How would you respond to these common theist statements?

[Holden Caulfield]

I am a new here, but I have been a part of several atheist forums in the past. I have read a lot of articles recently, and I have noticed a new trend, if you will. Theists who do not directly attack atheism but point their objections somewhere else. So here are a few things I have heard:

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.

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.

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.

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.

I want to hear your thoughts on these arguments. I am an atheist myself, just want to see what you guys have to say!

Well how would I respond to this?

1)  The human community is the basis of society.  A group of people depending on each other.  Those groups have and can be all one religion, multiple religions, or no religion.  All have been proven to be effective.  So I don't see how religion plays into that at all.  Does a country that is overwhelmingly atheist in Sweden fare worse than a country than is overwhelmingly religious like Saudi Arabia?  I certainly don't think so.

2)  Again morality is tied into the values of a culture, not to the religion in place.  A multi-cultural country like Canada does find defining morality, so does the mostly atheist Nordic countries like Sweden.  In fact I'd argue based on my personal morals that more religious cultures like Saudi Arabia do worse in terms of morality.  But again morality is based on culture NOT religion.

3) Science has NEVER claimed to have anything to do with morality.  We as a culture define that.  And atheists do just as good a job as religious people if you want to base on history or current status based on western morality.  There's basically no such thing as objective morality.

4) Easiest of your points.  The fact is that atheists on the whole tend to be more educated and more understanding of the role of history.  Everyone knows human culture has evolved from largely religious societies.  Awesome, we also believed in fairies, the world was flat, and the healthing power of human feces.  Understanding where we came from is important.  But in reality I'd bet a higher percent of atheists have read the bible and understand history than religious people in the first world western countries.