I can make an argument that the moral non-believer is superior to the moral believer. The moral believer has the added inducement of promise of heaven and the pains of hell as a behavioral carrot and stick to aid his moral judgement. His/her moral code is externally derived and behaviorally reinforced by percieved divine consequence. Since the moral non-believer does not adhere to notions of gods, heaven or hell,the moral non-believer's moral code is internally derived, based upon his percieved notion of right action alone.
Within the institutions establsihed by God for believer and unbeliever alike, a good argument can be made that the moral unbeliever is advanced above the moral believer. Not because the morality is inherantly better, but because the believer's righteousness is based upon faith through Christ and by continueing in that faith, the law is implicitly fulfilled, whereas if the believer fulfills the law independent of faith through Christ, that moral legalism is a sin.
Some of the most miserable people in all the world are legalistic believers who fail to believe in God through faith in Christ in the performance of good works.
The moral unbeliever is successful not because of anything with value from within them, but quite the opposite. God doesn't punish the moral unbeliever, but He does discipline the unfaithful believer, especially the moral ones.
There are many, many, many good works performed by unbelievers. None of them though are good by the standards of Divine Righteousness which will judge them in the future.
Some might be good for a short period of time, or maybe even for a couple of centuries, but in the long run, any human good work performed independent of God is simply parlayed into evil by the Adversary, attempting to create a counterfeit Paradise. Accordingly, as such works distract from a relationship with God, substituting evil for divine good, they will ultimately be judged as good for nothingness along eternal standards.
The reason God doesn't punish the moral unbeliever is because He doesn't have to do something that is good for nothingness. The unbelieveer is already dead to God and is already condemned to everlasting damnation. (We are condemned before we are saved.) It's only through faith in Him, that the unbeliever may find hope that is eternally trustworthy. If the unbeliever doesn't accept even the death of Christ on the Cross, there really isn't anything else that would be convincing of a sincere faith for God to perform anything more with the unbeliever, other than sorting the good things out from the things that are good for nothingness on Judgment Day.
But in reality countries that are or were led by atheist regimes like North Korea, the Soviet Union, or China have all been afflicted with evil.
The believer knows there is such a thing as a greater good. But the non-believer thinks it is all subjective and therefore impossible to assign absolute moral value to actions.
Upon what standard would a 'non-believer' base a standard of 'right'? This is the secular humanist dilemma--if you will allow that distinction--since the basis can be changed according to whom holds the reigns of power to direct public attention.
You state “ the moral non-believer's moral code is internally derived, based upon his percieved notion of right action alone.”
And that is the problem. If it is our subjective perceptions and/or experiences that determine what is right. Then the only valid moral behavior is that which fits within my own personal belief system. Two immediate dilemmas present themselves. The first is that since all persons will have a wide variety of experiences during their lifetime. With that variety of experience our perceptions may very well change. Does that mean our moral behavior must be flexible to reflect that change? The second dilemma is that while we assume that our own self determined notions of right and wrong would surely not be evil and that they would on the whole benefit ourselves, others and society. We know from history that tyrants, serial killers, terrorists and evil men of all stripe have always used their self understanding of morality to advance the most horrific events of all ages.
This is because they always believe that they alone, above and beyond God, law or policy, have true knowledge of right and wrong. A main component of this belief is that a persons value is not based on their innate human dignity but in how that person conforms and advances the evil man’s world view. If a person deters the world view of a Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or Mao the person is a liability and must be disposed of. If a person enters the fantastic grimoire of a Dahmer, a Gacy, a Bundy or a Gein that person no longer has humanity but becomes the puppet in service to a sociopath’s desires.
Now fortunately if the moral unbeliever was to examine the source of his beliefs he would discover that they are rooted in the Judeo-Christian ethic or at least in the universal golden rule. The morals he embraces could probably be placed against the part of the 10 commandments on how we should live in community and found to be the same.
This at least means that they will not only use self experience to validate moral behavior. They will think of how their actions effect others. They will not discard the humanity of others. They will not justify ill behavior by claiming some superior, secret understanding of right and wrong.
That is true morality. It does not change with a whim, It always remembers others. It always causes us to appeal to a knowledge greater than our own in times of doubt or distress. The source of my moral behavior and beliefs is the Lord God. But no matter one’s source it must be external, it must love and dignify all persons, it must base condemnation of actions and not on existence. It compels us to do good and to reject evil. No person left to their own devices can be free of the prejudices, hatreds, selfish desires and petty envies that feed the roots of evil. That is why we must guard against selfishness and seek after Truth.
Illogical...
Morality and all of its associated ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
Returning to Plato's Euthyphro, Socrates advanced the argument that piety to the gods is impossible if the gods all want different things.
Morality is impossible, because all humans have different morals... Claims of morality is sophistry without some singular higher power defining what it is...
But, since we are all properly obeying the * modern interpretation * of the First Amendment, good & evil isn't the question... Good & bad, right & wrong, etc., etc., ad nausea; are all inherently religious ideals.
The modern interpretation of the First Amendment (according to the liberal-tarians) says government must exorcise all traces of religion and theism from itself. Therefore, government must never consider issues of morality and right and wrong.
So, it becomes a question of benefits versus costs. Fetus killing has its benefits to society, especially if you like to sleep late on Saturdays. But it also has its costs as well. Society (by which I mean, whoever manages to seize power) needs to evaluate these costs and decide accordingly.
The mythical rights of men and women are also meaningless. The very concept of rights is also founded in religion. Since the enlightened person is freed from any superstitions about some "God," they are free from having to worry about "rights."
Only raw power counts and humans are just meat puppets for the powerful...