My world is your world too, and as the answer to those questions is quite obviously 'yes'. But I'm entirely unclear as to its relevance.

To sense that X is wrong, is to sense that X is 'not to be done'. That's an external command. The sensation is not of me commanding it. It is of it being commanded by something 'out there'. That's why it makes sense to wonder whether X is 'really' wrong, etc.

1) In your world does what you know affect your choices?
2) In you world does ones experiences affect your choices?

I don't recall you ever saying what this amounts to - "Moral beliefs are beliefs about what is externally commanded"

Just in passing - here's an argument for free will. It is deliciously simple.  I would define free will as that which is needed to transform a 'thing' into a moral agent. This is a definition that I think everyone can agree to. That's because free will is quite obviously presupposed by the idea that we have moral obligations (you can't be obliged to do that which you are not free to do!).
Now, if moral obligation presupposes free will, then if we lack free will we lack moral obligations. Nothing is right and nothing is right.
However, it is quite obvious that some things are wrong. it is MORE obvious that some things are wrong than that free will is incompatible with determinism, or indeterminism. Thus it is more obvious that we have free will than that we do not. Any argument - ANY - argument against free will is therefore going to contain a premise that is less plausible than its negation . That means ALL arguments against free will fail.

So, forget your pet theories about what causes our moral beliefs, and forget your pet theories about the historical function of our disposition to have moral beliefs. After all, similar theories will no doubt also explain why many of us (and historically, virtually all of us) have had a belief in God or Gods. But what is the belief in God a belief 'about'? Well, it is a belief about some kind of agency behind creation. Pointing out that we have this belief for this or that reason, doesn't alter what the belief is 'about' or tell us anything about what the belief is 'about'.
So what are our moral beliefs 'about'? What is that 'moral' experience that we all have and that we refer to using moral terms? In other words, what is it like to sense that something is 'right' or 'wrong'?

Unfortunately most athiests are not particularly subtle thinkers and are intolerant of subtleties and simply refuse to acknowledge them. The only way you'll understand the moral argument is if you grasp the following subtle point. What a belief is 'about' and what 'causes' a belief are not necessarily the same. They can be. But there's no necessary connection. For instance, if I ingest a pill and it makes me believe everyone's out to get me, then my belief is 'about' other people. But it was caused by a pill.
So to claim that belief X is ABOUT P, is NOT, NOT NOT NOT NOT the claim that belief X was CAUSED by P.

I

What Nanonash has done is ignore my request and instead give me their pet theory about the 'causes' or 'function' of our moral beliefs.

Once again, pay careful attention to what premise 1 actually says. It makes a claim about what our beliefs are ABOUT. It does not make a claim about what causes them (it is NOT the claim that God causes them) nor does it make a claim about any function they might usefully perform.
So Nanonash's comments are just completely irrelevant. He might as well have told me how many bedrooms his house has, or his favourite colour.
To assess the plausibility of premise 1 (and that's all we're doing at the moment) we must look to our moral experience - to what it is actually like to sense that something is 'wrong' - and we must describe that sensation.
Why are we doing this? Well, becuase you can only possibly assess whether a belief is true or false AFTER you have established what the belief is ABOUT.

we dont need a god or a spiritual component for morality

morality is a social construct determined by what feels naturally good to specific human beings which is ultimately determined by genetics and biology therefore god is false