Joe's response about authority.

First off, let me apologise in advance if I slip out of the one topic at a time rule. The point of faith vs belief is inherent to many of my arguments on these topics, so it will come up outside of it's own individual Q&A.
Now I'll start with what I meant by allegory. Religion claims it's authority, but there is little substance, other than testimonial, to back it up, therefore we have the stories. Allegory and myth, tales that are designed to evoke a feeling of why something is dictated by religion without actually setting up a factual basis, a grounding in a system of logical principal.
On the subject of authority, you spoke about imperal vs veracious. Now I'll start off saying I completely agree with you on imperal authority. It is a taken thing, not given, but I don't think it is quite as simple as you portrayed. The situations you raised in your post are a combination of the two. The government assumes imperal authority (polices forces, military, court systems, etc.), however this is based, at least partially, on veracious authority. Now historically the veracious only tends to be a small amount, otherwise revolution would be more common. A law unenforced or unenforcable is a law best left unwritten, and if you are founded simply on popular opinion you will be overthrown the first time you have to make a hard decision for the betterment of your society.
Now to turn back to the religious point, it is also both imperial and veracious. If it were truly pure veracious, the concept of hell/cut off from God/punishment in any form wouldn't exist. The veracious authority I yield to Richard Dawkins, Dan Denett or any other scholar is based on their ability to poist a well reasoned argument, based on evidence. I may disagree with points they raise, but there is no punishment, only more debate as two differing viewpoints are exaimined.
This brings me to my second point, veracious authority and from where is it drawn? As I said, the authority I give is reasoned. It is based on evidence, argument, debate and rational principal. The authority you grant to religious ideas is faith based. Taking a system of morality as a guiding principals and endevoring to live by them is fine, but they should be REASONED principals and not...well, assumed imperal authority. There is a punishment system involved in religion and the avoidance of said punishment is, at least partially, underlying the belief structure.
I followed christian principals while I still considered myself to be a chrsitian, and I still continue to follow many of them despite casting aside faith. I give vericaous authority to those principals (some would say I give it to christ, but they would be in error) yet I live by them because it is my choice. I see the vaule to myself and to society and based on that value I adher to them. There is 0% imperial authority in my moral code, or in that of many ahteists. We stand upon the idea that our society is biult on principals that result in a better life for everyone, ourselves included.
I submit that atheist morality is more truly veracious, that our beliefs are not founded on fear, even an infintesimal amount of it, but a true desire to live in a better and more moral world. A desire to live in a world where everyone can have a fufilling existance withouth harming others and that morality is based on these principals and note on a foreign authority that must simply be belived in to validate anything that can be claimed in its name.