In my previous entry I have mentioned that I am a nihilist. This means I do not believe in any meaning in life, or any set goal, I also reject (objective) morality.
The above statement makes religious people (and sometimes even atheists who are not nihilists) ask an important question: "If there is no morality, then why be moral?". Or a similar question: "If there are no morals then why do you act the way you do?". These are important questions, the answer is actually quite simple.
I try to act with "goodness" not because I can argue from first-principles why one action is preferable to another but simply because it is in my nature to want to act with "goodness". I realize that if I act one way (like helping another person out) and a different way (such as killing a person) then these two actions have different effects on other people. Because I realize this I generally try to act in such a way to make other people better off. Thus, I view charity as "good" while theft as "evil". I project myself in place of another person. I recognize that if our positions were reversed I would also want to be helped, and I would not want to be robbed. This is why I act the way I act. Not because I think "good" and "evil" really exist but because I realize that certain actions make people better off and I would like to be better off (just like everyone else).
Therefore, I use the words "good" and "evil" eventhough these do not really exist objectively. But that is all fine, these are useful words to apply. I also use the word "moral", again because it is a useful word to have.
I also would like to add that people get thier morals from evolution. If people were unable to care for eachother then the human species would have not developed to the point it is today. Indeed, the human being is capable of being the most caring out of all animal species. Many humans go out of their way to even care for creatures lower than themselves. This is a major part of the reason why humans have developed so much over the years. The same level of caring is not present in other animal species, which is why they have more difficulty surving than the human being.
This is why I say the question of morality is a rather simple question.
Morality, from my point of view is clearly a lot simpler than the morals of a religious person. Let us use an Orthodox Jew to illustrate. For Jews, "morality" is equivalent to "obedience". Obedience to the scriptures. To be a "moral" person, according to Judaism, is to be an "obedient" person to God. So giving charity is "moral" according to Judaism not because it helps other people but because God wants people to give charity, and so giving charity is being obedient to the Lord. Killing homosexuals, or killing those to transgress the Shabbos, is not in favor of other humans, but it is still called "moral" because it is obedience to the scriptures, and so it is obedience to the Lord.
Even though I admit I have no morals, but still use "morality" as a useful tool to work with other people, I consider myself to be far less dangerous than a religious person. Even if you are an atheist and are not comfortable with my position of their being no morals you should be more uncomfortable with a religious person (in my example, an Orthodox Jew). Because for an Orthodox Jew morality is nothing other than obedience. I at least have a certain goal I try to accomplish by being "moral", the Orthodox Jew only cares about obedience. This Jewish person can therefore act in dangerous ways and insulting ways to other people to be obedient to God. Thus, even if you are not a nihilist there is no reason why you should be afraid of me more than a devout religious person.