UNDERSTANDING MAN

The rising champion of morality among the people are the atheists.  They irreverently mock the believers of God the theists saying that there is no God chanting rants that say there is no need of a God but policemen.

The atheists claim that morality is subjective and should be founded on the honest inquiry of things.  They also claim that the knowledge or standard of good need no religious man to know which is good or which is evil.  Matter of fact, they would inject philosophical utilitarianism thoughts on determining what is good like a case of a train operator who sees on the left bound track five people who will surely die if he opt to go toward that direction and on the right bound track one fat man who will also die if he were to drive his train to that course.  The answer was obviously on the direction of the fat man because it is less evil.  

The atheists further claim that even monkeys know how to practice restraint if only to give way for their primates to enjoy life.  What the atheists are trying to say is that morality or the measure of good do not actually come from a God but from the beasts and men.  Further, it borrows from an age old idea from an atheist religion Buddhism saying, there is no such thing as moral transgression like sin.  It goes on to impugn on the idea of man's suffering as  an effect of mental error and not of moral transgression. Makes sense!

The atheist argument on morality seem valid but reality would reveal, otherwise, that among the beasts restraint is not a common practice or a norm so as to say that all animals are a natural compass for morality or good for men.  It can be construed instead that man has the tendency to anthropomorphize things surrounding him, hence, the fallacious arguments of the atheists on morality based on bestiality.

The point of the atheists saying that morality can be derived from a subjective point of view can only be true and possible if the idea of a good is based on an absolute value of a good.  The world will need to have a good and absolute baseline before it can even explore to the subjective good or else we will be regressing to the standard of good which is that of the beasts.

Imagine a government run without a law but by reason. Imagine a government run by netizens in the internet (of course, they have reasons). Surely, the courts will be clogged by cases and the world will be more hostile to live for mankind because of the floating standards of good and morality.  The vast range of suasion emanating from reason will surely make our lives on earth more miserable than commiserable.

Do not the atheists think that the naturally long evolved present way of governance like setting a standard of morality through legislation (surely debates and reason happen on the floor of the legislators in democracies) is better than a floating morality or subjective morality by anarchy?

Where is the wisdom of the Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris on morality? The words the atheists say, people need a police and not God is a foolish one.  Police is an enforcer of the law which is part and parcel of the gamut of a moral government.  Godly, people supports and submits to the governments or authorities. 

The hypocrisy of the atheists is on the point that they think they know the solution of the world’s problem thinking that they are part of a solution when they themselves are not even sure of the roots of good and morality!   

If the atheists are not able to see the difference of the good and morality of man from the standard of good and morality of the beasts there will be no great wonder why the atheists are not able to accept an objective or absolute truth.

The atheists will have to reeducate themselves about the present truth or current state of affairs.  What is present today is a product of evolution or process of change and by it the world is more stable because it has naturally gone through its metamorphosis. The world has evolved organically, so to speak, and not by some means of invasion or intrusion.

The mind of an atheist is to splice everything like genes, meme, morality and good.  The truth is that whatsoever on this earth is not able to endure or survive by the test of time the same is not the substrate of the beautiful, the truth, the good, and the normative morality by  emanation. Thus, we see communism, Nazism, and all other states and forms of minds in humanism and  atheism.  They just reemerge at one point in time but they never will last long without an opposition against them.  This exercise is an eternal truth that man has never learned anything from what he continues to deny and disobey who is God. 

In his social contract, Jean Jacques Rousseau posited the idea that for a society to have a viable and neutral general will the laws will have to come from a third party which is not from humans.  Simply put, an absolute or spiritual. 

Meditating on Rousseau, the ever evolving standards of the post modern man on morality will only spiral into self affliction and destruction because human pride, lust and emotion will always come into play in coming up with an ethical standard, hence, the scriptures decreed to mortify the works of the flesh in our bodies and cleanse it from the filthiness of the flesh and the spirit.

       If this world will continue to defy the absolute values of righteousness, the life of men on earth will only continue to evade the love, joy, and peace that it wanted to attain_ a life that is abundant. 

In an attempt to live a life in autonomy, self-will, caprices and whims this world will never be able to attain the harmony brought about by reason alone but a harmony brought about by sensory experience or percept.  The world will be a jungle.