"If there is no God, there is no freedom to choose."
This statement is failure of (pardon my choice of words) Biblical proportions. If there is no God, the freedom to choose is virtually limitless. Even some of your own fundies agree, having said such things as "With God, all things are possible, but without God, all things are permissible". Of course, they say that like it's a bad thing, but I digress. On to point two...
"If there is no freedom to choose, there is no good or evil. There is merely action and inaction."
Well, this time you did get one-third of it right. Freedom of choice, I already addressed. The rest of it should read, however: "There is no good or evil. There is merely action and inaction winning and losing." It is always the winning side of any conflict that writes (and if necessary, re-writes) history to its own advantage, deciding in the process what is good and what is evil. Unlike fiction (including...shit, especially your beloved Bible) where the winners win mainly because they're the good guys, in reality, the good guys are the good guys mainly because they win. You've started seeing in recent years the faintest hint of what it's like not to win, and you're clearly scared shitless of that.
"There is no way to be good for goodness sake that would require an act of voluntary will far beyond human capacity."
You are like a Lamborghini owner who is deathly afraid that, despite having a half-dozen gears available, still follows the instructions out of a Model A Ford owner's manual, things like "Thou Shalt Not engage thy transmission at a level beyond its second gear, for at the resulting level of speed, thou shalt surely lead thy self along with thy vehicle, to be destroyed horribly." You've spent your whole life in fear of your God's punishment; how the fuck would you have any idea of what humans are capable?
"Atheists simply gloss over this point."
...or refuse to dignify it with a response. I was being generous in even responding to it.
"The American Humanist Association states on its website, whybelieveinagod.org, 'We can have ethics and values based on our built-in drives toward a moral life.' "
This is the only part of your post that you got entirely right. They did state that--and for that matter, it's quite correct. Moving right along...
"Without a soul, this is wishful thinking of the highest order."
First of all, you need to (a) clearly define what a soul is, and (b) prove that humans even have such a thing as a soul. Even if you can do that (big "if" there), see my Lamborghini analogy above.
"Since when does biology dictate a moral drive?"
Since well before recorded history began, when primitive cave-dwelling humans first started to figure out that intra-tribal harmony provides a much better environment for survival than disharmony. With or without any god, we humans are and will continue to be social creatures.
"If it did, wouldn't man always get more rather than less moral wouldn't history be a long upward climb?"
Despite your Christian Church's many attempts to re-write history to the contrary, humans have generally made such a long upward climb. Sure, it's had its valleys--the Christian-imposed Dark Ages with all its sanctioned ignorance and other such grotesqueries springs to mind--but as a whole, I'd say we humans are continuing to do better with the passage of time.
"What about the murderers, rapists, child molesters and genocidal dictators? Are they all ignoring that built-in drive toward a moral life?"
HoJu Simpson has already addressed this point better than I could, so I'll say nothing more about it.
"Just the name of the Web site is a warning to any sane and educated person (...)"
Not a warning, a beacon. It's the sane and educated who question the existence of a god; you who cheerfully embrace such a concept are willfully ignorant, and as for whether you're entirely sane, I'll leave that to my descendents who write this generation's pages in the history books.
