I see only one person making sweeping truth claims here. No, I'm not going to defend "his" claims, because he isn't making them to begin with.
Saying that atheists need religion to be consistently moral and integrate properly into communities are pretty hefty truth claims-- how could you honestly not see that? You keep saying I don't understand his arguments, and then go on to say what you think they are (morality reinforcement being based in emotional states, as an example, which in of itself is an even larger truth claim), without having read the book-- I was prepared to lend an ear to your clarifications of his arguments, assuming that you'd read the book. Since you haven't, we're pretty much forced to agree to disagree, but considering I've had three separate friends, the opinions of whom I trust in matters like this, express frustration at the author's baseless presumptions about atheism-as-a-whole and 'what it needs', I really see no reason to give the book the benefit of the doubt.
If we're going to suggest books that should appeal to people interested in Dawkins or whatever, I'll put forth "True to Life: Why Truth Matters
" by Michael P. Lynch, and something I've actually read. It provides a very clear overview on the nature of truth, and why truth in its own right is an inherent good. Truth, being central to belief, and thus action, is something one should take care to comprehend and 'get right'. It's brisk, short, easy enough to understand for the layman. It cuts straight to the heart of postmodern reasoning, and several 'objective' truth views that collapse into subjectivism when strained through their own logic- specifically various blends of pragmatism.
If you want to sink your teeth into more readily applicable sociological/psychological issues pertaining to "why are people so damned crazy and dumb sometimes", Bob Altemeyer's "The Authoritarians
" is what you need. Bob's a very cool dude, and has a very relaxed, and often humorously conversational tone, despite the immense gravity of his work. Put short, there are specific personality types that have a strong tendency towards mob styled thinking, othering, and us vs them mentality. Further, there are other types of peoples, social dominators, who have personalities almost made to take advantage of this. There is a lot of data that Altemeyer has collected over the years detailing the nuances of these types of minds: a strong compartmentalization of ideas, allowing easy access to completely disparate beliefs without any realization of the conflict. It explains doublethink, more or less, both in people who don't realize they are utilizing it, and in those who are perfectly fine with acting counter to their own stated beliefs. There is a very interesting, albeit non-entirely-scientific section where, through the years with various classes, he's secretly held a sort of United Nations roleplaying game, with groups of all Authoritarian type personalities, and groups of all non-Authoritarian types, and the absolutely huge disparity of how they handle 'disaster' situations, trade, etc, is despairing, given the implications of how the mindset affects, say, the real world.