It strikes me as obvious, and perhaps there is a string on this site that gets into the question, that when and if a given atheist's and a theist's morals were point for point equal, who has the high ground? It's my opinion that the atheist wins hands-down as he or she maintains a high standard of human morality without the fear of some invisible deity looking over everyone's shoulder with threats to behave in a moral fashion.
Speaking personally, I would put my moral standards side by side, point for point, tit for tat with any true believer. All the atheists I know personally have or place a high value on morality; in other words we do the proper thing or take the correct path because it is the proper thing to do in a human context and do so without the fear of some invisible big guy in the sky keeping score and receiving retribution at some future date before some stupid gate into paradise.
Let's take this one point at a time; if you will,
"A life-long skeptic"; yes, at least from earliest memory. Before I was in school I tended to argue with cousins about the total unlikelihood of a big fat fart riding in a sleigh filed with a world's supply of toys for the world's "good little boys and girls" pulled by flying reindeer that managed to land on roof tops so the jolly ol' fart could slide down the chimney, with a bag of toys no less. I wondered about homes with no chimney although our home did have a big fireplace and a 6-foot wide chimney. It was no wonder he was fat, he ate cookies and milk bribe at every home.
The religion I "left" was my mom's religion and on the form one had to choose a religion from which one left.
As far as a skeptic theist, crapstian or not, I'll take any bet you want to wage that there are skeptics in each and every church regardless of the religion. There are even atheist who went from skepticism behind the pulpit to disbelief and finally had to stop the act for self-preservation.
The two times I tried to read that work of fantasy I never made it past the second page before the bull shit flowing from the page made me toss it in the trash. Just where does it say I had a "firm belief structure"? That's pure BS as I never believed a word of that nefarious volume.
Now about the DD214, of course I have it, otherwise how would I receive VA benefits, and the small disability check I receive every month?. I suppose you also want to see my birth certificate, do you and the Trump share a sleeping bag or something?
AS for "less than truthful", piss off. I have nothing to prove to you whoever the hell you are.
I can't help but feel like this is kind of an odd question to ask. Do you really expect anyone here to think they don't have the moral high ground?
To answer your question though, I think that a good action done without any consideration of punishment or reward is probably morally superior to one taken because a reward/punishment is expected.
My question to you is this: Who cares who has the moral high ground so long as the right thing is being done?
That's the single best response yet!
Also, the very reason I posed the question was to make people think. I never think that i have the moral high ground as I agree with your point in that the person who takes the correct or proper action taken without consideration of reward holds the moral high ground.
That's the type of response I was seeking all along;
I believe the original quote was
"I would put my moral standards side by side, point for point, tit for tat with any true believer." and now you say
"I never think that i have the moral high ground. . ."
Your double standard is just as bad the theists. Anything to be right, and who can criticize? Nothing in writing - Just what you want to say at this moment.
And I should believe you because . . .?