The problem is that this statement applies to any atheistic "philosophy" as well, including Objectivism. Camus (who I suspect had a sliver of faith) summed it up nicely at the end of The Stranger: "What difference could they make to me, the deaths of others, or a mother's love, or his God; or the way a man decides to live, the fate he thinks he chooses, since one and the same fate was bound to 'choose' not only me but thousands of millions of privileged people who, like him, called themselves my brothers... Every man alive was privileged; there was only one class of men, the privileged class. All alike would be condemned to die one day; his turn too, would come like others'."
The point is that if there is no God, live your life in whatever way you like and it makes no difference. If religion is a lie, Christ and Stalin are equally dead, the latter after having killed 50 million or so, all the while yucking it up with Khrushchev and the boys at drunken dinners lasting till 4 a.m.
Now without reference to religion, Sentis, you tell me why Stalin was "wrong."
If I had the answer there would be no need to search for the new frame for the debate. There has been little or no philosophical work in this direction as conservatives and moral thinkers genereally have had their heads stuck in religious Holy Books and not in thinking about other reasons why hedonism is in itself morally incompatible with culture. Rand and the objectivists are probably among a select few that have went off in the direction needed to create a natural moral philosophy.