I'm very late to this conversation so perhaps your understanding has changed since this was written. I'll make my comment anyway for anyone else that comes along like I did.
You seem to be caught in a false dichotomy here. The two options you pose are;
1) Something is good because God wills it.
2) God wills something because it is good.
The actual answer is that neither of the above is true, rather God wills something because he is good.

Not apathetic enough to ignore the article, or to not get "irked". Not apathetic enough not to post.

Good.

That's a good point, and that's one of several reasons why I have now modified Q3. Now the three questions are:

1) Do you believe that God exists?
2) Would you prefer God to exist?
3) Do you live as though other people are ends unto themselves instead of merely means to an end?

Q3 still needs some work. If you have any suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them.

If most non-believers act according to "Catholic morality," why is it that according to the polls by the pew forum most atheists tend to support same-sex marriage and tend to be pro-choice? These are not Catholic positions (as you know).

Take care :)

Thanks for the link and for the advice.

I favor sticking to strictly beliefs; however, if you wanted something that dealt more with "actions," then consider a very specific action that might distinguish different individuals. For example, Roman Catholics range a spectrum of individuals who are very adherent to the faith and those who really don't care about the faith that much. This Get Religion article talks about different subsets of Roman Catholics in the US such as "Sunday Morning Catholics," "Cultural Catholics" and "Sweat the Details Catholics." Just looking at the very specific action of church attendance, some relatively accurate generalizations could be made. I don't know how you would implement this with the non-religious population, but if you can find a specific action that would help define the non-religious population, that might help you with creating a definition.

Here is the article:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2012/02/stalking-the-mythical-catholic-vote-yet-again/

Well it took me i swear what seemed like a couple of years to get that out of a particular atheist i engage with; i was stunned that he believed in objective universal timeless morality, not an afterlife but according to his assumptions i pointed out that he couldn't rule it out entirely especially bc he believes that we are nothing but atoms albeit atoms with "emergent" properties like soul possibly and certainly consciousness....anyway i hope you don't mind me saying i think he's trying to "smuggle" in morality but still his position is i think new and unique among traditional atheists like dawkins.

The bulk of those who oppose the fideisitic movement call themselves atheists because, by scientifically refuting creationist arguments, they believe they have removed the necessity for God and consequently see no reason for him to exist. However, all they have done is refute the creationist God and yet they act as though they have refuted the God of creation.