Wesley, my tuppence worth here. I'm not sure who Bee has in mind re. accusations of godlessness and immorality. But atheists posting here have collectively and frequently criticised Christianity on its perceived fruits - warmongering Bible-bashers like Bush and his neo-con cabinet. From this premise they have extrapolated that given such results, Christianity is suspect and devoid of moral merit in the world (leaving aside all arguments for the moment about empiricism etc.,). If I remember well someone even suggested that Christianity might actually act as an impediment to moral behaviour.

I have argued that these perceived fruits (and Bush etc.,) are not the product of Christianity as I understand it, anymore than the beating of Rodney King by the forces of law and order is exemplary of the the concept of justice.

Likewise, I have also shown that the atheistic secular model is no better a guarantee of a good and equitable society, and we have seen the results of attempts to impose it in the Soviet Union etc., I pointed this out as there was the implicit suggestion in the critique of Christianity that atheistic secularism offers a better way forward.

Just as with so-called Christian neo-cons in the USA, no such result is guaranteed with secular atheism.

I also showed how a God-inspired moral code can be beneficial to society, promoting its welfare etc., One basis for this is the divine sanctity of all human life from conception.

In that part of the discussion, I was made aware of how secular atheism (which here seems to be based on the empirical sciences) has pitfalls such as its refusal to recognise the humanity of every conceived person (person from conception onwards). It deals with humanity on a case-by-case basis, which is basically the trap of moral relativism. Ironically, on another thread we are condemning the (claimed) use of two handicapped women to deliver suicide bombs (or murder bombs) as the lowest of low morality. But from the rationale employed on this and other threads to deny the humanity of the unborn, we could make the case that these two women - whatever about their healthy, fit victims - were 'potential humans' only, and were probably better off blown up than living out their miserable (by our reckoning) 'unfulfilled lives'.

I dislike having to point this out and underline that as a Christian I find the abuse of these two women a horrible act. But it does show up some of the pitfalls I've been trying to draw attention to whenever relative secular morality is employed.

That said, maybe I'm wrong but I don't think I or anyone else on this thread has accused any atheist of not having morals, or being incapable of being a moral person on account per se of their atheism.