If on the other hand you hold that everything God does is moral by default, then it does not matter what he does. God could come down and beat a nun to death on a pile of dead puppies and you would label it righteous and just. In this interpretation, morality has no meaning and is non-existent.

Getting back to your point about "these evil atheists", what you are effectively saying is "I don't believe in God, so you must die because….. uhhh" I have no idea how to finish that sentence. Perhaps you can help me here?

To be sure, some of these people were atheists, but they were not driven by their disbelief in an idea to perform any act. Just as you are not driven by your (assumed) disbelief in unicorns. It is what you believe that will drive you to action. Believing God is on your side as you enter war against Satanic forces can motivate people to commit the most horrendous atrocities. Replacing religion with the State or unfaltering belief in the "Great Ruler"(tm) is replacing on dogmatic belief with another.

Atheism is an end point – the result of rational thinking, the search for evidence and truth. It is not a starting point for anything. No society became violent or oppressive because they were too questioning or sceptical.

Citation please.

In any case. I consider the combination of organic molecules into organic life (fixing your mistake here since inorganic chemicals will NEVER produce organic life by definition) to be an entirely natural process. Just as the biochemical reactions in your body are natural.

When you consider the vastness of the universe and the sheer number of galaxies, stars, and planets it contains – it is no wonder what we label "life" occurred. Even the most pessimistic evaluations of Drake's equation has the universe bursting with life.

"…the EXACT 24 physical constants required at the Big Bang to create the universe"

This is either an argument from incredulity (I can't believe that, therefore it's false) or complexity (there seems to be design here, so therefore there is). Both fail. The first is simply ridiculous – the fact you can't accept facts has no bearing on their truthfulness. The second merely begs the question – if god is has any attributes, properties, or behaviours then you should be able to account for those being able to arise without cause. The same arguments that you maintain make it impossible for the universe to have qualities and attributes without creation also hold for God – if they don;t you should be able to construct a logic argument demonstrating this, and also show why it cannot hold true for the universe itself. Best of luck with that.

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
Richard Dawkins

Can we modify Richard's words to read: "[X] is arguably the most unpleasant character in all REAL LIFE: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

And then select for 'X' from: Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc….? He thinks the Bible is fiction: fair enough. These people [all avowed atheists] are real people in history. These people have collectively killed more people, often their own countrymen, than all the religous bigots who have ever lived on this planet.

And, of course, the possibility of life from inorganic chemicals itself becomes insignificant when considering the possibility of the EXACT 24 physical constants required at the Big Bang to create the universe. Something like 10 to the minus 300. Doh! So, as the video says, 'The proof is wrong" and "There is no basis for an objective decision". Only these 'facts' argue solidly, and in the rules science lays down for probablity, these exact things.
Seems science has the same problems as the religionists. Is anyone brave enough to admit it? Er, well Prof. Dawkins has but it seems he [and everyone else] misses the significance.

Yes, religion has been used my men to justify abominable atrocities. Can anyone comment on Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot………… ??

So even if they are taken out of the original context, the point that is being made here still stands.

…And as has been pointed out, it isn't self-apparent to everyone. Any Christian (or someone of another faith who hasn't read the bible) will not see the immorality in lines like this. On the contrary, I know many Christians and all of them back the bible 100%, supporting lines like the ones quoted.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Iz8szHU_1Io