I used to be on about theists, almost to the point of anti-theism but while I think it's sad, dehumanizing, and all to often dangerous to accept belief as a valid source of knowledge.. well theists just aren't much of a real threat, and also many are really great people.
As much as I could never quite get to actively opposing theism on my worst day, as most so-called 'atheists' do, I am definitely an anti-statist.
I definitely agree most people can only replace one religion with another, but this is what they are programmed to do. They are programmed to obey, never allowed to think.
Morality doesn't require religion, statism or otherwise, it requires thinking. I can explain my ethical philosophy and you would immediately understand I had thought about it, and being a thinking person, you might find something of use to your own thinking.
An analogy. Religious morality is like a set of workplace rules someone else provides you. Some people are happy just obeying, or trying to elude without getting caught, the rules.
Some other people eventually figure out the reason for the rules. They may improve them for their own use, whether more or less restrictive. They really do not need rules anymore. They are now a veteran in their environment, an invaluable employee and that value has nothing to do with knowing all the rules, it has to do with knowing the system so well they could write rules and better ones.
Similarly religion gives people a set of rules.
People that follow the rules, in most cases, behave morally. Sometimes the rules allow immoral behavior in a certain context and people can and do abuse this.
Some people try to understand the reason for the rules, and come up with a consistent framework for them. As they progress these people move beyond merely behaving morally, they become moral people.
A big problem is, people given rules will tend to just obey. Thinking is work. Religions have a tendency to abuse this and not encourage thinking whatsoever. They enjoy a monopoly on moral rules. Statism is far and away the worst offender. Other religions do occasionally encourage thought. Never statism.
Morality is just like any other discipline. It can be studied and refined. It's parameters and shape can be defined, even if it's exact behavior cannot always be determined in all cases. Because it a result of us and we are always evolving, perfect understanding is impossible.
But we don't need perfect understanding. The 'Schrodinger's cat' cases of morality are about as common as Schrodinger's cat. Most people will go through life and never once find a morally ambiguous case. They will find temptation to violate their morals, whether given or deduced, and may well fail. But a genuine 'trolley problem'? Fat chance.
And it's not just statistically unlikely for a 'trolley problem' like situation to occur. The reason is that people prefer not to have those situations. Sane people smell potential tragedy. Sane people smell BILL3's zombie apocalypse and skedadle, so they aren't faced with eating their neighbor.
I'd go into the actual specifics of my present understanding of morality but I've already type too much:)