My text have other important arguments beside the ones you picked.
Anyway:
1) Social consequences: This argument in based on a factual assertion, so it's simple.
You have here the full article:
https://www.academia.edu/19164068/The_Negative_Association_between_Religiousness_and_Children_s_Altruism_across_the_WorldThe article doesn't says religious kids "have more more empathy and sensitivity for justice then children in non-religious households". Says that their parents said that, which is a different thing.
Read the full text: "Parents of Children from Christian Households View Their Children as More Sensitive to Injustices toward Others" (p. 2954, figure 4). "Consistent with research linking religiousness and adult self-reports of moral behavior, frequency of religious attendance, spirituality, and overall religiousness predicted parent-reported child sensitivity to the plight of others (empathy and sensitivity to justice). Religious individuals consistently score higher than non-religiousones on self-reported measures of socially desirable responding [26]. This previous literature, coupled with the currentfindings,supports an internal consistency in adults self-assessments of their moral dispositions and extends to their beliefs about their children." (P. 2953).
The article mocks those self-reports.
It would be a surprise if after failing on altruism, religious kids would win on empathy or non punitive justice.
There are some religions that have a complex of "chosen" people that will go to heaven compared with the "infidels" that will burn in hell and, so, are more or less a distinct kind of human, doomed to the flames, unworthy of the same respect. Most people convinced that they own the truth will be intolerant to the "others".
This kind of thought, which is the basis of the inquisition, still exists. I wouldn't be surprised if this is one of the reasons for these results.
Your health praises of religion are like considering religion as a kind of Prozac or Ecstasy. One lives happy in one's delusion.
I prefer to be haunted by my destiny of nothingness, than live under an illusion (as I wrote here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1221052.msg14296644#msg14296644), especially one that I think has serious social consequences.
I admit that this might have negative consequences on individual health. But it's absurd to believe in god for health reasons. It's like defending that we should be permanently high in order to be happy.
On Pascal's wager, or the "prudential reason to believe in God", I more or less mock it on my 11 point. It isn't honest.
But I'll have to evaluate more empirical studies, including the one you quoted.
2) If you read John Rawls' Theory of Justice you will realize that atheism/secularism doesn't need a god to justify Ethics. I'm no nihilist on Ethics as is clear on the next point.
3) I'm appalled by your attempt to justify the quoted passage of the Exodus.
What is written there is beyond any justification under current Ethics. It seems your problem is only with the punishment of the third and forth generation, no problem with the sons being punished by the sins of their parents, even if they believe in the "right god" and are good persons.
I think the current disastrous birth rate rate on western countries has little to do with religiosity. Even if it seems clear that religion induces people to have children, it isn't the lack of it that makes people stop having them. The reason is economic: people don't need to have children, the state/corporation pays their pension (until it soon goes bankrupt, then they will start having babies again).
Anyway, god won't punish only the atheists, but also believers on other gods. And those have been on Earth for more than 50,000 years. There would be plenty of generations to punish.
I don't see the point on debating the clear immorality of main rules of the Torah. If you can't see it on your own, you seem to live in a world with no modern individual rights.
4) Your theory on the Brain's role as a transmitter is precisely what I criticize.
You didn't explained how we lose conscience when the brain is injured/hill and why when the brain recovers we can't remember anything. If it was a transmitter, we should remember everything during the black out of the brain. It should be only an interruption of the "transmission".