Last time I joined a conversation on this topic, I offered a link:
http://www.cobourgatheist.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=724:most-people-dont-even-think-about-religion&catid=186:errors-in-religious-arguments&Itemid=72

From this perspective, I guess it makes sense for atheists to have a convention.
Nobody else will talk to them.
Seriously, try starting up a convo about religion/atheism at your local Pub. Life expectancy of conversation? About 30 seconds, I reckon.
Nobody cares any more. Get over it.
There's probably one thing Atheists and Theists have in common.
Atheists and Theists can both look forward to the day when the concept of Atheism doesn't exist anymore.
For slightly different reasons, of course...

Poirot you make an interesting point

'I say, runner...are you suggesting that God has favourites? Does he cast his benevolence only in the direction of the West? I thought he created the world, etc, etc...for all of mankind. Do ya reckon he is captivated by the greed and excess of the West?'

I would say that biblical foundations led to largely hard working honest people. The blessings followed. Secularism over the last 50 years has started to produce much more greed, lust and hate than ever before. Look at the number of Government workers in places like the Climate Change department getting large salaries for producing nothing but lies. Secularism produces greed although it is often masked by self righteous causes. Look at the 1000 or so junkets to CopenHagen.

Grim – you advise, “For all the moral atheists out there, just treat others the way you would like to be treated”. You can live by that principle if you like Grim but if another atheist believes that he can live a much more comfortable life by secretly taking advantage of others, why shouldn’t he? Really, why shouldn’t he? Why should he care what moral principles you choose to make up and live by?

You then assert, “if we are all equals, none of us has the right to harm another without according them the same right to harm us”. For a start, on what basis can you make the claim that we are all equals? It might give you warm, fuzzy feelings to say that but can you back it up?

Even if there is a case for saying that in some sense we are all equals, it does not necessarily follow that we therefore must treat each other fairly. A person can say, so what if you are my equal – if by exploiting you I can make my life better, too bad for you. You also introduce the term ‘rights’ – where do rights come from in an atheistic universe? Just like morality, rights are just a convenient fiction and can be ignored at will.

McReal – you say that morals “are more than preferences. They are expectations”.

So, are you saying that you have your preferences about what you think is right and wrong and that you expect others to abide by those preferences? You might think a certain action is wrong and you expect others not to do it. Another atheist though may not think that action is wrong and does not expect that he should be penalised for doing it. How then does your reference to expectations solve the dilemma for atheists as to what is right and wrong?
(cont)

Joe – so what if some atheists are “concerned to do as little harm as possible, and to leave the world in a better state than it was when one entered it”. Again that may make you feel warm and fuzzy but it does nothing to answer the question of how do we know what is right to do. You make the assumption that doing little harm and making the world better is right – but it is just that, an unsupported assumption. Another atheist may say that having the easiest, most luxurious ride through life is the right thing to do and if that means stealing from others, including you, and ravaging the world’s resources then so be it.

You acknowledge that “we [atheists]construct our own sense of morality” , which I agree with, but then you go on to say, “and [we] are constantly questioning it and trying to improve it”. If morality is something you just make up it is hard to understand what you mean when you say you are trying to improve it. It is like saying that you are trying to make a better image of Santa Claus. If it is made up it can be anything you like and it can never be wrong.

Poirot – you ask, “Are you saying that human "morality' is entirely dependent on the invocation of "God?" What I am saying is that in the absence of someone greater and wiser than us, all we are left with are human beings each with their own preferences for what should be considered right and wrong. There is no way to establish why one person’s preference for claiming that some particular act is wrong should override another person’s preference for calling the same act right.

If there is an all-wise and all-good God who has created us and indicated what is right and wrong, then there can be a non-subjective basis for morality.

JP,

Who or what told human society how to behave before God revealed himself - or do you believe that 'morality' only began with the advent of (sky-god) religions?

An interesting approach to argumentation JP…

A more word dense version of the three-year-old's constant rejoinders of why? or why not? to whatever is said by an adult.

So are you suggesting that there was never an occasion or time when moral or ethical behaviour was not externally suggested and internally accepted by people?

How is this not subjective?