Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat View Post
Most of religious morality and tradition is not derived from the Bible, but from society at large. Contemporary morality creates the Bible, much more than the other way round. A 21st century American doesn't have all that much morality in common with a fourth century Syrian. He does have a lot in common however with a 21st century American atheist.
This is somewhat fallacious, because contemporary morality is based on the course our society has taken and until relatively recently Christianity was very much the beating heart of our culture and accepted norm. This also has nothing to do with Syrians, but with Romans, Hellenists, and Hellenised Jews.

They shared quite a bit with a 21st Century American.

The difference then with atheists is that the atheist is more free-thinking, more critical, more aware that his ideas are not sacred, or true for everybody, anywhere, anytime. This limits the urge to impose them.
It is not the belief system, but the manner of belief. I present Richard Darkins as exibit A.

Yet, what does this leave for the case for religion, other than that religion is more strictly imposed morality? Morality not grounded on divine truths, but on uncritical acceptation of contemporary morality? One could, as Husar does, and many others do to, leave the faith while still partaking in the community. But this is obviously not a long-term option at large. No emperor can parade around naked indefinately.
People who are religious hold their beliefs to be true, so they aren't morally bankrupt.

If one desperately longs for the benefits of religion as discussed in this thread - communal values, happier people, shared belief system - then the same could be achieved with teaching the Force in all seriousness. Which ought to make the believer in God uncomfortable. Hence, the arguments of the author are not in the least bit supportive of Christianity. (God is dead, long live religion?)
He may be right that religious monolithism creates a happier society, but it will be build on an unsolid foundation.
This I agree with, the author advocates nothing.

However, neither do you. Like every arguement against belief in God your has zero traction. Your whole arguement assumes that none of us who believe are actually write, if one of us is you are in big trouble.