Let's think about this for a second. The Abrahamic religions (which are the ones that the author is skewering here) teach that all humans are made in the image

Let's think about this for a second. The Abrahamic religions (which are the ones that the author is skewering here) teach that all humans are made in the image of God. This implies that (a) human life has inherent value, and (b) humans have a moral responsibility to God. This means that people have a reason - really, an obligation - to be compassionate towards each other. On the other hand, an atheistic worldview backed by determinism implies that (a) humans have no more intrinsic value than a tree, and therefore (b) humans don't have a moral responsibility to anyone. This means that there is no real reason for people to be compassionate to others. So, religious people with a proper understanding of their religion's doctrines should be far more compassionate than equivalent atheists. The fact that we don't see that compassion borne out can be attributed to three factors: First, there are unfortunately many religious people who have bought into the "Gospel of Ben" - "God helps those who helps themselves." This isn't actually anywhere in the Bible, Ben Franklin made it up. And unfortunately this is something that appeals a lot to politicians. Second, many religious people believe that charity should be handled by church, and not by the state. They also believe in separation of church and state and the limitation of state power, which were actually principles developed by Christians. The author is committing a fallacy in assuming that all charity must be state charity. And third, many "organic atheists" are still operating based on their conscience, which the atheistic worldview does not actually have room for. There cannot be a supernatural conscience if there is no supernatural, and evolution has no solid way to explain the development of a moral system that goes against survival.