One final step, not taken by all the religious theists making this argument, is that they themselves are only moral and law-abiding because of their religion. Put another way, they sincerely claim that without their belief in their god and without their religion, they would go on a spree of theft, rape, murder, and who knows what. Just how often do we get people admitting so forthrightly to being untrustworthy sociopaths?
Dear liberals and athiests, My religion is the only thing that keeps me from killing you, are you sure you want me to give it up? #tcot
It's nice for Jeff Allen to admit to having sociopathic inclinations, I guess. If one of my neighbors had sincere inclinations or motivations to murder me and everyone else in the area, I think I'd want to know it so I could stay away from them. Such a person really can't be trusted to any extent whatsoever and I wouldn't want to make the mistake of treating them like a psychologically healthy, normal adult.
If the only thing preventing Jeff Allen from going on a psychotic killing spree is his religion, then perhaps everyone else is better off if he keeps his religion. Contrary to what Allen might imagine, though, he's hardly offering a positive argument in defense of religion.
After all, he's not offering the implicit argument that one should accept his religion because it's true, but rather only because it keeps people around him from dying horrible, unexpected deaths — regardless of whether it's true or not. If the best argument in defense of Christianity is "it keeps sociopathic killers like me in line," that's not much of a defense at all. I'd argue that we find something better to control the sociopaths than some slender thread of fantasy.
The problem is probably even worse than this, though. When people claim something akin to what Jeff Allen wrote, what they are referring to is their obedience to the commands of their god. In other words, they are "moral" — and not killing their neighbors — because the think their god commands them to.
This isn't a foundation for good behavior which I would want to rely upon, though, because as soon as they think they get different marching orders they'll go do something different. Obedience to orders isn't morality, it's just being a good automaton. This is why genuine morality depends on things like empathy, experience, and reason — they aren't perfect, but they are more reliable than teaching people to just follow the commands of some authority figure.
It's ironic that when so many religious theists are trying to accuse atheists of lacking any reason to be moral, they are in the process giving strong reasons to suspect that they themselves don't acknowledge any good reasons for morality outside of the threats of punishment and promises of reward supposedly offered by their deity. If that's all they have, then what they have isn't morality or any sorts of recognizable moral system. Far from an argument for why their religion is better, it's actually an argument for why their religion should be immediately rejected in favor of more mature reason.