Coercing Morality

I don't know what it was about today that really got people down, but I was getting cut eye, and attitude left right and center from everybody at work today.


My reading list is causing me to have split second panic attacks every now and then. The one thing that I can honestly say about university is that it put my reading for pleasure on an excruciating halt. I will be immensely glad to be rid of the overwhelming need to read textbooks only once I'm done in ....only a few weeks. Cannot wait.


I had an experience with a jesus following neanderthal today, and it is continuing. I don't want to feed these people's ignorance, but I can't stop responding to this dumbass. He stance is that the idea of a secular government will send society into a chaotic uproar, which is completely FALSE! Its been said before, but I'm saying it again, the biggest downfall of humanity has been the hijacking of morality by religion. And it is a damn tragedy. People can't even imagine any other way so they immediately associate any atheist that comes there way with an avid satan worshiper who wants anything but peace....*sigh* Needless to say, I don't think people who have this opinion have any grasp on what being an atheist actually means, but I digress.


I am an atheist. Am I tearing people's heads off? Am I eating people's flesh, and stabbing whoever pisses me off? No. OMG then I MUST be following jesus' way or life. No you dumbass, I am a 22 year old competent person who has morals. Morality remains. Even after religion. You do not need a fucking book to tell you basic moral guidelines such as "hmm I shouldn't shoot this person in the face, because it would probably hurt and kill them, and also anyone could do the same thing to me if they wanted, and I don't want that, because I don't want to die." Ok great. I will not shoot the person. Thanks Jesus.


Consider this analogy:
You are walking along, and you see an elderly man holding a a large sum of shopping bags. He trips on a rock and the bags, along with the elderly man, fall to the ground.


Now a person sees this and immediately helps the man up, and tries to salvage what could be salvaged of the shopping bags, because they wanted to.


Same scenario: A person helps the elderly man because they are offered $500 if he/she helps.


Same scenario: A person helps the old man because he/she knows that there are snipers in the roofs of the buildings around them that will shoot at this person if he/she does not help the old man.


All three of these people helped the old man, and I'm sure that the old man was grateful for the help by each of them. But who's help would be the most meaningful and based on genuine morality out of all three people:


The person deciding to help just because they were in the same place as the old man, and wanted to help? OR the other two who were essentially coerced into helping the old man so that they could avoid punishment or gain a reward?


I hope this analogy and how it relates to that dumbass's claim (that society would be chaos if religion -specifically christianity- did not have some part in government or the legal system) is clear enough. The moral is (no pun intended): Morality remains. Even in the absence of religion.
And as some anonymous voice poignantly exclaimed, "Morality is doing what is right no matter what you're told, whereas religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right."


Peace.


Today's Tea: Chamomile flowers.