This is where your ignorance (and Dawkins makes similar mistakes. Which is probably why you haven't the foggiest idea how to spot the difference) radiates through my screen. There is a long history of the validity of universals, forms, absolutes, etc. that trace their connections to monotheistic religions. They were able to come to such conclusions through pure reason and no need for a holy book.
The idea that anything goes once you cross the line is sheer nonsense and a conversation stopper at best. It is age-old rhetorical babble passed on from one ignorant to another.
Even in the fairy world that you see, just know that we draw lines in the sand as well and it's got an enourmous historical philosophical tradition to back it up. Something that Dawkins is simply a goof at. In reading his book, he barely touches on the Summa and butchers it why he's at it.
I've read Aquinas' justifications and I found them unconvincing.
He makes way too many unfounded assumptions for my taste, and I imagine both Hitchens and Dawkins would agree.
Of course, depending on the religion and partition thereof one can find many logical faults and notions that, if followed to its logical consequence, would lead to bloody disaster.
From the condemnation of homosexuals, the war on contraceptives, the sins, the promised ethereal rewards and punishments...
The list goes on.
And yet, the greatest fault of all the religions followed by the vast majority is the undeniable fact that they have absolutely no evidence for their central claim.
