Religion shouldn't be required for morality. I personally find the idea that some Christians seem to promote, that the only thing keeping somebody from rape and murder is the threat of hell, exceptionally disturbing.

Morality should, and for the most part does, arise from society. Society deems rape bad so people don't rape. In South Africa societal norms are warped and have actually pressured young men into comitting rape. A quarter of men in South Africa apparently admit to having raped somebody. This is despite the fact that South Africa is quite a religious (mostly Christian) country.

If morality really did rely on religion then the prison population of the irrelegious would be larger than the percentage of that of the general population. This is strikingly not the case if you compare the figures in the following two links.

http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/key_findings.htm

http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html

The fact that it is so much less is due to the fact that the atheist community is generally amongst the wealthy and well educated.

My personal belief is that morality lies at the door of society at large and at the hands of the parents raising their children.

Also even if the belief in God did somehow improve society it still wouldn't mean God exists.

I agree. But I think that part of the reason is that an atheist's generosity and acts of kindness are not generally associated with their lack of belief.

For example sir Richard Branson is an atheist and he has been working with charities for many years, even pledging $3billion towards environmental causes. Yet sir Richard Branson's generosity would probably never be associated with his atheism.

On the other hand a Christian who works towards causes they believe in, such as bishop Desmond Tutu, will have their efforts married to their religion which makes it easy to say "Here is a good Christian, look at the good deeds they have done in the name of their religion"

It's not that good atheists aren't out there, it's just that their charitable efforts aren't generally associated with their atheism. And I believe that this is in part responsible for the atheists poor image.

Their belief that "god does not exist" isnt actually about god not existing.   (its not something they would admit to but it comes through in discussions).  Obviously they wouldnt feel that god is a source of all good.  Perhaps, for example, they have had a rough life and therefore feel abandoned by god...or perhaps a bad experience within their religious structure.  They developed an animosity towards their perception of god which results in "god doesnt exist" 

I'm not entirely sure it is possible to hate something you don't actually believe in.

I don't hate the Speghetti Monster, because I don't believe it actually exists.

To hate something, you must believe that it exists, therefore you wouldn't be an athiest.

If you hate a diety, you believe in it, you just chose not to practice in organised/unorganised worship of that diety.

saying they are atheist and railing against believers is just an expression of their anger 

Err... I don't believe in God (being polite and putting capitals and all) becuase the evidence clearly shows that God - at least as defined in any of our current religions - doesn't exist.  No hate, no annimosity.  I don't believe in God in the same way I don't believe the moon is made of cheese.

I suspect the animosity you mention is the frustration some atheisits feel at what, from their point of view, is willful ignorance.  It's important to understand that if you're really an atheist, you're in the position of knowing the moon isn't made of cheese, and wondering why a bunch of otherwise inteligent normal people keep insisting it is despite the evidence it isn't.  Clearly, this can get on your nerves after a while.

I think you're making pretty big and inherently false claims here.

Again, there is simply no need - and indeed no observable link - between Morality and Religion.

Some of the most religious people on Earth molest small children, steal, cheat and murder.  Some of the most religious people are kind, warm, open and would never hurt a fly.

Some atheists abuse small children, steal, cheat and murder.  Some atheists are kind, warm, open and would never hurt a fly.

We are what we are and how we behave outside of religion.  As Highwaystar points out, we simply (pattern loving animals that we are) like to ascribe meaning, often hitting on what is known, in scientific cricles, as False Positives.

Examples of these would be observing that some people give to charity and are religious; conclusion, religious people are more charitable and therefore more moral.  This is a false positive.

Plenty of athesits give to charity.  I do.  I have direct debits set up to four charities right now.  More or less iin terms of percentages right now is s a temporary thing.  In 100 years there might be more atheists giving to charity than religious people, 100 years ago there might have been more religious people giving to charity.  These things change in line with population, culture, religious belief and many other factors.

Heck, there's even plenty of good reasons - and evidence - that morals are a clear result of evolution coupled with inteligence, awareness and certain social behaviours.  For example, to look at one simple one, if you are a animal that is going to operate in tribes requiring cooperation, then morals are pretty handy things to have.  Working together, looking out for each other the tribe survives better than lone individuals hence through both breeding and social pressure from the tribe morals behaviour in strenghtened over time as preferrable.

We are just animals at the end of the day.  Socially, I'd argue the most complex on the Earth.  We are also, almost certainly the most self aware and the most intelligent.  Morals make sense for us to have and to emply and it is perfectly possible to look to other primate species (and other social animal networks) to see how they could easily evolve and be renforced.

As ever, Relgion is taking the stance that it magically brought something into being or is its root cause.  Here is how to behave!  People only behave because they are religions!

In reality, such behaviours evolved with us and our society as well as emerging from our increasingly complex social evolution which requires a moral framework to even function at all.

should have told that to adam and eve lol? to late! snakes always tell you the wrong thing.

the concept of the moon being made of cheese and the concept of god are not comparable ideas.

many dictators misused the communist ideology and misunderstood what it was about so used it to promote there nationalism, true communism/communists would not do this, i.e, anyone who says they are a "Nationalist Socialist" or "Nationalist Communist" doesnt have a clue what Socialism or Communism actually stand for.

not what im saying, they are all bad excuses, the primary distinction that need be made is that religion was the cause for many wars, atheism was not the cause, its fairly simple what im saying, but it seems the internet fails to grasp it.

again, no, he killed them for not supporting his nation and there ways, his being an atheist is not why he did it or his main reason for doing so, unlike the Crusades and Holy Wars

this is also irrelevant to the debate, religion itself has morals that are often backwards and regressive, which imo is almost as bigger threat as not having morals at all, religious interference in the state is incompatible with progressive democracy.

our moon? sure, we know it isnt I think, other moons however? we have as much evidence that they arent made of cheese as we do that god or religion are factual (i.e None Whatsoever)