[kahljorn]

"Seriously, people who argue that atheism is morally superiror to religion are absolutely asinine."

That's kind of the point I was trying to make. How can you call something morally superior while people aren't being guided by their moral compasses? Obviously, the morality of a person couldn't be decided by such a means. The morality of an entire system, maybe, but still not on an individual level. Christians have their moral compasses set by a religion they often don't understand, and more or less follow blindly. Atheists usually have their moral compass set by a political institution or something similar. Very few atheists set their own moral code, most of them probably think morals are too religous or something.

I just don't see how you can say something is morally superior that promotes the somewhat blind acceptance of any given order, when morality by all means is always about the mind frame/actions the individual person does. Atheism in this regard would seem to have a heads up on christianity in that it's all about personal choices, but still most of them become selfish and so interested in what is theirs and what could be theirs that morality is lost ;/
Really there's no other solid atheistic philosophy that arises beyond the fact that because God doesn't exist only we exist as the creators and formers like you said. That opens the door up for way to many immoral choices if our morality is essentially that anything is acceptable so long as we will it to happen.

I think it's very hard to judge someone morally who does things in the interest of the state or "God"/religion. Really what you are judging them for isn't so much their "lack of morals" but their ignorance and stupidity for following a ridiculous system even into the territory of extremetism.

I think both of them have the same potential for morality. Then, I don't really understand the extent to which the new atheist movement strives.