That's nice and cute in your little theological dream world, but it doesn't address the fact that when all was said and done in the East, support or opposition to Chalcedon fell largely along ethnic and political lines.
Care to put some facts on that bone?
Case in point: Nubia (then a Christian kingdom) wavered between Chalcedon (shown by links to the imperial Church) and its opponents (its links to the Copts).
Another point: in much of the issue, it wasn't that the position on Chalcedon fell on ethnic/political lines, but that the ethnic/political lines fell on the position on Chalcedon. During the muslim conquests, many supporters of Chalcedon (of whatever ethnicity, and the facts show they were mixed) fled to the Roman empire, whereas opponents of Chalcedon stayed put.
Egypt had a substantial Greek population, but not a great number of backers of Chalcedon. We know that the Greeks stayed, because for the first century of Islam (2 cent.s after Chalcedon) their presence is recorded. Eventually they were absorbed into the Coptic masses, as was a large part of more modern Greek populations in Egypt.
And then there's the fact that in the imperial family (where there was no ethnic nor political lines) there was the division between Justinian and Theodora over it.
Me thinks you've been reading to many propaganda pamphlets (like the Gospel perhaps).
Christianity, beyond the limited success it enjoyed in the first few hundred years as a popular cult in the context of the growing practical atheism of the ancient world (an unsustainable atheism due to the lack of scientific progress at the time), has been spread by the power of the state often by the sword. Without the political and military backing the religion gained starting with St. Constantine (there's good reason we call him 'equal-to-the-apostles') Christianity would have remained a minor cult significant in the eastern mediterranean but of little consequence elsewhere in the world. Like it or not, from an objective historical perspective, the core values of mainstream Christianity are political power and military expansion. I think these people you mock are better Christians than you give them credit for, you can't expect much more than their history plays out
Then Julian should have succeeded.
Some facts of history:
Constantine just made Christianity legal, and favored it himself personally, but not exclusively (New Rome was founded with Pagan rites, and he kept the title pontifex maximus). Theodosius made it the state Creed. But before Constantine, Armenia (outside the empire) had been converted, paving the way for the conversion of Georgia (even further out of the empire), and the (substantial) inroads into Iran. Ethiopia was converted and had rebuffed New Rome's attempt to control its hierarchy. Arian Christianity, obviously without imperial help, was a success among the Germanic tribes outside the empire. Outside the empire, from Syria/Iraq and Ethiopia, India was Chrisitanized, as was Arabia.
You sell the philosphers short on their disposal of God. Alas, atheism is by its nature unsustainable.