How would you respond to these common theist statements?

[Thumpalumpacus]

1. Religion is the foundation of society.
This argument essentially goes along the lines of "Religion created civilization so it must stay". They claim that religion bound people together in the past and that is what created settlements. They argue that we must preserve religion to continue the cohesion of people.
They also argue that their church is a productive community and that atheism is somehow against such behavior.

Religion didn't create society or settlements. Settlements arose with agriculture, because farmers couldn't wander around as nomads; they had to tend crops.

And I'd suggest that family and clan are much more powerful motivators, for binding folks together.

2. Religion is the foundation of morality
This tired all argument has manifested itself in many ways. So they claim that all religions have a set of rules and they are all similar, therefore religion is the source of human "laws". They argue that religion enforced or created the laws that held early communities, as described above. So religion must be preserved to guide humans into the future.

Which religion? Which god? And have those practitioners/that god acted in a moral manner?

Human laws arose from human interactions, starting with Hammurabi's Code, but almost certainly predating that were unwritten codes which bound tribes to a certain set of behaviors. Those laws did not come down from the Heavens on stone tablets; they arose from the grass roots of people requireing common ground in order to work for the best outcome for the group.

3. (Continuation of 2) Science (or atheists) cannot tell us right from wrong.
I am not sure why they think atheists have to be aware of science, but they claim subjective morality is wrong and inhumane.

Firstly, science addresses the material world, not the abstract. Asking science to address morality is like asking a fish taco to state its ethnicity ... a senseless thing to do.

They practice subjective morality themselves when they justify their god's many, many murders, yet criticize Hitler's. There is no difference between Hitler's Final Solution for the Jews and Yahweh's Final Solution for the Amalekites, except that Hitler had better technology, permitting more efficient murders.

4. Religion made history.
This is not necessarily an argument against atheism, but they claim that atheists are not aware of religion and the role it plays in society so atheists cannot have a full understanding of history.

Writing made history possible. Religion did not invent writing, commerce did; businessmen in Sumeria needed a way to record transactions and inventories.