I'm not sure I understand your meaning. I agreed with you that the theoretical atheist who only acts morally because of laws isn't isn't any better than the theoretical Christian who only acts morally because of religion. I then extended the idea, and said that, rather the case is that people who act morally because they want to are better (or I guess, more moral) than people who are only moral because of an external thing.
So the 'better' person in my case isn't an atheist, it's just a person who's not a dick. Why they act morally? Probably because they understand what suffering is.
There is some confusion.
In an earlier post, you said,
The person who is acting morally because it's the right thing to do is better than the person who is acting morally because they have to.
How do we judge the hierarchy of goodness and relate it to an understanding of suffering as motive.
For example, the Christian may have taken that brotherhood thing to heart and firmly believe he/she is truly related to all other humans. This means any injury done to any person is the same as done to a biological brother or sister. They would have an acute awareness of the consequences of all actions, and thus work diligently to not harm others.
The person who is not a dick, maybe just a very timid person who fears retribution and thus is very careful not to offend anyone.
So, in the case of the Christian, true love for people is the motivation, while in the non-dickish person, they are motivated by fear of injury.
Is it possible to find one better than the other?