Atheist's moral foundation?

I'll start by saying you're going to have a hard time of it. I was born and raised Southern Baptist until I slowly became an atheist after college, and in my experience there is little consistency between atheists on most of these questions because, by definition, atheism is the lack of something rather than a substitute for it.
The dichotomy is not Christianity and atheism, but theism and atheism. And just as theists disagree on all points but the existence of the divine, atheists agree on nothing but doubt of it. Getting atheists to rally and agree has thus been likened to herding cats -- and for good reason. But I'll try to answer your questions personally as best I can.

1.Are morals based on an individual's thoughts, or are they chosen democratically?

That depends. Laws are chosen authoritatively and, to a degree, democratically. Social norms that inform a society's moral landscape are decided both historically and democratically. But an individual's morals can be any combination -- emotional, social, democratic, whatever you can imagine. Even within religions this varies for each person.
In my opinion, it's not a very helpful question. It's rather large and vague.

2.If democratically, are they chosen by a small group of philosophers? Or the general public?

This depends on the society we're talking about. It isn't always philosophers -- in America, in particular, celebrities and pundits are often involved in what steers the moral conversation.

3.Are morals based on the general norms of the society and culture? Or what happens to be most logical to the person/populace?

Again, it isn't so black and white as that, and it varies by who you talk to. In my home state in the Bible belt, it's very much so the former -- homosexuality has historically been looked on poorly and in many places continues to be. In other areas, people have come to think that logically speaking what one does with their genitals in private with consenting partners is none of their business. This idea is catching, but it varies by region, and even in these more progressive areas there are pockets of historically-held points.

4.As evolved creatures with superior intelligence, is it our duty to create principles with which to live by?

I'd caution you against using the word "evolved" in this way. Many creatures and organisms are just as evolved as we are, but in different ways suited to their environment. Though we may be smarter, dogs are still more physically capable in some areas than us and have evolved a survival strategy beneficial to both species. And many species of bugs outnumber us hundreds to one, so who is to honestly say who is more "highly evolved," or what that really even means?

Regardless, duty is also a trap word. I'd ask where this duty would originate from in a non-theistic universe and what it would even mean.

5.If it helps someone get ahead, such as cheating on a test, or lying what makes it wrong?

This depends on who you ask. To the cheater they may be righting some other wrong, and to the liar the lie may be necessary to secure their future. But my answer here feeds in to my next one...

6.As an atheist, where do your personal morals derive from?

As for me, through experience and empathy I've found that honesty and fair play are usually the best guides for a prosperous society and happy life. I usually try to base my morality on such broad principles because I honestly think that's all we have: each other and how we should all like to be treated.

But it looks as though you're looking for a larger, stabler system to reinforce your personal notions of morality. And my response is that wishing it does not make it so.

Your question is ultimately about whether morality is objective or subjective. My response is that it is clearly subjective. I'd defend that statement with these arguments:

1) What would be the difference between a world with objective morality we disagree on and one with subjective morality?
The two seem very similar to me, only subjective morality seems to be the tidier explanation. Moral commonality would be based on values of empathy and a sort of natural selection where only sustainable societies don't collapse in on themselves. Objective morality seems, to me, only to exist because people want it to.

2) If there is objective morality, why is morality never stagnant? Have we simply not stumbled onto it yet, or gave we discarded it?
The Bible institutionalizes slavery for its people and America was founded simultaneously on "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and the right of one man to own another. Yet today slavery is (by the vast majority) mocked as a clearly evil institution. Is slavery truly wrong? If it is, then why did the Bible (a book divinely inspired by a perfect being) go out of its way to make rules governing it? And that's ignoring both writing's treatment of women and other races.

I'm sorry if it seems like I've answered your questions with philosophical vagueness and more questions, but our conversation is a product of the medium. Nuance is difficult to capture in a single comment, but I hope I've made it clear to you that there is likely no single answer to your questions.

In my experience, to be an atheist is to be always unsure and constantly evaluating. I think this is agreeable to a critical thinker, but even then can be tiring. But its difficulty has no bearing on whether or not it's true.

/r/TrueAtheism Thread