Man is the measure of all things. - PROTAGORAS
... so I put to him the question I've always asked and he has never answered,
I am merely arguing for the dichotomy to be looked at in sociological terms rather than in terms of futile debate about 'evidence' for divine entities.
"I suppose I could have been characterized as naïve"
Okay...I'll rephrase that last sentence for you.
The stringing of opaque words (verbiage) involved in describing a religious 'system' (parochial rationality) is irrelevant to the question of whether religion is 'right or wrong'.
(The religionists here have tended to interpret 'wrong' as a challenge to their version of 'religious truth'. My argument here and elsewhere is the pragmatists one that 'truth' is 'what works' NOT 'what is the case'. I take 'wrong' to be 'proven tendency for social perniciousness' from a global perspective. That perniciousness involves in-group power structures and inter-group tribalism with the added elements of 'divine authority' countering dissent. Your claim that 'people are ultimately responsible for their own actions is blatantly psychologically naive as it takes no account of the socialization process.)
'morality' tends to shift with circumstances
Yes, 'sport' is a type of substitute 'warfare'. As a young teacher doing referee duty for a kids soccer match I remember being verbally abused by parents from either side when I made a decision in favour of the opposition!
Humans, like their primate relations show all aspects of tribalism and hierarchical aggression. Add the element of complex human language and these inherited traits can be played out both internally, or at distance using emergent shared structures bound by a shared vocabulary, like 'leagues', 'nations' and 'religions'. These historical structures are self perpetuating and persistently reify their 'legitimacy' in the minds of their members. (...consider the obsession with 'The Word'' by religionists).