Here's a good chunk of your problem... forums are never a good gauge...

The "stuff you said" seems a lot more like an uninformed opinion than something you can just claim "is true".  Got any actual links to studies, research or anything remotely close to proof or evidence to substantiate your "truth"?

I speak from experience. So there you go

so you agree with what i said in the first place?

  "For a real Atheist there is nothing to convert to! "

 then i don't know why you are arguing with me at all when you already know i am right?

This is the kind of statement that's so faulty I honestly don't know where to start explaining it.  

mor·al   [mawr-uhl, mor-] Show IPA
adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct ( opposed to immoral): a moral man.


...just though some of ya'll might need to see the actual definition of moral.

So, you would argue atheism is a system of belief, which offers a foundation to derive anything from it, in and of itself?  What do you consider atheism to be, outside of a lack of a belief in a God or gods?  How can a system that lacks a belief in something provide a basis for anything?  As I said atheists can have morals, they just have to plug into something else from which to get these moral from, even if it is themselves.

Let's offer a similar comparison.  A child stops believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.  The realize there are not real.  After doing this, what does a person gain?  They don't gain anything, they lose something.  

In the cause of atheism, individuals who drop their theism, or never had it, could end up going in any number of directions, whether it be Communism, Secular Humanism, Objectivism, or Nihilism (or a number of other ones).  Each of these system produce very different set of morals and beliefs, and values.  The person would then derive their morals and values from these other systems, and be identified from these systems as the basis of their morals.

How so? Atheism is simply not believing in any deity, I don't see how that statement is faulty.

actually I have no idea what problem you see with this statement. i honestly don't know where you could see something wrong with it

Because Atheism isn't a negation, and the implication it is is insulting.  Although to be fair part of the problem is the standard definition of Atheism and the fact, like Agnostic, it is a word the developed to define something besides being religious - i.e. if you're not religious your an Atheist.

The problem is your modern Athesist sees the situation reversed.  We are educated, informed and believe in what has been proven to be the case - i.e there is no negation because we don't even consider ourselves compared to religious people.  We believe in evidence and science.  There is no "disbelief" involved.  Religion to a modern atheist is simply something that either has been disproven enough in terms of flaws in religous tracts, etc. or is so general and "unprovable" that it is simply ignored unless some evidence is provided.

The problem IMHO is that the technical definition of an Atheist now lags well behind what an Atheist actually is.