They are all bad. Some are just worse.

See What’s the Harm? Why Religious Belief Is Always Bad.

Meanwhile, the Bible contains not a word for the abolition of slavery. That was actually against the Bible’s teachings, which are uniformly pro-slavery, Old Testament and New. Hence, again, when we abandoned the Bible (by abandoning the slavery it commanded us to engage in), society improved. Q.E.D.

Are there not many different Christian worldviews? If so, which ones are bad? You said ‘In every case throughout history and the world, society improved only when it abandoned the Bible as any kind of guide for how to organize and govern it.’
But this must exclude the abolition of slavery?

My point, take note, was that this is a false analogy. Because atheism is not a worldview. It’s a position on one specific thing. So you can’t compare “Christianity” with “atheism.” You have to compare it with specific atheist worldviews. That’s why you can’t say “atheism causes wars” because that’s falsified by countless atheist worldviews that didn’t. So obviously it doesn’t.

A correct analogy would be to compare “atheism” with “theism,” where now you have deists and pagans and Hindus and whatnot in the mix. But that would show why we can’t say things like “theism caused human rights,” because there are too many theisms that didn’t, so it obviously doesn’t have that causal effect. The claim has been as scientifically falsified as can ever be.

Likewise atheism.

Hence I concluded that false worldviews can produce evils regardless of whether they are theistic or atheistic. Thus, pointing to an atheistic false worldview causing evils does not defend Christianity from the same observation. That’s a non sequitur. If you want to compare Christianity with something, it needs to be a credibly true worldview—like Secular Humanism. QED.

There is no one-stop-shop for that.

For the basics of ancient Jewish history, you can start with The Bible Unearthed. But if you want to get into the nuts and bolts of the evolution of specific beliefs within Judaism, like resurrection (Unearthed does not cover that, or any specifics of ideology beyond monotheism), then you have to find works that address that specific thing. Like Alan Segal’s Life After Death: A History of the Afterlife in Western Religion. That covers the development of resurrection ideology from Zoroastrianism into Judaism, although only in gist.

But if you want to focus on some other specific belief (the evolution of the idea of Satan and cosmic Dualism; the evolution of linear apocalypticism; or what have you), then you have to find works on that specific history (whatever idea whose history you want to explore). Although some leading works that find Zoroastrianism as a principal influence on Judaism in various ways I cite in Not the Impossible Faith (see pp. 90-99).

That’s a good example, I suspect, of that very point. Similar examples can be found, I think, in the history of every science (including history itself as a field).

When atheists point out the harms caused by institutionalized religion — holy wars, inquisitions, crusades, authoritarianism, intolerance — Christians answer that they’re not advocating for that kind of Christianity. Theirs, they say, is a modernized, enlightened, and (yes) humanistic faith. If you don’t allow them that defense (“our Christianity is different”), then you can’t use it yourself on the atheism side (“our secularism is different”).

Of course your philosophy is different. But that doesn’t change the fact that some atheist regimes, Stalin’s among them, were just as bloody and intolerant and unfree as the worst examples on the religious side of the ledger. You should at least explain why those cases from history shouldn’t affect our evaluation of atheism, and yet the evils of organized religion should continue to discredit Christianity as a worldview, if that’s really your position.