They say religious folk are motivated to do good solely to attain paradise and to be saved from Hell. Compare this to an atheist who does good motivated by arguably an pure innate drive for morality. And you have a comparison where one who believes in no divine entity is more righteous than those who do . But is it really the case ?
On the surface it might seem so. But if we dig a little deeper. Everything changes.
In my humble opinion, it all comes down to the process of belief itself. Those who believe after tremendous internal battles and reach certainty with pure conviction. Are not equal to those who were handed their beliefs by their forefathers without critical enquiry or any internal struggle. One journey is full of humbleness and self purification while the other is one of false pride and blind following.
You see when a true believer does good to attain paradise or to be saved from hell. He is not doing it based on dogmatic terms like many do. He is doing so with real genuine conviction. A conviction that can only be reached by sheer amount of moral effort.
But our friend the atheist, compared to a true believer is not actually acting on high moral grounds. Instead, he is acting on human biology to do good. We are actually rewarded chemically in the brain when we do selfless acts. Who is more righteous then, he who acts on chemicals, or he who is motivated by a back-breaking moral deposit ?