Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?

[Locke]

In any case, the alternative to having a default position that is skeptical is to have a default position that believes unless shown otherwise. That strikes me as a dangerous approach because it makes a person gullible. Unless you only use that approach in a very narrow sense and only towards the existence of the Christian god, in which case I would wonder why make the exception for only that case?

In examples people use where they argue unicorns, santa clause, etc. should be accepted if God is accepted, they are not taking into account that God is metaphysical, while unicorns are not. This would give us good reason not to believe in unicorns, since we've basically scoured this planet by now and never found any. It does not, however, say anything about God's existence.. not that you brought unicorns up specifically, but I wanted to address that while I'm here.

Your argument that believing something until proven otherwise.. I don't find it convincing. I think about how science proves that something is reasonable to believe, but it does not necessarily prove it without any doubt. The longer a scientific theory holds, the more stock we put in it, but there are many scientific theories that have been proven wrong later on. However, the reason they were proven with certainty to be wrong is because we put them into practice until then, since it seemed reasonable for them to be correct.

I agree that atheists are not amoral as I said multiple times.. I also do believe that atheists ARE moral, so nobody's insulting you. And yet atheism itself is an ideology that is amoral, yet begs that morals are essential.

Atheism is not an ideology, and therefore I agree that it is amoral. Atheism does not make any claims regarding morality or the lack of it. That's why there are ideologies like Secular Humanism, that seek to describe a moral code and which some atheists adhere to.

There is nothing in the definition of an ideology that implies it must be related to morals, though most of them are. It is simply a systematic body of concepts, or a way of thought that governs an individual or group. There is also nothing to say one cannot follow two ideologies, considering they don't contradict.
However, whether or not it is an ideology is separate from whether or not it contradicts itself. I understand someone can be atheist and also have morals without contradicting - really, I do get what you guys are saying there.

But morality is tied to God. While I know you vehemently disagree with that, I do believe it is true, from what I have seen in my life over and over again. The reason for this, I think, is simply because a God concept establishes an absolute, external standard, and without an absolute standard, there is nothing to stop people from trying to lower the standard to fit their desires. Any standard humans make for themselves originated internally, not externally.
I believe the same is true of atrocities committed by religious groups; I do not believe the leaders of such movements really believe in God (at least, not the Christian God), but rather see an opportunity to exercise their own desires, and use the guise of religion to accomplish it. I believe Hitler is actually a good example of this, as he was not devout and was recorded to have often criticized his Catholic religion, but never left the church; he hated Jews and he used whatever he could to kill them.
This would be an example (as is all of the Catholic church) of humans establishing a non-absolute standard.

Again, this is not to say atheists themselves are amoral, or immoral, or that they always do this, but hopefully this post better explains why I said atheists act morally in spite of atheism.