> What I'm trying to say is that religions have developed systems for dealing specifically with moral transgressions and how they affect us.

They do, but I'm not sure they've got the right way mainly because sin is defined in dogmatic ways. Many allow slavery, many are homophobic and so on. In religion what's moral and not is not discussed honestly but dictated and dictated from a flawed source at that.

> I definitely think that atheists think about this personally and there is evidence to show that atheists tend to be more moral than religious folks. But secular society itself doesn't talk about personal morality. We don't discuss our sins nor do we offer each other redemption.

Atheism itself is not a philosophy and has no direct bearing on morality. It's just the rejection of the claim that there is a god since the claim has not met it's burden of proof.

But large portions of secular society discuss morality and what you might be looking for here is secular humanism. Many atheists support this philosophy, but some don't.

> But we're all sinners, right?

None of us are perfect, sure. I haven't seen many atheists claiming the opposite. The problem with common wisdom about this is that it leads to dogmatic assertions, discrimination and so on that's why I think we need an open discussion and the idea of universal sin is not that productive of a concept in that framework.

> Overall I believe the move away from religion is a good thing for humanity, but as we secularize we can also look at what religion was doing for us and see if we want to incorporate some of those features in more modern forms.

I absolutely agree. But I would rather leave the idea of sin in the past and talk about moral and immoral behavior, the fuzzy edges in between and how do we deal with the consequences of our actions and inactions in the world and as part of organized society. I think we should view morality in terms of wellbeing, not sin.