exactly, imo

Does the study of "comparative religion" mean they try to figure out which religion is more bullshit than the others?

So what? Apologist much?

Religion is what one makes of it. A "contextualist" reading essentually acknowledges that scripture does NOT accurately represent eternal truth. Literalists, ie fundamentalists, in effect, represent the most religious.
Your writer here basically acknowledges that the only intellectually honest way to embrace religion, at least Judeo-Christian examples, is to buffer oneself from actually believing it and to instead take it as metaphor.

Of course the Bible contains some nuggets of positive principles for living. So what? It did not invent these principles. They are not exclusive to religious "revealed truth." Philosphy does the same job without the bullshit.

The only reason anti-theists discuss the Bible literally is NOT because we've drunk some idiot Koolaid; it is because literalism is how we see religion being touted around us. Selectively and inconsistently, to be sure. But still....the PRACTICE of religion IS religion. The texts are but an aid to practitioners claiming some cosmic authority.

Academia and the double negative.

The professor could have said “manifests itself in conservative....”

And? Who gives a fuck?

That is a straw man argument, of course the anitreligious spend more energy on literalism than "sophisticated theologies", because there is a lot more of that out there, and where it exists it has a more dangerous and dramatic effect.

Besides which, there is no difference between literalism and "more sophisticated theologies of creation ". The one is just keeping the sky fairy in its traditional role, as the dispenser of fake authority, and the second is setting tradition and mythology as gods themselves and the dispensers of fake authority. And fake authority is just as attractive to the criminal elements in the world, for misuse, wherever it comes from.