Atheist do not have morals? Part 2

by chaotarroo

In Part 1, I demostarted how can atheist be harmonious people even without moral guidelines

But before I go on, things to clear on between the distinction of an atheist and a nihilist, or more specifically a moral nihilist.

It’s a common belief that atheist do not adhere to any set of moral guidelines due to their disbelief in God or any supreme being illustrated in any religion. This may or may not be true. Atheism strictly, is only a idea that rejects the existence of God and shouldn’t be construed as a philosophical doctrine in life. That is to say that although I may be atheist, I may still be an advocate of the teachings in Buddhism or any other religion. Nihilism on the other hand, is a doctrine that believes no intrinsic virtue may exist in men. To naturally assume an atheist to be nihilistic is to say all republicans must be vegetarians.

Jokes aside. If atheists believes that no super power governs the conduct of this world, they believe that no one is there to judge between the virtuous and evil doings. If that’s the case how can they have morals?

If morals can be easily defined by following the commandments and guidelines portrayed in Religion X then that is true. Atheist are a savage bunch that’s devoid of proper morals. But in reality, objective morals cannot be conceived in such a simple method. If it was, that is to say a pious Christian that follows strictly on the ten commandments may be a virtuous man in his own country but vile in India. Or your regular carpenter working along the slums of Brazil may be committing blasphemy towards Thor in ancient Greek. That before moral guidelines are to guard the harmony and justice of our world we have to first make sense of your geographical location and living time line. Right?

Which leads to the inevitable question, so if morals cannot be defined through religious doctrines, what morals are objectivity then? To avoid the trap, I wouldn’t want to be digging my grave by defining what morals essentially are(but if you want to know, I am a utilitarian) but instead ask(hypothetically if you like) what morals are for. So without raping the donkey’s corpse, harmony is. It doesn’t matter which religion you subscribe to, the function of moral guidelines are always to enforce order and harmony. But looking deeply into history, it’s function is not only wishful but dangerous as well, that is, to base a huge part of our life’s manifesto on the orders of shady supreme beings.

Most of today’s dominant religion are ideas discovered more than 15centuries ago, and to apply the similar moral guidelines that we understood back then to today’s cultural standard is to be stale and just incautious. Not to mention that the most moral guidelines written in religion are supported on power and authority, not understanding and flexibility, which is the root of the problem itself.

So if moral guidelines aren’t good enough in ensuring harmony between people, what really does? What makes the state of our world?

To be blatantly honest, in these grim days, idiots are what that makes our world. Be realistic bitches, nothing ensures harmony or peace for anyone, the best we can cope with even after 5000years of civilization is corrupted authority figures that sells lies for breakfast with incompetent senators praying that idiots will either bite the bullet or buy the breakfast. So yep, idiots does. But only to be politically correct, I’ll say Goodwill knowledge that translates to sanctions in an orderly fashion does the job.

By layman definition, we all know what knowledge is, but the knowledge I am referring to is not just the mastery on our physical world. But knowledge and intelligence on the dynamics of our world. More specifically, intelligence on the optimal social workings of our world through careful and thoughtful observation, and in turn, to apply that observation out of consideration for our community, and that is what sanctions originally are in it’s purest state(some call sanctions to be evolutionary morals, they aren’t wrong at all, but I wouldn’t want to risk entering the whole vicious cycle of explaining what morals are again).

But at the same time, even with relevant knowledge on what should be done we have to first understand how can we do it. All things related to religion are tactful as hell subjects, therefore, tactful and gradual education(which actually is just propaganda) on the public must be applied for us to reach there. For example, the unseen support for the gay rights movement by the American public, which consist of 80% Christians. Or when the public votes for an American African man that supports abortion into parliament. These are all examples to show that “morals” aren’t ideas that aren’t suppose to be stale and stationary ideas, they are ideas that ought to change with culture and time. They ought to in understanding and sustaining even the least of harmony.

My eyes are dry, my brain is begging me to read Carl Sagan after Thor’s influence on me so after rambling a whole chunk, here’s my point. It may or may not(in most cases they don’t. most atheist like me, are just nerds that can’t stop thinking about the world’s function. and with all the cognition shitstorm stirred in our head, most of us are not just atheistic but nihilistic as well) be true that an atheist harbors a personal moral guideline within his heart. But having read what I wrote, I question, what are moral guidelines good for then?

I’ll rest my case and brain.