If beliefs inform actions then all atheists should have zero morals because atheism has no grounds for morality, only survival.
You have no idea what goes on in a secular humanist's mind. You apparently don't know what an internal moral compass, or a conscience is, or you would understand where his moral imperatives come from, and how true he is to them. The Christian is free to violate his stated ethical beliefs, which he wouldn't even want to do if his conscience were well developed enough, and then pray for forgiveness. There'll be no consequences for him, no guilt, no remorse, like the guy who said he prayed for a bicycle and that never worked, so he just stole one and prayed for forgiveness.
This is the difference between behavior based in the idea that one is being watched and judged, in which conscience doesn't properly mature, and internalizing that function. The conscience doesn't forgive, at least no time soon. The self-actuated moral agent is actually the only one of the two behaving morally if this means goodness for goodness sake. If one is following a rule book instead, with the idea that one is commanded to obey and will receive an external reward if he does or an external punishment if he doesn't isn't actually morally behavior as just defined.
there's no basis for morality apart from a higher power. We are not naturally moral. They need rules and a rule giver or they steal and lie and rape and murder.
What message do you think this sends about whomever sends it? Please think about the following, and think about how your comment is received by upstanding secular humanists with strong moral backbones and healthy, powerful consciences (try to imagine a moral urge coming from within instead of a book of Commandments):
"
Atheist are routinely asked how people will know not to rape and murder without religion telling them not to do it, especially a religion that backs up the orders with threats of hell. Believers, listen to me carefully when I say this: When you use this argument, you terrify atheists. We hear you saying that the only thing standing between you and Ted Bundy is a flimsy belief in a supernatural being made up by pre-literate people trying to figure out where the rain came from. This is not very reassuring if you're trying to argue from a position of moral superiority." - Amanda Marcotte
I'm sorry but I've spoken with soviets and have read about the country for decades and every source seems to agree they were officially atheistic
So what? You seem to be implying that that informed their actions for the worse, that had they been theists, they wouldn't have been brutal, genocidal authoritarians. But the evidence all around you refutes that. Everywhere, you are surrounded by secular humanists who have no desire to live by such values. Those values don't come from their atheism, and their atheism doesn't have a permissive effect on assimilating bad values.
As best I can tell, the most evolved moral system comes from rational ethics, not holy books, nor authoritarian regimes. The ethics of secular humanism are all derived by the application of reason (especially skepticism and empiricism) to a few basic beliefs, namely, that the highest good for an individual is to learn and to love, and that the most morally evolved society is the one which permits the greatest number the greatest social and economic opportunity to pursue happiness as they understand it. The rest follows - public education, public child care, tolerance of the tolerant, freedom of and from religion, church-state separation, democracy and access to voting, abolition of slavery, equal pay for women, etc..
That's what atheists have done. That's what secular democratic governments have done.
Helping another can be selfish when someone wants something in return, when someone does it to feel good about themselves, does it to impress the person they're with and so forth. A truly selfless act is rare and wonderful because then someone does it with no personal motive.
Once the conscience is mature, that should never happen. An active and mature conscience judges all actions, hopefully before they are executed. Every time such a person does good, he feels some sort of satisfaction. If he acts rashly and naively, and violates his own conscience, it causes him such experiences as guilt, shame, and remorse.
I remember well driving along sparsely populated rural roads and seeing turtles crossing the blacktop. I would pull over to carry them across, because the thought of them being smashed revulsed me, and I knew that I would want this little fellow to do the same for me if the shoe were on the other foot. Unexpectedly, I had a spiritual moment. A frisson passed over me. I felt an intense sense of connection with this creature, and a godlike satisfaction in taking responsibility for this one little corner of the universe and the life in it. I hate to think of using the word selfish in that context. Yes, I was rewarded, and would do it again to feel some sort of satisfaction in place of remorse if I didn't, but imagine the absence of such experiences. That's sociopathy.
***********
@Wildswanderer - Please consider your words again, "
all atheists should have zero morals because atheism has no grounds for morality, only survival." Do you still believe that? Do you believe that about this atheist. This is why I suggested that you have no concept of what is going on in the atheist's head.
Hey, but you come by it honestly. Here is a spiritual-but-not-religious guy explaining that religion is is inauthentic because it is somebody else's experience, but finding common ground with the religionists who believe with him that atheists have no inner life. He seems to depict atheists as insentient Roomba's mindlessly bumping into walls measuring things as they go. I doubt that you want to sound like this guy:
