Why disprove anti-materialism?

This is in reference to a post on Telic Thoughts.

I start off my comments as follows:

I think that the biggest question here is: Why should one bag of chemicals give two holy snorts about what another group of bags of chemicals “believes,” especially when both bags’ beliefs are determined by a complex array of natural laws that accidentally popped into existence?
Seriously, why “disprove” theism or anti-materialism? If all of our thoughts are products of a vast cascade of determined natural laws sifted through natural selection, then the atheist is no more responsible for his thoughts of atheism than the theist is for his thoughts of theism. In other words, don’t be so hard on Dawkins … it’s not his fault that he thinks the way he does. Nor is it my “fault” for writing this. An obviously "bad" twist in natural selection and natural laws is to blame.

Furthermore, if all that is needed is a little bit of re-programming, to “properly balance” a bag of chemicals, which bag gets to decide what the balance is and who gets re-programmed and why even bother? We are all equal bags of chemicals with equal rights, correct?

I am then responded to as follows:

Keiths:
Your skepticism seems to be based on the idea that what one "bag of chemicals" believes is no more or less valid than what any other "bag of chemicals" believes. After all, both bags' beliefs are simply the result of the playing out of natural law.

But look at a computer. Wire it up correctly, and it can do your taxes for you or predict the next lunar eclipse. Wire it up incorrectly, and you get garbage out of it. Both processes are simply the unfolding of natural law, but one yields correct results while the other yields nonsense.

To this I reply:

Yes, and notice that it is the programmers understanding of natural laws rather than the computer itself who determines “correct” or “incorrect” programming. If theism/anti-materialism and atheism/materialism are both programmed into different “bags of chemicals” via the same natural processes, who is to determine “correct” apart from “incorrect” programming, apart from those natural processes themselves. I understand that natural usefulness of said programs can be determined simply by how useful these thoughts of atheism or theism play out in regard to survivability and reproduction. But, as to correct and incorrect, WHY even judge one bag of chemicals’ programming verses another bag of chemicals’ programming, according to right and wrong as opposed to merely usefulness? Or is that what Dawkins is doing … promoting the usefulness of atheism over theism in reference to natural selection, survivability, and reproductive benefit ?

So, my two questions seem to be unanswered. The first is a “why” question: Seriously, why “disprove” theism or anti-materialism? If all of our thoughts are products of a vast cascade of determined natural laws sifted through natural selection, then the atheist is no more responsible for his thoughts of or arguments for atheism than the theist is for his thoughts of or arguments for theism.

Secondly, if it turns out that atheism is more useful or less harmful than theism, then surely we can mandate reprogramming of theists, or no? But this brings forward my second question: Furthermore, if all that is needed is a little bit of re-programming, to “properly balance” a bag of chemicals, which bag gets to decide what the balance is and who gets re-programmed and why even bother? We are all equal bags of chemicals with equal rights, correct?

Any other thoughts?