To follow up I don't think the data showing that Christians cheat less than atheists is wrong at all, I've never seen any study that shows atheists are more faithful monogamists and I suspect if you compare rich Christians to rich atheists or poor Christians to poor atheists you will generally find that atheists cheat more.

And yes they have less incentive to lie about it but the reason is that they are less likely to care as they don't consider it as grievously wrong. It's incorrect to think atheists cheat less just because they feel disinclined to hide it.

What I believe is wrong in this whole line of reasoning is the belief that post-Christian people become amoral or suffer ennui. I observe the opposite, that at presents atheists who deceive themselves in thinking they've moved past superstition into secularism (they're deluded, they believe in Rights) are more hyper-moral than Christians, and pursue their moral ends with extreme energy and aggression.

If a noisome atheist interferes with your Christian marriage she probably has some moralistic pronouncement to justify her intrusion. And it is likely not hedonistic at all but moralistic, unpleasant and ultimately self-defeating.

And I'm an atheist. I just acknowledge Christians make for generally somewhat better people, and much better women. I also feel very responsible for and attached to my (white) people because, and only because, I love them. I think we're great. Free people don't need additional reasons and have no need for any justifications at all. That is "what I wilt", and the law is certainly no friend to me.

This is completely wrong. "Do what thou wilt" is no part of the law and we are departing further from the possibility of it all the time. People deny themselves things they want and need all the time, and atheists are the worst self-destroyers.

Z-man makes a similar mistake in his post in talking about secular leftism, which is not secular.

Christianity has not been supplanted by no morals but by a worse moral, namely the notion of "Rights." And what we call secular leftism is actually extremely superstitious enlightenment-based conservatism that is full of prophets and ghosts and immortal names (e.g. Marx). Enlightenment philosophy's heyday is elevated to a stage of importance greater than that of Christ's Rome, and leftism's backward-facing spirit-imbued nature is evident to all.

If you look at what law actually consists of you'll find Right Mining, an activity that apparently feels very edifying where people go digging through conflicts to find a "violated" right. Once you discover it you may bring it forth to the public so the violator and his descendants if he cannot be found may be justly punished.

Too long comment, but basically there is no such thing as Rights, and "do what thou wilt" would be a vast improvement over what we do at this stage. So vast I'd call it happiness compared to where we are. And honestly I'm not sure we're biologically capable of atheism, not in large numbers. Even Richard Dawkins, after publicly declaring he had no religion, set about building a shit one for himself and his followers to dwell in.