"Good stuff, and I've been waiting for this from you. Quite the disciple of Dennett and Dawkins from what I've gathered..."

While I agree with much of what Dennett and Dawkins say, I've had an atheistic world view that far pre-dates the publication of "The God Delusion" and indeed any of my introduction to the large debate. I've always had a voracious sense of curiousity and while I once held a sort of mystical idea of deism in mind, I abandoned this when through my increasing scientific knowledge and discovery of principles such as anthropic reasoning I've come to the conclusion that I needn't assume deism when nothing requires a God and the universe would look much the same if it happened that there wasn't one. I used the concept of kin selection which is Dawkins, but the idea of social co-operation is I believe, my own.

"We don't have a perfect understanding of God's will, nor do I believe we ever will short of the New Heaven and Earth."

So then by what authority can you say that homosexuality is a sin or that eating shellfish is OK? By what means can you know that your morality is really the morality that God has lain out for you?

"It simply makes them better at preserving life. And who says that preserving life is a good thing?"

Nothing. It's simply that the only life that exists is the one that values self-preservation. This is inconsequential because I believe I've postulated a reasonable natural mechanism by which morality may arise in humanity which doesn't resort to the assumption of a supernatural being. It's sort of strange because if I were to assume that I am God's creation, then what does it matter if I'm atheist or not? Should I not have the same morality? Perhaps you're not accustomed to the idea that relative scale doesn't mean that anything can and will happen, but to postulate the existence of a supernatural being that you cannot ever be certain to exist as a means of bringing in some sense of absolution in a relative world you're merely living an illusion. It must be some grand coincidence that the moral values we have today are exactly those which we find to be helpful and conducive to our continuing social co-operation as would be expected by evolution.

@CA
"Theist's do not rally around the general idea that "there is a God or gods" any more than atheists rally around the contrary point."

I strongly disagree. I think it's quite apparent that theists rally around the idea that their God exists in the form of religious organization. This is one of the most prevalent forms of organization as you have churches and receive government subsidies. You gather to worship, and you gather around the idea of your respective God. There is no comparable equivalent amongst atheists except very recently, but I would say that is only because religious people have grouped us together as non-believers to the point that atheists are the most mistrusted group of people in America. People gather together to show off their collections, but there are no groups of people who band together because they don't collect things. It's only when suddenly the collectors get government funding, hold high office, and form a large part of a population and say in polls that they believe that people who do not collect objects should not be trusted and would not be voted for that maybe people who don't collect objects would start forming groups to combat this. I don't think you understand that atheism is a lack of religious belief, it is not an equivalent belief. I am not defined by my atheism toward your Christian God any more than either of us are defined by the fact that we are both atheist toward leprechauns and satyrs. While you might see gatherings of people who think satyrs are real (maybe some obscure cult), you will never find a group of people who are banding together because they don't think satyrs are real, and in that same sense I say that atheists do not rally around their common skepticism of God, except in light of their recent unveiling as a minority facing discrimination.

"To the idea that membership in secular groups (political parties perhaps) could have similar health benefits. I have seen no evidence to support that. Can you find a study?"

No, I don't know if one has ever been done. Can you show me the studies you're referring to? Perhaps one of them has used a secular group as a comparative control. My claim was just based on an intuitive sort of logic. I can't see how simple belief would impart health benefits except because it serves as common ground in a social group and as being a valid member of a social group you share the health benefits of being in a comfortable social position. Belief itself doesn't empirically change something. If I have cancer and I believe the great JuJu in the sky will eat my cancer away for me, it doesn't increase my chances of survival.

"I'd suggest that you make value judgements based upon your worldview (you've argued some in this thread) as well. There is nothing sinister or remotely troubling about making value judgements based upon the words of Christ."

I would suggest that you make secular value judgements that aren't based upon your belief either. Perhaps you say that people shouldn't eat foods with trans fat. The difference between secular and religious value judgements is very important to recognize. Religious value judgements are based upon the assumption that your respective deity exists and has decreed these value judgements, yet you cannot provide real empirical evidence for the existence of your deity. Secular value judgements must be based on empirical evidence. You can say that people shouldn't eat trans fat, and you could justify it by showing the empirically shown negative health effects of trans fat. You cannot, however, say that people shouldn't eat trans fat because God hath decreed that trans fat is the fat of the Devil. I know that to you your God seems quite the reasonable prospect, and it's not such a big deal to make value judgements under the assumption that your God does exist, but your value judgements can radically affect others who may not share your belief. Belief is entirely subjective, while empirical evidence is not. What if the President of the United States suddenly came out and said that a wizard from another planet came to him and told him that oral sex is wrong and will send a meteor to destroy Earth if we continue this practice and as such he is instituting new laws that will jail anyone who has oral sex and has called for the nations of the world to the same. You'd be absolutely correct, and I'd join you, in saying that the President is nuts, his claim is ludicrous, and we demand empirical evidence to the existence of this wizard at the very least. The President responds that the wizard is standing next to him but only he can perceive him and that the wizard is beyond any scientific means of detection. You'd be right in saying that the President cannot press his unfounded value judgement on a populace that doesn't share his beliefs. You can argue that this is different because the President's view is clearly ridiculous, while the Christian worldview is more reasonable so this is not a valid example... but I would say that they are logically equivalent in their unprovability and that I as a person can tell you that I find the Christian worldview to be every bit as ludicrous and ridiculous. I feel the same way about Islam, Buddhism, Scientology, and Norse Mythology. Would you stand for it if the majority of Senators ascribed to Norse Mythology and spent most of their time polishing axes awaiting Ragnarok? No. Value judgements should be made on empirical evidence, not logically equivalent and entirely subjective beliefs in the supernatural.