I’ve never heard this one, but it’s surely the most baseless of any argument against religion. I thought these people were claiming the intellectual high ground. What kind of superficial reasoning is this? Their definition of a Holy book seems to be that a holy book had to have been written long ago, and that it has to either explicitly claim divine authorship or be given such. How limited their understanding is of the thing they polemize against. Holy books are still being written all the time. Any book that catalyzes change, that expands a worldview, or creates a connection amongst us to make us dream of a better world, is Holy. These represent all the qualities of religion in its highest form. They are also inherent in the human mind to strive for, or holy books would never be written in the first place.