Atheism is simply a negative response to the failure of theology to support its own burden of proof. It says nothing about morals and has nothing to do with morals.
The problem I have with people saying an atheist has no morals is that its focussing on what a person isn't, as opposed to what a person is.
An atheists can be a nihilist or a secular humanist or anything in between. That is what people of faith should be focussing on.
I certainly don't support any notion of universal morality in the religious sense. But I do acknowledge that we are social creatures who must live together and have laws, and a sense of morality in regards to what actions are good and bad in how they affect other people must exist for society to exist.
Considering the positive benefits of logic, scepticism and secularism on this kind of social morality over the last few centuries I think its a very good thing that morality isn't universal in the religious sense. We now live in more open societies that activally improve themselves. Its not a perfect process, but its certainly better then tyranny or theocracy. I want morality to be up for debate, because when it is it can be improved (and of course made worse) but a call to tradition will never improve the world. Open debate will always be the only way forward for a society.
Having said that, there is evidence that on basic moral questions theres an agreement between about 90% of all humans from all cultures. This bodes well for humanity, considering the increasing amounts of atheists in the west, why would a religious person want atheists to not be able to function as law abiding socially moral agents?
