It somewhat seems like you're trying to say that you'd like to apply the term "godly" as a supplantation of the term "virtuous." That's an injection of bias and utterly unnecessary, when we already have a neutral, impartial term to apply to the virtuous, and that is (drum roll please) "virtuous."God is likened to the Sun, the source of light and life.
Thus Godless is the exact opposite, it is darkness and death.
So from a faith perspective, Godliness is being made alive in the light of God which is all the virtues.
In that context, a person of faith is to look for the light, from no matter where it shines, but most importantly become the light that is life itself and build lasting connections in family communities and Nations.
A person with no faith must then choose virtue over vice for their own reasons, but there is no disputing, virtues make the person and create harmony, whereas vices tear apart people, families, communities and Nations.
In that way, humanity can find a unity in its diversity.
View attachment 61678
So how do we promote virtues over vices, to an extent that war is no longer considered or tolerated?
In the end I'm just not sure how the shifting of terms like this helps what you then go on to state is supposedly your true and beloved cause here - that of uniting all peoples into a virtuous (no, I certainly will not be using the term "godly" here, thanks very much for the rather dastardly advice) society.
I do understand that you at least acknowledge that a non-believer can be virtuous, but you seem to do so grudgingly as an afterthought to an idea that definitely gets higher billing. That being that you equate the godless with darkness and death, and the godly with virtue. Do you believe it virtuous of you to make such an equation to a group that you still must admit anyway can be virtuous?