What are your morals

Also, I am seeing amazing consistency on here. Can any of you go deeper?

There is an amazing consistency because, for the most part, our morals are a part of human nature. Unhindered, humans develop first a sense of empathy (before the first year), a sense of justice (during childhood), and a sense of reasoning (adolescence and on).

You'll find that if you ask someone why they feel like they shouldn't hurt anyone else or why being fair is so important, and that person hasn't spent a lot of time contemplating it, then their answer will be along the lines of "Just because." This is because those values are innate.

This, coupled with the recognition that we require sociability to survive and thrive, heavily influences behaviour. Mine, anyway.

Off the top of my head, that's why I think that many atheists would discover that they fit the rough definition of a secular humanist. Without an alternative guide (i.e, the Bible), we fall back on genetic predispositions...and our upbringing.

Of course, not all atheists are like that. Environment is also crucial to a child's development, and pain or abuse may impede neurological growth and prevent these traits from manifestation. Even emphasis of certain emotions, like hatred, can significantly alter the personality of an individual (hence, in my opinion, those cheery Westboro folks).

I hope this is what you meant by going deeper, I apologise if I misunderstood.

Just as an example: witnessing the beginning of one war was a great way to see religious morality in practice. I lived just in front of the catholic church and often witnessed soldiers returning from the battlefield and going strait into the church. I was 13 then and was able to contemplate the difference. For everything I do, whether that be a white lie, or cheating on the test, I would bang my head for it knowing it’s not right and had no one else to blame for it or ask for forgiveness, where those soldiers who just came back from a killing rampage, went to church and had everything forgiven by an imaginary force. What an irony, that life in a fairyland.

Do unto others as I would like them to do unto me.

I always found this moral standard amusing since it justifies by and large the actions of psychopaths.

Of course I'm sure Kant did not intend for his categorical imperative to be used as such

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

However it can easily be thrown in the fire with one analogy.

"A sadist is a masochist who follows the golden rule"

While Kant would likely disagree that hurting people is reasonable in universal law even for a masochist, he was a bit of an optimist and any one can be a killer, given the circumstances.

My moral standards don't exist. I have opinions and they will change undoubtedly in the course of my life.
I refuse to subscribe myself to my own prison.
I am vain and self serving. I will continue to be both of these things insofar as they benefit me.

If they happen to benefit others, because in my vanity and self serving nature, I feel that helping others helps me, then so be it. Wouldn't be the first time I helped someone because it made me feel better about life.

I won't pretend that I'm not looking out for myself, as well.

It would be arrogant to suggest it.
Altruism does not exist and there is no reason to believe it does.

Just because you say you're doing something for someone else, doesn't mean you are. Everyone on some level operates for their own interests(Even when those interests include their own demise).

Not everyone holds that their own interests are as valuable as the interests of someone else. That is not altruism.

If we were to speculate that Altruism existed anywhere, it would be in the fragment of cement that broke free from that skyscraper that, falling fifteen storeys crushes a strangers skull in without a single thought or interest in the outcome.