighbours) wasn't 'ordered', it was something humans found to be counterproductive for the development and well-being of their society.
Cannibalism as such is fairly rare in higher species in general and has always been extremely rare in humans - and it always had a religious underpinnings. Please, dwell on that a bit.
You can't refer to a system like that with the term morals it would be like that of the animal kingdom.
Animals have morals. Social animals protect members of their own society and care for each other. Yes, that means that our morals don't differ much from the morals of other social animals. Animals, too, get rid of harmful members of their society, they also frown on having members of their own group kill other members for no reason. There are documented cases of chimpanzees risking their own lives to save members of their group. Why is it that you find it so distasteful or even insulting when we compare humans to other living creatures?
It is said that all material things that show a sign of intelligence we assume intelligabillity behind it. Like apologist Ravi zacharias states you can not say that the dictionary was caused by an explosion in the printing press. Someone replied to my post saying we are God. If so then show me how to produce a story with no author. You can't because you can't use and bend physics and chemistry to your will and make it happen.
It may be said, but it's wrong. However the analogy with the dictionary (or the Boeing) is horribly inaccurate. I also don't understand what it has to do with morality, so it's also completely out of place.
If you're talking about evolution, however, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the theory that explains the process. I won't go into detail here, because I seriously doubt anyone here would want to be subjected to an involuntary reading of lengthy post about something that's been discussed and explained at least a fre dozen times on this very forum. Let me just say that the idea you're talking about is commonly referred to as the 'watchmaker fallacy'
and has been refuted more times that I can count since its inception by William Paley in 1802.
Thos who are saying Jesus did not exist this I profound to me seeing all the different cultures that historically say things about him and text outside the bible saying he rose from the dead. Even the Quran states that he was born of a virgin mother. It also says he appears to die on the cross. Knowing you all will want more evidence for these last statements that's what I'll be doing right when I'm out of the car.
There are no contemporaneous sources proving Jesus' existence. There are writings from nearby nations mentioning the fact that there were people who claim he existed, which is not surprising. No-one refutes the fact that Christians exist and that they existed at the time, and I haven't come across any claims that those particular beliefs exist. That doesn't make them accurate or true.
There are numerous sources claiming the existence of all sorts of other gods and their supposed children. There are written sources on various messiahs throughout history that are practically identical to the story of Jesus. Which one is right? Krishna, Mithras, Buddha, Marduk, Osiris, Horus and all sorts of gods peoples of that region worshiped long before Jesus, share much of his CV, they performed the same types of miracles and they were claimed to be sons of gods or gods. All those mythologies borrowed heavily from one another because those kinds of beliefs were simply prevalent at the time. There is nothing new or even strikingly original in the story of Jesus. The only thing that's really sort of original in the NT is the acid-driven ramblings in the Revelations. And even that is just a rehash of various other end-of-time or end-of-world myths.
I used the word love a lot and there is the difference in our love and Gods love. When we love and love is lost we hurt because we have lost but when God loves and the love is lost he hurts only because we have lost.
This also caught my eye. So, let me recap (and repeat something that you seem to have ignored): god loves us, but he is willing to punish us for all eternity for the fact that he made us flawed, and he hurts because of it.