Atheists must appeal to an absolute moral standard when complaining about wrongs.

There obviously is no moral absolute so whatever point you're trying to make is moot. But if you think there is, let's have a look at an example.

Benefit or harm. That's it.

Yes really. Morality is about intent.If the person gave the cash wanting/expecting to improve the guy's life it was a good moral act. If he gave the cash wanting/expecting him to buy drugs and kill himself it was an immoral act.

All you're doing is substituting love - and by inference - hate, for benefit and harm. If you give the panhandler money out of love and he then buys drugs and overdoses you have an hateful outcome.Intent.

I think you've just explained why this business of love and heart and sacrifice and so on is really just well meaning religious waffle.What our sense of morality is built on is the wellbeing of others, which means reducing harms and increasing benefits. Unlikely but possible but also irrelevant. Morality is an attempt to do the right or wrong thing. Help or harm. Nope, it's the intent to harm or help that matters and usually it will result in the intended outcome.

The acts where still moral at the time they were made. It's just that the outcomes were not what we envisioned or could envision. Intending to make the lives of people worse by destroying communities would be immoral - doing it accidentally while trying to improve their lives would be unfortunate and maybe even a tragedy but it would not be immoral.All you can say in hindsight is that they got it wrong, not that they were wrong to try to do the right thing.

That's just not correct, actual outcomes are irrelevant, it's intent that decides morality.Is the intent to do good or harm? To improve the wellbeing of others or to make things worse? To benefit or to harm?Intent is written into our laws, if you accidentally take something out of a shop without paying or kill someone you are not guilty of theft or murder. You do not have the 'mens rea' - the guilty mind - necessary to do the wrong. Even though the outcome may have been awful.Mens rea - Wikipedia

Well you know, intent is assumed in a moral act. But so long as we agree then fine. Couldn't care less personally, so long as the act adds to the sum of human wellbeing.In any case, as this is supposed to be about religion, the moral acts of religious people are to further their chances of a happy afterlife. Couldn't be more self-serving than that. At least with an atheist you know their actions are honest in that respect.