[Dimensio]

I don't see how that follows.

It is actually a tautology, more correctly stated that "if people are taught that they are animals, then they will act like animals". It is true because people are animals, and as such anything that they do is "acting like an animal" -- if nothing else, then a human animal. I do not believe, however, that the person is actually using it in this context. I believe that the person is attempting to imply that "acting like animals" is undesirable, without actually explaining what "acting like animals" implies, and then attempting to appeal to a logical fallacy in claiming that the consequences of a belief negate the belief if the consequences are undesirable.

[curiosity]

I believe that the person is attempting to imply that "acting like animals" is undesirable, without actually explaining what "acting like animals" implies

He's using "animal" in the religious sense, not the biological sense.

And that's perfectly legitimate. We are not animals in the religious sense because unlike animals, we have moral obligations.

His logic is faulty because it implies there is an intrinsic conflict between being an animal in the biological sense and not being one in the religious sense. But this is obviously false; both can, and are true.

[stands2reason]

Another way to look at it is that "acting like an animal" does not equal "anything goes". Any higher order pack animal has to follow the pack's rules of society, or it is punished with death or exile.

Atheists don't want to live in a community filled with amoral people any more than believers do.

BTW, are you part Vulcan? ;-)