Some Random Thoughts Regarding Morality.
*If for some reason it could be proven beyond any reasonable doubt that any and every religious figure (including God) you ever believed in were an utterly false and entirely fictional figure, would you therefore all of a sudden start doing whatever you damn well pleased - steal, rape and pillage, murder at will, lie, cheat, acquire slaves, own multiple wives (or husbands), abuse children and animals, etc.? The vast majority, including the vast majority of (now ex) Christians (and ex other religious faiths) wouldn't. So religion gets its moral authority from humans; humans get no moral authority from religion. Therefore anyone who invokes God does NOT have any moral advantage over me.
*In contrast, in the name of their god, as many True Believers have bombed hospitals, churches and schools as have built hospitals, churches and schools. In fact aren't suicide bombings and religious holy wars and fatwahs illustrations of (probably) good people doing immoral things under the banner and in the name of their god? Once you claim to know the mind of God (or equivalent), you know what God wants and so you can go and do God's will, just working on God's behalf. If that is the case, then there is absolutely no limit to the atrocities you can get away with - all in God's name of course.
*Nearly all people have and do identify with the "Golden Rule" without ever having read or even having heard of the Bible or of a Jesus. In fact, dozens of variations of the "Golden Rule" can be found that easily predate the New Testament, even monotheism. The "Golden Rule" seems to be innate within us; just one of those commonsense bits and pieces of logic we take as a given.
*Therefore, has there been any ethical or moral statement, or belief or action by a religious person that can't also be applied to a non-believer?
*However, in contrast, there are many things religious people will do in the name of their religious god that non-believers wouldn't dream of doing, like the mutilation of children's genitalia. Religious folk perform this sort of atrocity with a sense of righteous relish.
*Speaking of children, religious fundamentalists threaten their children with eternal punishment and torment in hell if they don't straighten up and fly right. This is a form of immoral child abuse.
*The Devil tempted me and therefore the Devil made me do it - a convenient way of avoiding taking any personal responsibility for your actions.
*Theists propose that there are just two kinds of evil. There's natural 'evil' (i.e. - disease, earthquakes, drought, etc.) and then there is moral evil where humans harm humans and often innocent animals and the environment (i.e. - pedophilia, kidnapping, blackmail, rape, littering, etc.). However, theists conveniently forget two other categories of evil. Firstly, there's religious evil - humans harming humans in the name of their god (be it God or Allah, etc.) and by god there's been an awful lot of that sort of evil. Secondly, there is holy evil or God's evil and you don't have to read very far into the Bible to find examples, examples like The Flood, Sodom & Gomorrah, the 10 plagues, the sanctioning of slavery, genocide, animal and human sacrifice, cruel and unusual punishments like stoning to death children or letting loose bears on kids. Humans can be evil but by god, God is their role model.
*Why be good when you can just be forgiven?
*No matter what alleged moral absolutes you postulate (i.e. - murder is wrong), I'd wager the human intellect and imagination can come up with a scenario that justifies a violation of that alleged absolute. In the case of murder, there's self-defense; war; capital punishment; abortion in certain circumstances; mercy killing / euthanasia and scenarios where the act of killing one innocent saves the lives of five other innocents (The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one - Mr. Spock.)
*The idea that religious faith automatically makes you a good and moral person is absurd in the extreme. Prisons in America, Canada, Western Europe, Australia, etc. are full of Christians. Prisons in Muslin countries are full of prisoners of the Islamic faith. And then too, what about all of those people of the cloth and the collar - like Catholic (and other) priests and other clergy who use their positions of authority to 1) mentally abuse little children with terrifying threats of eternal punishment in Hell and 2) who physically abuse children in their care, especially engaging in sexual abuse. And that's just scratching the surface of the evils committed by those professing religious faith.
*We don’t have ingrained into ourselves at birth a moral compass, an ethical sense, or a legal library. But rather we acquire our morals, our ethics our legal obligations from others in our society – societies and cultures which differ from place to place and from time to time thus resulting in slightly differing moral values, ethical values and legal values.
*We do not need divine permission to know right from wrong. (Christopher Hitchens)
*It’s a sin to be jealous of your neighbor for owning slaves (thou shall not covet) yet it’s not a sin to own slaves.
*It is silly in the extreme to seek out what the nature of morality is that is applicable in today's, in our modern technological environment that stem from a very, very ancient holy book.
*Any public good or service a religious person can perform in the name of their god(s) an atheist can do as well.
*"Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it." - Christopher Hitchens
*Moral comes from within but religion takes the credit.
*"GOOD works in non-mysterious ways." [Atheist billboard]
*"Morality does not require supernatural supervision." [Atheist billboard]
You seem to have posted a set of quotes without references. Are you please able to quote your sources as the post seems inconsistent with at least one internal contradiction in your argument. I have made comment to some points but with sources it might help the context in which they are originally discussed. Sorry to be pedantic but these are important points and if taken out of context can be misleading for others.
“Theists propose that there are just two kinds of evil. There's natural 'evil' (i.e. - disease, earthquakes, drought, etc.) and then there is moral evil where humans harm humans and often innocent animals and the environment (i.e. - pedophilia, kidnapping, blackmail, rape, littering, etc.)”
This is theodicy, a term coined by Leibniz in C18th and followed through by many others including Max Weber in C19th. It is based on philosophical exploration rather than a theist position. Probably a bit broad to suggest that theists refer to theodicy as an argument. Religious and holy evil, Leibniz and Weber would argue, are moral evil.
“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one”. This predates Mr Spock. It is part of the ideas of John Stuart Mill and Utilitarianism in C19th. Again a philosophical argument not a doctrine, a part of consequential ethical theory.
“The idea that religious faith automatically makes you a good and moral person is absurd in the extreme.” Agreed, but this is not limited to religiosity. Abhorrent behaviour can be found in all walks of life, inside and outside of institutional structures. The problem is not a specifically religious problem.
These two statements seem to be at odds with your argument -
“The "Golden Rule" seems to be innate within us; just one of those commonsense bits and pieces of logic we take as a given.”
“We don’t have ingrained into ourselves at birth a moral compass, an ethical sense, or a legal library. But rather we acquire our morals, our ethics our legal obligations from others in our society – societies and cultures which differ from place to place and from time to time thus resulting in slightly differing moral values, ethical values and legal values”
But when there is a conflict over the moral direction, especially where there is some doubt, the theist can always claim that their opinion has more weight, because it is backed by the authority of a holy book, which is in turn backed by god.
Therefore if you get your morality from a work of fiction, you have a better morality, than those who read history, pay attention to the best philosophers/scientists and most of all take the time to think about it.
Why, exactly, would "no gawd for sure" make me, or anyone, start behaving in reprehensible ways? Oh, wait, because gawd-believers never did..........