I never overreach. Last time I overreached, I sprang my groin...........

Methinks 4 sentences would have summed things up.....becuz, you know, Summing Things Up

Any assertion that religious systems are more moral or ethical than agnostics or atheists is bound to fall over the stumbling block that most of them enforce said moral behavior only toward co-religionists. For instance: the commandment "Thou shalt not murder" (or "Thou shalt not kill" ) is a prohibition on Jews murdering other Jews. YHWH was perfectly fine with murdering the followers of any other gods, and in fact ordered repeated genocides in Jewish mythology; in several instances he carried out the killing himself (killing the firstborn, for the crime of not being a Jew and not having lamb's blood daubed over the door, is one example). Likewise, the commandment against stealing obviously does not apply in the current day to the land of the Palestinians.

Claiming moral certainty is the hallmark of those who claim they're guided by god. It leaves little room for adapting to change over time, learning from new scientific discoveries, or evolving societal standards. A religious moral code, generally speaking, is an ancient moral code, in keeping with a reliance on the ancient understanding of science to explain the beginnings of the universe and life on Earth. It's not fit for our use anymore.

I'll pay attention when it is shown that the religious act more morally than the secular, not when it is asserted theoretically or because a small mind lacking in imagination can't wrap its head around how it might be so.

IMHO, morality and ethics originates in our biological instincts and the social structure of our species. Humans are just another species on this planet.

All species act out of an evolutionary imperative to pursue those actions that lead to the greatest "fitness" for the world and environment in which they reside. This attention to maximum fitness works at the genetic molecular level as well as the macroscopic societal level.

It makes little sense for a species to pursue a strategy that reduces their chance at species propagation and survival. That would be counter-productive and ultimately disastrous leading to extinction.

Human society is no different. Morals, values, and ethics originate in a need to have a common set of behaviors that govern how a group of humans interact and behave towards one another and their environment. They most often operate from the unconscious self.

Our understandings were realized early on in our species evolution . Back in the dawn of human evolution, the human species was a puny organism compared to its predators and its prey. In order to survive, instead of evolving wings, or talons, or claws, etc., are revolutionary attribute was an enlarged brain which allowed for abstract thought. But, being puny, in order for our survival we needed to evolve a complex language pattern for communications. This advancement allowed humans to form a complex and cooperative society. Not only did was it used for cooperative hunting strategies, planning and execution. but also for protection from large predators.

Therefore, society is not only necessary, but is part of our evolutionary DNA (the single biggest reason Libertarianism will never succeed). But for any group or society to survive and maximize its evolutionary fitness for continuation, it must have understandings for how organisms in that system interact. Anything less leads to species unfitness and extinction over time.

Now its true, humans have managed to separate themselves from nature, their environment, and their jnstincts through their technology. That doesnt mean that the instincts aren't there and operant. IMHO, social morays, values, and ethics are nothing more than our instincts giving us directions on how to maintain evolutionary fitness unconsciously. Doesn't mean we always listen to the on the conscious level.

The only thing you have to do to make sense of his argument is to translate the religious material from metaphor to descriptive prose, and I think the argument is pretty sturdy. As long as you think it's talking about literal gods and such, you will not be able to square it with science, or even common sense. But there is an overreach. I don't see why scientists shouldn't make whatever reasonable statements necessary to counter superstition, but they won't be speaking to the problem if they are unable to do the translation from metaphor. And when atheists disregard religion as nothing but superstitious nonsense, simply because they are unable or unwilling to do the translation, they are being profoundly unscientific.

As an Atheist and a Dudeist, I abide.

These fallacies have been debunked for over a 100 years. Nothing new here.

Are atheists rationally justified when they claim to to be able to be good without god.

That's where I would have put the book down. The writer has already stated his opinion and you will not change it in debate or otherwise. After all, he wrote a book on it. He obviously believes in the invisible man in the sky.

I mostly agree with your overarching point. The one thing I do find odd is the premise. "Do atheists overreach?" seems about as useful to say as "Do people drive over the speed limit?"

Some do, some don't. Humans aren't always so great at avoiding logical fallacies in their deductive capability. Even some atheists. That simple fact alone can be used to refute the specific notion without all the rest of the argument.

I really hate it when theists argue that morality can not exist without god, because this implies that they would not be good people without god, and of course effects voting patterns. It doesn't matter how sophisticated or intelligent you are, I hear this argument made far less eloquently from working-class average Joe's at the bar, and it holds just as much weight in a formal and thought out format as it does in between slurred speech and half baked thoughts.

There is no evidence to suggest that religion makes people more moral, or helps people in any real personal way, in fact a lot of the data contradicts this narrative outright. We see higher rates of violent crime in places that are more religious, and in countries that have a higher religious population with the exceptions of Vietnam and China, both of which have extreme authoritarian rule.

The evidence that man created religion is overwhelming. Just by observing that there are multiple completely unconnected religions alone is enough evidence to prove that religions can be invented, so it isn't ridiculous to assume that all are. Given the total lack of empirical evidence for any of them, this is the only fair conclusion.

The fact that people are programed to believe and be religious does not excuse us from our responsibility to try and think rationally. If anything, knowing that this is a stumbling block should force us to think critically and challenge our assumptions whenever possible. I see this all the time in myself, and try (and usually fail) to make others recognize and confront their biases. This is especially prevalent in politics, to the point that I don't think I have ever met anyone (and am certainly not able myself) to truly think rationally about any political topic.

I think a lot of the moral theories and philosophies that are popular are overcomplicated or unnecessarily convoluted. I am convinced that morality boils down to a single quantum unit, which can be expressed in two words: informed consent. Every subjective opinion yields objective conclusions when crossed with other opinions to make decisions. From this framework, trust and democracy emerge very clearly, every social interaction that we would call moral or immoral can be plainly and simply dissected. Most importantly, there is no need to invoke an imaginary being to control people.

“A sound ethical foundation for universal benevolence and human rights” is not needed and is a mere exercise in ego by church leaders and philosophers. Our ethics are innate, hard-wired, not something we have to be taught. Herds of wild animals get along well together without the admonitions of priests or the torturous musings of philosophers or theologians.

The human race is just what it is. A distinctive characteristic of humanity is to engage in behavior patterns that have come to be labeled “religious”. You can not change or eliminate that characteristic, nor would it be desirable to do so even if possible. If you are human you are not above the religious impulse IMO.

It makes perfect sense to be an atheist and reject the God concept presented by traditional churches, but the question of God’s existence is only an insignificant part of religion, and the question is actually meaningless, founded as it is in a false and illusional perception of reality. There are some religious groups that do not set forth a God concept, and others that teach the concept, but only in such general terms as to be unassailable: “The ground of all being”, “Ultimate Reality”, “All that there is”, etc.

The proclamations of this Smith guy make no sense to me. I’ll continue with ignorance and bewilderment.

Well I didn't have time to read the whole book but based on the first 3 paragraphs I believe you're at least on the right track.

Smith seems to be arguing the usual tired old chestnut that morality is useless unless it has a backing authority and an inherent and supposedly objective basis. When in fact everything about the gods are merely asserted without evidence so there's never been a backing authority or Source if you will for morality. Religion appropriates the emergent property of a moral order from society and claims to be its inventor and sustainer -- again, without substantiation of any kind other than religion (typically the proponent's religion, just by mere coincidence) being "innocent by association".

Apart from all that, though, atheists inherently can't overreach because atheism is a very narrow belief position on a particular specialist topic. Perhaps secular philosophers are in error, and perhaps many of those happen to be atheists, but if one's actually trying to be fair, many of those philosophers are theists, too, and just don't take their faith seriously enough to bring god into it. It doesn't take atheism to recognize that the god hypothesis fails. Agnosticism and humanism and to a great extent liberal theism is perfectly capable of counting god out such equations, too.

I constantly fight to remind theists that the comparison is not complete worlds views and answers... its hey.. are your stories as made up as the other stories, and can you give us an objective way to sort fact from fiction? If you can't, all these arguments about morality and oughtness are really just assertions built on assertions... thus putting the cart before the horse. And they HATE it because it simplifies the question to what it really is.... why should we believe this is not mythology that persists because its much harder to falsify one god?

The entire line of thought is based on a fiction that cannot be demonstrated or proven and is most often used to dominate and take advantage of the many by the few. It's a piece of crap cloaked in pseudointellectual verbiage that means exactly nothing.

I'm sorry I didn't have time to read your whole post, but I do have a quick comment on the first part. I've found that the very religious don't seem to feel as strong a need to follow their moral system because they know they will be forgiven by god due to their belief in god. Whereas for the atheists I know, there is no forgiveness if they are immoral, so they have to avoid being immoral. Since the very religious don't need to follow their moral code, their moral code is pretty useless.

Damn that's a lot to read bro. Lol I think atheists do a little... I mean. Its really hard to prove that something doesn't exist. I think we are all agnostics, even those with faith.

Sorry, but anybody who answers "no" to the question "Can you be good without God?" is suffering a catastrophic failure of cognition. This immediately voids the rest of his book. I stopped reading your post when I reached that point in it. My reaction is much the same as that of @Indirect76: TLDR.

I have heard this argument from Jordan Peterson as well. Here are some of the flaws I would add.
If someone's morality is faith-based, what happens if that faith goes. Does someone suddenly become immoral?
To say that our morality can come only or primarily from faith-based doctrines? Then what about animal societies? The phrase "dog-eat-dog" is not true. Wolves will have their oldest/slowest dogs in front when they travel. This means that no dog will be left behind or attacked without the support of the pack. No top-down doctrine brought about this.
Many of these religious theories come from conservative ideology. Their proponents see everything from an Adam Smith market based selfish motivation only actions. They dismiss any and all socialist/social-democratic ideologies. "Why should I be good if there is no punishment or reward?" They forget that people feel good when they do good things and bad when they don't, irrespective of higher power guilt.
Not to be taken lightly is the statistical evidence that secular societies tend to be more not less moral.
Also, those religions have constantly been used to justify immoral actions. From the inquisition to LGBT hate crimes. It is one thing to say "The bible tells me to hate gays". Another to say that "I just hate them". Without that justification, you come across as the bigot you really are. Conversely, if you are good and accepting for secular reasons? You come across as a cool dude in your own right.

“…argues Christian Smith - traditional morality is based not on nature or human agents, but on God or a superhuman transcended natural order (e.g. karma). Moral norms and values as well as human rights are therefore "objective moral facts" independent of human preferences and whims.”

Excuse me, but if anything is based on “human preferences and whims” it is the idea of a god and what it wants and expects from its “creation.” There is no common morality among those who believe in gods, or karma. It’s all over the place.

Now, consider non god-based morality that is based on the human: There is one conclusion, as I see it-- we are all human, we all deserve to be treated equally and with dignity. We all deserve to live our lives as we see fit and do not have the right to harm others who have that same right.

If someone violates the rights of another; and, thereby, the rules of a civil society, by stealing from them, abusing them, murdering them etc., they are still human and must be treated as such. And, they must be dealt with in a manner that will keep society safer. The goal should be justice—not vengeance. And, most religious people I personally know (and I know it does not apply to all) it is all too often more about vengeance than justice—just like their god.

Oh, and, why are the rules of gods so arbitrary/all over the place? Well, it is because they are all made up. And, the idea of Karma, as I recall, was made up in order to maintain the caste system. People thought that if they fulfilled the duties of their caste they would be rewarded in their next life by being reincarnated as something better; and, if they didn’t, they would come back as something even more lowly.

In short. I am not only "good without god." I am better without god.

tl;dr

No atheist overreach? What are arms for, if not to overreach?

Nope, they lack resources enough to make ripples. Some day ~

Regarding whatever you posted below your initial Q … I didn’t bother. Ask a question - get an answer. Not, answer a question, read a sermon

TLDR

All I can say is that I’m a good person without god. Can’t speak for others.