With the slow move of people moving away from various form's of Christianity. There has been an increase in the amount of vocal abuse coming from members of Christianity. So this is just another act of insult in hopes that people will come back. This alienation is really one of the reasons why generations are leaving.

Instictivly as moral.  Yes.  As a group there may be some issues... though I think the "curve" would just put the center not that far off "standard deviation" when ruling out outliers.

A few things to think of.

A) We've got to consider as moral in practive.  I think it'd be hard to argue.  religion likely keeps a decent amount of "immoral assholes" in check that their atheist brethern wouldn't be. 

Of course it's probably not that large a number... but still a statistically relevent number.

B) We would also have to look at the general teaching of morals... religion tends to give an "easy guide" to morals teaching.  Though sometimes they're used the other way.

"Full bred" atheists also are fairly rare as I understand it.   That is, people who have been Atheists for like 2-3 generations straight.

C) Atheists on average give less to charities, both religious and secular.   In studies religion seems to actually correlate pretty well with charitable donations, chariatble work and blood donation.  Is this because people who are less likely to donate to such things are more likely to be peer pressured into doing it by their religious community?  Or is there some other reason?

D)  Religion gives people something to organize around.  Therefore when you have outliers like Al Queda... they can do much more damage.  Being outliers though i'd rule them out as well as any serial killers etc.

It really breaks down to if you believe morality = What you believe.

Morality = How you act.

Morality = How you WOULD act.

Or

Morality = What you believe AND how you act.

For example... Hitler vs Jeffery Dahmer. 

Was hitler more immoral then Dahmer?  If Dahmer had control of hitlers empire would he of killed any less?  When it comes to premediatated sociopathic killers is there really levels of immorality?

So what are saying? I barely graduated high school. lol

Largely though, said "morality" problems may go away as the atheist population increases.

I think the "big" issue is that Religion acts as a community around a church... and small communitys usually push to keep the more unruly "in line".

Someone in church asks you to help out in their homeless drive.  There are 50 people around you... a lot who you don't know.

It's a  lot harder to say no then if your in a flat with a few friends and the same person asks.

There is something about religion that does seem to make people more "moral" in actions... as has been shown in studies involving charity. 

My guess is that it's nothing intrinsic... and probably nothing teaching wise... probably not even an "angry god in the sky"... but likely related to the peer pressure via community.

Although it's just a guess and could be the previous two reasons as well.  It would be beneficial if atheists began to form "church like" larger communties that were visited by a lot people who's purpose is to try and convince people to be nicer and help out.

It'd be interesting to see studies between very religious people who's religions don't involve any kind of church or community, and atheists.

It's a hard thing to study and do research on though, because any sociological study is pretty much going to be co-opted by someone to say "Atheists are immoral and evil!" or just shouted down by atheists who "want their side to win and be the best at everything!"

That's possibly the most ignorant and simplistic comment in this thread. For a start moral behaviour is subjective and how about we hold examples up of immoral (insert religion here) religious people?

then they present examples of very upstanding and relatively alrtuistic believers and bring up immoral atheists.   atheists dont have the cache of "good guys" to wave about.

What about atheist charities?  there are a lot of religious ones.

Not sure what your getting at. As in say human rights organisations such as Amnesty International with over a million members (including myself) are not 'moral'? There are thousands of charities with no religious affliation nor will they restrict volunteers and workers to atheists for non religious moral reasons.

Are you seriously suggesting atheists should do what they shouldn't do and form a charity with a restrictive membership based on professing atheism? There are plenty of atheist groups one can join which up dates members what atheists consider to be immoral religious teachings. As pointed out numerous times, morality is subjective and evolving.

There is no such thing as a ''bad or no good christian''. 

you only have to accept jesus as your saviour to be a christian.  they dont suddenly become not christian if they do something you dont like.