Not really, considering how rule by might has traditionally been the rule of the human race.
No need for a lot of religious mumbo jumbo to explain the obvious
Yet religion has been part of every society, and the societies whose religion includes the rejection of God have been by far the worst.
Which ought to give the religious some cause for pause, since it demonstrates that people tend to believe anything coming down the pike.
Anyhow, interestingly, even totalitarian leaders see the benefit in keeping their subjects from killing each other. It is just such an obvious benefit for all concerned that there really is no need to appeal to the existence of an intercessionary supreme being for the natural behavior of rational beings to recognize and enforce certain basic norms of behavior.
Heck, even nihilists see the benefit in not being murdered.
"Rule by might" isn't as pervasive as you might think. It doesn't matter how tyrannical a leader might be, he still has to have the loyalty of a goodly portion of the population. Somebody actually has to act as an enforcer of the ruler's edicts, and odds are it won't be the ruler himself.
For example, Joseph Stalin was about as tyrannical as they come, but he only succeeded because there were folks loyal enough to him without coercion. And the massive population of the Soviet Union could not be kept in check through intimidation alone -- the Czars tried this and look what happened. Stalin gave the peasantry land, education, and other goodies in return for support. To this day there are folks in Russia who think ol' Uncle Joe was God's gift to creation.