In UK atheists considred more moral than theists.

[Angrboda]

Seeking atonement is in addition to not wanting this sin, so it is not "just" not wanting this sin.

I don't understand your division. Sin is a stain. if you do not want the stain you have it removed. the only way to remove the stain is through atonement. so Not wanting sin not wanting the stain having the stain removed are all the same as they all channel through atonement. how can you separate atonement though this process?

 The two are separate things and you can have one without the other.  If I do not want this sin, but I do not believe that Christ dies for my sins, I'm still going to not want this sin, yet I am not going to believe.

no.. that is claiming you don't want sin.. it is like me giving you a vanilla ice cream and you want strawberry, then I say if you want straw berry then come to the table and get it your self...

You may prefer strawberry but if you want is not great enough you will not get up and get it.

The same is true here when I say want I mean the type of want a man 2 days in the desert wants water or a man on fire wants the fire put out.. I'm not speaking of a lackadaisical preference that has no power of motivation.

Lets say your going out and you are wearing your favorite shirt, but notice a 18" round stain on your shirt. can I assume you hate stains? to the point where you would change your shirt, and if you favored your shirt you would make an effort to remove said stain. Otherwise who could claim they hate a stain on a nice shirt if they did nothing to fix it, and wore it out?

Your sin is that stain, atonement is the oxyclean. again how can you hate a stain and not make any effort to do anything? here the only thing that can be done for a hated stain is to attone.

A psychologist by the name of Victor H. Vroom postulated what came to be known as Vroom's expectancy theory (see here and here). The point of his theory was that there are additional factors determining motivation and action beyond simply the desirability of the goal involved. For example, if I believe that my boss might retaliate against me for reporting a grievance, I may be inclined to not report the grievance even if I want to do so. Stronger motives may overrule lesser motives and interfere with the link between desire and action. Additionally, the person has to believe that they possess the "instrumentality" necessary to achieve the desired end. Thus a therapy client may want to change their behavior, yet not believe themselves capable of making the necessary changes or developing the relevant discipline to do so. Among other things, Vroom's expectancy shows that there is not a straight line between wanting something and acting so as to satisfy that want. At a minimum, this shows that simply wanting something is not necessarily in and of itself enough. Your claim was that just wanting not to sin was sufficient to motivate the belief which Jesus states is clearly required. As noted, if I don't believe that believing in Jesus will effect the removal of my sin, then no matter how much I may not want sin, I will not be moved to believe in Jesus any more than I did previously, which is not believing in Jesus at all. Your examples are defective, it has long been recognized that simply wanting something, no matter how dire, is not necessarily sufficient to motivate behavior. It is the behavior, believing in Christ, which is required, not simply the desire. I would also note that you're assuming that a person who already believes in the efficacy of the atonement of Christ will be motivated to believe in the atonement of Christ. That's rather redundant and irrelevant. The question is rather are people always going to seek atonement through Christ when they don't want sin, and the answer to that is a resounding no. Plenty of devout Muslims have a genuine desire not to want to sin, yet none of them are going to seek atonement by believing that Christ was God and that his sacrifice could wash away their sin.

In terms of your examples, if I want strawberry ice cream and believe that no matter what I do, I will not get strawberry ice cream, I will not be motivated to act. (Suppose the person telling me to come and get it is evil, and is just teasing, and won't let me reach the strawberry ice cream.) If I want water after two days in the desert, yet there is the grand canyon to jump, an ocean to swim, thirty rabid bears, one hundred ravenous lions, and a brigade of U.S. soldiers standing in my way, I'm not likely to make the attempt. Wanting not to wear a stained shirt may be irrelevant if I'm required to wear a shirt, and the only shirt I have access to is the stained one. Or perhaps it was a gift from my rich uncle, and he will write me out of his will if I am seen not wearing it. In short, you've provided examples where a desire may in fact lead to an action, but that's not really relevant. I'm not debating that wanting not to sin may be sufficient to motivate belief and atonement. I concede that point. What is relevant are the counter-examples such as the Muslim who genuinely wants not to sin, yet will not atone in the way Jesus requires. Quibbling about the strength of the desire is simply a red herring, in addition to being an additional constraint which wasn't originally claimed and so technically would be moving the goalposts. But no mind, I don't think it saves your argument anyway.