Talk about morals

Some theists point out how atheists don't have an objective basis of morals. Well, I think that is true. Indeed, atheists mostly have subjective morals instead of a single organized checklist of dos and don'ts. The reason is pretty obvious: atheists don't have a single "atheist leader" who dictates what they're supposed to do, basically because Atheism isn't a religion to begin with.

So what if Atheists don't have objective morals? Would that make them any less moral? Depends on what "moral" is. Trying to define what "moral" is already causing problems.

Is killing another human being downright immoral? Some would definitely say yes to that. How about killing as a result of self-defense? How about killing in the name of religion? Sacrifice? Righteous punishment? From just this, controversy already creates wildfire. All is subjective. It is only objective when talking to someone in the same religion but sometimes, it isn't even the case, hence the formation of divisions and sects.

More likely than anything else, the people who established the religions have made the moral guidelines from their own decisions. Faithfuls would argue that the rules were given to their leader by their gods, but I wouldn't delve deeper into that issue.

Where do atheists get their morals? From thinking, just like the founders of religions. Theists would probably be appalled by the idea but it's just the way humans are. Humans have minds and consciousnesses so they can think and be aware of the universe.

What is moral? What is not? You can ask. You can seek answers from yourself. It's all up to you.

A Few Little Taboos

Before the time of Jesus Christ, working on the Sabbath day was strictly forbidden. But according to the stories, he broke the taboo by doing something, which in his case, healing.

Prior to Abraham Lincoln's freeing of the black people, it wasn't accepted for them to become members of society. Nowadays, they become athletes, artists, musicians, and even leaders. Despite some people still refusing to accept this change, the culture of black people has, without a doubt, gained acceptance to the world.

Before Copernicus and Galileo, people belived that the sun revolves around the earth. Nowadays, people use the globe for obvious reasons.

Previously, it was taboo to cut up a corpse since a body is considered sacred, even after death. But if it wasn't for Andreas Vesalius, who studied and dissected human cadavers, the field of Anatomy wouldn't exist. Without his contributions, the medical field will still be in the Dark Ages.

Previously, it was forbidden for people to think against the teachings of their religion. But today, it is this rational thinking that brings us technological advancements that seemingly make life better and makes us discover what is beyond the world we live in.

Break a few rules, a few little taboos. You'll probably get farther than not. Don't worry. It's not cheating.

Evolve

I'm not saying that all believers in a religion don't believe in evolution, though, but I don't find it strange that people who reject the idea of evolution are the ones who do not evolve.

Surely, evolution doesn't work that way. Everyone and everything is subject to change, good or bad. Evolutionists and people who accept the fact that the theory of evolution is a possible explanation for the origin of life are open to the change. They are liberal and open to most, if not all, ideas. People who reject evolution wholeheartedly, on the other hand, have a deep-rooted conservative sense.

This overly conservative mindset is what hinders them to accept change, to accept new ideas and methods. They prefer doing things in an old-fashioned obsolete way. There isn't a problem with just that but fixation in old methods will lead to refusal to accept change, which in turn would lead to hindering of the human's evolutionary process.

It's not wrong to use old ways in the present time but in this ever-changing universe, we would have to cope up with the changes and sometimes, we would have to discard the old methods entirely and embrace the new. That is what it means to evolve.

Evolution isn't entirely progress with purely positive results; it is more of a trade-off. Amphibians traded off their gills for lungs. Creatures living in the dark traded off their eyes to utilize their other senses. In the same way, humans will have to discard one thing, whatever it may be, in favor of another.

Liberal humans evolve. Conservative humans do not. Evolution occurs only to those who acknowledge it. Halting this natural process would be for the worse.

Subjective Heaven

Assuming that Heaven can be experienced fully by the five senses and isn't just some elated level of "existence", it must be a state of absolute contentment and happiness. Many describe heaven as a place of eternal and absolute beauty but that wouldn't seem to be the case anymore - the ever-so-unfalsifiable Bible being retconned several times.

Given that addiction to chocolate isn't a sin, a Heaven-bound person who's addicted to chocolate would experience Heaven as a place filled with his vice. But since not everyone likes chocolate, there wouldn't be a single objective experience of this so-called Heaven. Other heavens would include whatever the Heaven-bound person likes.

But here's an extreme example. Suppose there is a Believer Girl A and an Atheist Guy B who love each other despite their beliefs. When they died, the Guy is sent to hell while the Girl, to Heaven. The Girl's innermost desire is to be with the Guy for eternity. What kind of Heaven will the Girl experience?

Would the god bend the rules for the girl so she can be with her lover? That would be unfair for everyone else. Would the Girl be ineligible to go to Heaven for loving an Atheist? That would be petty. Would the god create an illusion of the Guy that the Girl will love? That'd be cruel. Will the god strip the soul of its senses so that it can only experience unconditional bliss? That'd be even worse.

Here's the easiest way to get to "Heaven". Take Acid.

Suffering Honesty

A child breaks his mother's vase. The mother tells the child to become honest and asks the child. The child admits to his fault. The mother scolds the child. The child gets scarred for life.

This is a typical scenario in almost every household - no doubts about that. But as the child grows up, the negative reinforcement had already made a mark in his mind that honesty would yield bad outcomes. As a result, the child lies to escape punishment.

In the world today, there is no such thing as an "honest politician". People have to lie to get on with their lives because of this. Honesty doesn't yield anything other than suffering. An honest person is always the martyr.

Chaotic Universe

Theists usually say that explosions do not create order, referring to the Big Bang theory. Atheists counter the statement by stating an example of an explosion that creates order. But before anything else, what is order? What is chaos?

Say a child was brought up in an environment filled with love and care; he will perceive the world as a harmonious one with positive aspects. As for a child brought up using violence and punishment, his way of living would revolve around violence and punishment. He will perceive any violent act as a natural thing to do.

Humans are born in this universe and assimilated themselves into it, seeing beauty in its asymmetry. But is this really "order"? What kind of order is this, anyway? Total order would only be total absence of existence, which isn't the case of this universe. There is too much variation and conflict. Humans are no different from molds growing on stale bread; the molds grow and thrive on something that can exist peacefully without it.

What if this is actually "chaos"? No. This universe is indeed chaotic. Humans are chaotic beings living in a chaotic universe, thus their senses have been accustomed to this chaos and interpret it as "order". Mix in some awareness and you'll get conceit that this order is specifically made for them.

Some people think that the night sky is beautiful. Some see beauty in the rings of Saturn. Some, in death, blood, and gore. But looking at it from an extraterrestrial perspective - no, an extra-universal perspective, everything in this universe would seem pretty ugly. Humans just pick out what they think is orderly and beautiful according to their preference. That alone makes the definition of "order" pretty vague and ironically, pretty chaotic.

The theists are right for once. Explosions, indeed, do not create order.

Analysis: A Christmas Carol

In the story "A Christmas Carol" by Charles Dickens, the main character Ebenezer Scrooge had been shown three different scenarios of the past, present, and yet to come. Each scenario was shown with the hope of making Scrooge change from his selfish ways, with the last scenario finally succeeding.

The last scene seemed rather off though. Scrooge only yielded to the possible future that he might be buried in an unattended grave. He then changed after that into a generous person.

Why is this though? From my point of view, he changed only to save his own skin and prevent the possible view from happening. In the end, his acts of selflessness can have a reason other than just "wanting to change". In a way, this is a form of "selfish selflessness" and not "absolute selflessness" at all. In the end, one really can't say that Scrooge has fully converted since he converted only out of convenience rather than realizing any wrong in his actions by himself.

This makes the story a weak basis of morals. Rooting good deeds out of threats is negative reinforcement.

Then again, things like these are unavoidable.