A world without religion?

[Tyguy]

I was thinking about this for a little bit and decided I would like to know how you would envision a world without religion. Would humanity be better off? Would many of the wars we have had be non-existent?

 

[ComradeBadger]

No. They'd just have different justification.

The creation of institutional hegemony happens via one means or another...

 

[CptStern]

leaders need to inspire zealous dedication to some stupid cause somehow ..religion just makes it easier for tyrants to do their dirty work ..funny thing is that the people who use religion as a motivational tool are rarely believers themselves ..they just walk the walk and talk the talk ..you usually dont attain a position of absolute power by being stupid

 

[kirovman]

If there was no religion, people would invent conflicting ones pretty soon.

It's the same analogy with anarchy, somebody eventually takes control (thus not being anarchy anymore).

 

[Absinthe]

Would we experience less violence? I certainly think so. By how much? I couldn't say.

It is certainly fair to say that many conflicts waged in the name of religion of political or material roots in territorial acquisition, resources, or just plain old hating somebody. But the real question is "How many people would go along with this if the factor of religion was removed?". The Crusades were not carried out by a handful of people. There may be some brains at the top of such operations, although you should never underestimate the power of sincere belief, as there can be no doubt that a lot of violence is explicitly and primarily motivated by religion. They required a loyal, dedicated, and faithful base. You can't carry out mass murder unless you can dupe somebody into doing the murdering. If you said to a group of religious people "Hey, let's invade and kill these people for land", you'd undoubtedly witness a room of unspoken reluctance. If you replaced territorial acquisition with the appeasement of God, chances are good that you'd get more support.

How many witches would have been burned in a world without superstitious faith? None.

How many forced religious conversions/executions would there be? None.

How many people in the Middle East would be willing to blow themselves up? Most probably far less than we see today.

What are the chances that Bush wouldn't have invaded Iraq if there was no Jesus to whisper in his ear? If we're to believe that account, I'd say he certainly would have been less inclined to.

How much of a stigma would atheism receive if there was no theistic arrogance looking over it? Probably none.

Even if we're going to grant political or "realistic" roots to religious conflicts, it's a fact that religion just compounds the problems. Protestants versus Catholics in Ireland. Jews versus Muslims in the Middle East. Yeah, yeah, there are some legitimate issues buried underneath all that muck. But the active religious indoctrination of children in such areas not only increases their likeliness to kill others (or possibly even themselves), but just contributes daily to ignorance and prejudice that may not manifest itself in physical violence, but is certainly counterproductive to civilized development.

 

[Tagaziel]

I was thinking about this for a little bit and decided I would like to know how you would envision a world without religion. Would humanity be better off? Would many of the wars we have had be non-existent?

Technologically retarded.

The Church, as bad as it sounds to some people, was the thing that kept Europe more or less in one battered piece after the West Roman Empire ceased to exist and big, furry Germans took over (Odoaker I believe). Without this influence... well, certainly it would've taken a lot longer to get back together.

Also, I can't actually imagine early humanity without religion, it just played too much of a role in the society (Egyptians, tribes of Mesopotamy etc.).

EDIT:

And sooner or later, Raptor Jesus would appear to smithe heathens with his mighty tail.

 

[CptStern]

the church also legitimized Pinochet's murderous tyranny, aided in the extrmination of jews (indirectly), funneled nazi war criminals into south/north america, imprisoned Galileo for daring to postulate that the earth went around the sun ..there's just so many examples of regressive ideology pushed by the church that you really have to dig deep to see anything good (local works of charity while admirable hardly constitute the advancement of man) ..I'm sure there's plenty of examples ...I just cant think of any atm

 

[kirovman]

I just cant think of any atm

The Crusades!

 

[CptStern]

yes without the crusades we wouldnt have ......ummm ..angry muslims calling this latest war the "second crusade"? oh and Robin hood, cuz without richard galloping off to heathen country there's no reason for Robin of Locksley to be like stoled from the saxons/norms

 

[Spoonoop]

hmmm... I can't even think of what the world would be like without belief systems. Maybe the world would have been even worse without religoin. Who knows...

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

hmmm... I can't even think of what the world would be like without belief systems. Maybe the world would have been even worse without religoin. Who knows...

QFT, I'd like to think the world would be a better place without religon, but I honsetly cannot tell.

 

[Absinthe]

I'm willing to concede that religion may have been very important in the development of humanity ages ago, although there's no telling how accurate that assessment is. But its continued existence post-Enlightenment has been quite unjustified. And that doesn't change the fact that a good bulk of religion in humanity's lifespan has been malicious and destructive in its intent, despite whatever wayward guises of "goodness" it may have operated under.

 

[ComradeBadger]

I'm willing to concede that religion may have been very important in the development of humanity ages ago, although there's no telling how accurate that assessment is. But its continued existence post-Enlightenment has been quite unjustified. And that doesn't change the fact that a good bulk of religion in humanity's lifespan has been malicious and destructive in its intent, despite whatever wayward guises of "goodness" it may have operated under.

You could replice religion with any given second system or hegemonic ideological doctrine.

One way or another, man justifies the status quo and why the propertied have property, and why the propertied do not.

 

[Lt. Drebin]

Science damn you all!!!!!!

 

[Absinthe]

You could replice religion with any given second system or hegemonic ideological doctrine.

One way or another, man justifies the status quo and why the propertied have property, and why the propertied do not.

Of course there would be instances throughout history in which the absence of religion would simply give rise to a secular fantasy ideology instead. But you would be hard-pressed to pick a situation in which it would be more effective.

No matter how oppressive a man-made ideology is, it is still fundamentally subject to human critique. The word of God, however, is not. And at least the former can be defeated. Communism, which may as well be a political religion, is still based on the material world. Its aims and methods can be assessed, analyzed, and discredited because it is still a falsifiable concept. But you can't kill a god. When gods are invoked, whatever material aim that may lie underneath such actions are obfuscated. They are practically impenetrable to human intellect because people themselves place them above such standards.

And the unfortunate truth of the matter is that there have been and still are religious extremists in the world who have no care for the status quo. There are people with no other grievances other than the religious kind, and they will kill others solely because of a warped belief. Men and women who are otherwise intelligent, sensitive, and caring, willing to murder others in the name of their god.

If there is a secular ideology that is capable of inspiring that kind of fierce loyalty with an equal rate of success, I'm unaware of it.

 

[ComradeBadger]

There certainly was, English Radicalism circa 1785 was pushed to the point of violence by oppressive legislation - while it had it's ties to antinominism, it was primarily a secular ideology.
One only has to look at Ireland to see secular ideologies that lead to killing, and that's been going on a very long time.


Communism was a bad example in fact, as it was essentially used AS a religion - ideas, particularly concerning utopias are often elevated as being above mankind, especially when people use the 'if only it wasn't for human nature' - implying the perfection of the idea, and the inadequacy of mankind.

While, I do agree with you to some extent about the divine being essentially invulnerable - however - if that is truely the case how do you explain anti-Englightenment thinking? A return to mysticism and a rejection of the ideas of the traditional Christian god.
Religion like any concept is malleable, and readily appropriated by both prophets and political thinkers.


[P.S. nice to see a decent discussion in politics .. I'm tempted to remove any useless replies if they occur]

 

[Absinthe]

There certainly was, English Radicalism circa 1785 was pushed to the point of violence by oppressive legislation - while it had it's ties to antinominism, it was primarily a secular ideology.
One only has to look at Ireland to see secular ideologies that lead to killing, and that's been going on a very long time.

I can't say I've ever heard of English Radicalism. Gave it a look in wiki and came up with nothing. If you have any links you can provide, I'd be most interested.

As for Ireland, it's a perfect example of how religious factors muddle up legitimate political concerns. Anything past the Viking encroachment around the 8th century has had pertinent elements of "Divine Rule". But more relevantly, most conflict in Ireland for the past 400 years has been defined by the Reformation. It's quite possible the Troubles would still exist, but there's no reason to believe it would have been with the same prejudiced, separatist overtones. It's not enough that there are problems with discrimination, the partition of Ireland, and political corruption. It also has to be a Catholic versus Protestant issue as well, one that's perpetuated through generations. The distinction of religious affiliations is no coincidence. It's what happens when people start talking about "Catholic nations" or "Protestant nations", or when your children are herded into separate schools, or when blood feuds are eventually crystallized into generalized hatreds of each other's faiths.

Religion may not be the cause of conflict throughout Ireland's history, but it has always made things worse.

Communism was a bad example in fact, as it was essentially used AS a religion - ideas, particularly concerning utopias are often elevated as being above mankind, especially when people use the 'if only it wasn't for human nature' - implying the perfection of the idea, and the inadequacy of mankind.

While, I do agree with you to some extent about the divine being essentially invulnerable - however - if that is truely the case how do you explain anti-Englightenment thinking? A return to mysticism and a rejection of the ideas of the traditional Christian god.
Religion like any concept is malleable, and readily appropriated by both prophets and political thinkers.

Aside: I personally don't buy the "If only mankind was perfect" defense for Communism. The system was only applicable in pre-industrialized nations. The moment you started having people specialize in fields of medicine or engineering, the luster was lost. The most we can do is pick up the worthwhile scraps and move on.

I did classify Communism as a political religion. A dogmatic, untenable ideology with roots in fantasy thought. Just without the deity. But its power lied in its dogma and its oppression, and it was still susceptible to fallibility. When people under the Soviet Union saw the nearly endless commercial "hedonism" of the West, its fall was an inevitability. It's quite difficult to say your political system is the best when everybody else around you is better off.
It is common tradition in religion, however, to promise rewarding for suffering. Something that's particularly true in Catholicism. "The meek shall inherit the earth" distills this kind of thinking perfectly, and it's not something easily punctured by material goods or rational thinking. If one sincerely believes in his or her god and its rulings, then persuasion or compromise is generally futile. Communism, while facing external pressure, ultimately collapsed internally. Religious faith, however, has a loophole that allows it to avoid such a fate. If not through the promise of divine intervention, then in the promise of the afterlife. On a similar note, it was because Communism in the Soviet Union was a secular, man-made concept that it managed to survive for years under MAD. As screwy as it was, they were still people who could relate to common human concerns. Can you imagine what the outcome would have been if either the United States or Russia had believed it was their divine destiny to annihilate their opponent?

Any return to anti-Enlightenment thinking is just a swap. Trading one perfect entity for another, either because it just feels better or it's more convincing. My comments regarding the "invulnerability" of deities is more applicable to extremism, but anybody who switches from one mystical belief to another is still committing the same exact fallacy.
Religion by most cases should not be malleable, but it thankfully it is. If it wasn't, the world would be a far bloodier place. But this only strengthens my point. It is an observable tendency that over time religions that change become more secular and open to reason, and they become intrinsically less violent. While I do not wish to make the specious claim that secularism is more peaceful, it's interesting to note that there is less bloodshed with religions when they become less religious. If secular ideologies were truly on equal footing with faith-based institutions, then I don't see why there are more instances in which religious violence is simply traded wholesale for secular violence.

ADDED: God, I ****ing hate it when I read my replies after posting them. They're too long... and they seem hostile. :|

 

[CptStern]

heh sounds like me ...I often think after typing a reply "boy, what a dick"

 

[ComradeBadger]

I can't say I've ever heard of English Radicalism. Gave it a look in wiki and came up with nothing. If you have any links you can provide, I'd be most interested.

I can provide you with reading material on the matter, I'm afraid I don't know about web links.

As for Ireland, it's a perfect example of how religious factors muddle up legitimate political concerns. Anything past the Viking encroachment around the 8th century has had pertinent elements of "Divine Rule". But more relevantly, most conflict in Ireland for the past 400 years has been defined by the Reformation. It's quite possible the Troubles would still exist, but there's no reason to believe it would have been with the same prejudiced, separatist overtones. It's not enough that there are problems with discrimination, the partition of Ireland, and political corruption. It also has to be a Catholic versus Protestant issue as well, one that's perpetuated through generations. The distinction of religious affiliations is no coincidence. It's what happens when people start talking about "Catholic nations" or "Protestant nations", or when your children are herded into separate schools, or when blood feuds are eventually crystallized into generalized hatreds of each other's faiths.

Religion may not be the cause of conflict throughout Ireland's history, but it has always made things worse.

Actually, there's also somewhat of a conservative and liberal thread running through the thinking behind the troubles as well - religion certainly is a factor, but it isn't the cause

I personally don't buy the "If only mankind was perfect" defense for Communism. The system was only applicable in pre-industrialized nations. The moment you started having people specialize in fields of medicine or engineering, the luster was lost. The most we can do is pick up the worthwhile scraps and move on.

I wasn't defending communism, I was merely attempting to explain what I meant by perfect ideas, seen to be better than mankind. Sorry if I confused you.

I did classify Communism as a political religion. A dogmatic, untenable ideology with roots in fantasy thought. Just without the deity. But its power lied in its dogma and its oppression, and it was still susceptible to fallibility. When people under the Soviet Union saw the nearly endless commercial "hedonism" of the West, its fall was an inevitability. It's quite difficult to say your political system is the best when everybody else around you is better off.

Indeed. However, much like the religion you mention below - those at the bottom of the pile were taught to think 'it's ok we're being screwed over, because we're the workers and we run this country!' (to what extent that is the case is up for debate however!)

It is common tradition in religion, however, to promise rewarding for suffering. Something that's particularly true in Catholicism. "The meek shall inherit the earth" distills this kind of thinking perfectly, and it's not something easily punctured by material goods or rational thinking. If one sincerely believes in his or her god and its rulings, then persuasion or compromise is generally futile. Communism, while facing external pressure, ultimately collapsed internally. Religious faith, however, has a loophole that allows it to avoid such a fate. If not through the promise of divine intervention, then in the promise of the afterlife.

Any return to anti-Enlightenment thinking is just a swap. Trading one perfect entity for another, either because it just feels better or it's more convincing. My comments regarding the "invulnerability" of deities is more applicable to extremism, but anybody who switches from one mystical belief to another is still committing the same exact fallacy.

Religion by most cases should not be malleable, but it thankfully it is. If it wasn't, the world would be a far bloodier place. But this only strengthens my point. It is an observable tendency that over time religions that change become more secular and open to reason, and they become intrinsically less violent. While I do not wish to make the specious claim that secularism is more peaceful, it's interesting to note that there is less bloodshed with religions when they become less religious. If secular ideologies were truly on equal footing with faith-based institutions, then I don't see why there are more instances in which religious violence is simply traded wholesale for secular violence.

Then perhaps the key is institutions rather than the concepts themselves?



I'll try and respond a bit more cohesively later, but I have to rush off

 

[Absinthe]

I edited my post for clarification in a few spaces. It was never my intention to accuse you of defending communism.

And I also need to rush too... my brother got wasted at his school and I need to pick him up...

 

[99.vikram]

A world without religion is a world where logic is held above faith.
Consequently, it's a world without superstitions or "UFO/Elvis/Loch Ness sightings".

 

[Adabiviak]

There's always going to be idiots, but there would less of the religious fuel that seems to make them breed.

 

[Jintor]

It's possible that something along the lines of religion would still spring up, so nyah.

 

[Que-Ever]

My penis would be whole.

 

[Geogaddi]

Would we be better off if religion never existed?
Hard to say, too many factors, it plays too big a part in too many things etc...

Would we be better off if we woke up tomorrow and every religious person said "Wow, that was stupid, I'm going to go donate blood instead of going to church now."?

Yes, probably.

Is Absinthe the cutest little drunken atheist in atheist town? Yes he is, oh yes he is a cutesy wootsy wittle aseith goochie goo

 

[Absinthe]

Is Absinthe the cutest little drunken atheist in atheist town? Yes he is, oh yes he is a cutesy wootsy wittle aseith goochie goo

Why do you make me feel like a child.

 

[The Monkey]

Sweden's pretty free from religion, at least at the present. Come over here and see if you like it.

 

[kirovman]

Lies. Sweden used to worship Odin, but now they worship Satan Christ.

 

[Jintor]

They should go back to Woden. He needs the worship.

Last I heard he was going to sell his ravens for food.

 

[The Monkey]

Lies. Sweden used to worship Odin, but now they worship Satan Christ.

Yeah, it sucks that we changed. Odin and Thor were at least real men, unlike those pussies Jesus and Moses.

 

[Flyingdebris]

Religion isn't the problem, its people using it as an excuse for their actions thats the problem.

Science is good, science is great, but there's still lots of unanswered questions that science cannot or will not answer.

So for now i merely keep an open mind to spirituality, pursue things with a scientific attitude, and hold on to what i believe is right and wrong.

 

[Absinthe]

Religion isn't the problem, its people using it as an excuse for their actions thats the problem.

This is really weak. Religion is not an "excuse" for actions if the perpetrators sincerely believe in their holy texts. Why the hell are so many people so unwilling to accept that just maybe there are people in the world who will kill solely for their god?

People need to drop this idea that religion is some benign force that people just exploit for evil. Religion is entirely capable of inspiring people to commit violent acts all by itself. When somebody stones insolent children in the center of town as ordered by the Bible, it's not a case of "Oh, they abusively interpreted this good book!". It's a case of people acting according to what they see as divine law. When Muslim extremists commit mass murder and saw the heads off their captives, it's not a case of the Koran being wrangled to justify such actions. It's a case of such men striving to emulate Muhammed as was explicitly commanded to them.

Science is good, science is great, but there's still lots of unanswered questions that science cannot or will not answer.

So for now i merely keep an open mind to spirituality, pursue things with a scientific attitude, and hold on to what i believe is right and wrong.

Yes, science doesn't know all the answers. What's your point? Religion offers answers that science can't? That's ridiculous. Unsubstantiated, dogmatic tripe is not valid information. It has no worth.

 

[kirovman]

Yeah, it sucks that we changed. Odin and Thor were at least real men, unlike those pussies Jesus and Moses.

http://www.rathergood.com/val_halal/


Being religious could be said to be the equivalent of worshipping Stalin.

Whilst beating Hitler and industrialising Russia, which is what the majority Stalinists would worship, some Stalinists would worship the fact he sent people off to gulags and killed lots of people through his secret police.
However worshipping Stalin would be frowned upon by most of modern society, even if you lie in the former category.

That is my angry analogy for today.

 

[ComradeBadger]

This is really weak. Religion is not an "excuse" for actions if the perpetrators sincerely believe in their holy texts. Why the hell are so many people so unwilling to accept that just maybe there are people in the world who will kill solely for their god?

It's not an excuse, you're right, it's a weak arguement. What religion does give is a justification from a idea GREATER than mankind, much like the idea of nationalism does - people are willing to kill solely for their country and it's greater glory.

People need to drop this idea that religion is some benign force that people just exploit for evil. Religion is entirely capable of inspiring people to commit violent acts all by itself. When somebody stones insolent children in the center of town as ordered by the Bible, it's not a case of "Oh, they abusively interpreted this good book!". It's a case of people acting according to what they see as divine law. When Muslim extremists commit mass murder and saw the heads off their captives, it's not a case of the Koran being wrangled to justify such actions. It's a case of such men striving to emulate Muhammed as was explicitly commanded to them.

I'm certainly not arguing that it's benign, I'm merely arguing that it's comparable to any other controlling ideology that is justified by ideas. While it may be hard to criticise religion, it is questioned far more often than communism, or nationalism. ( I am talking about differing distinctions within the same broad spectrum of faith here, for example, Lutherins, Calvinists, Swedenborgians - they question the institution, and it's very foundations )

 

[Beerdude26]

I'm certainly not arguing that it's benign, I'm merely arguing that it's comparable to any other controlling ideology that is justified by ideas. While it may be hard to criticise religion, it is questioned far more often than communism, or nationalism. ( I am talking about differing distinctions within the same broad spectrum of faith here, for example, Lutherins, Calvinists, Swedenborgians - they question the institution, and it's very foundations )

You find it comparable to any other controlling ideology (with good reason), but religious nuts themselves feel they are above the rest. That's what causes the large amounts of critiques on religion.

Personally, I feel religion has played a very big role in bringing people together and helping them create morals and values, at least in the beginning of mankind. Of course, several of these morals were wrong. While mankinds sentience evolved, its morals evolved aswell. First, people believed that God was the answer to everything. Then, they believed that Man was the answer to everything. Now, they're a bit inbetween.

Today, we are at the crossroads of an important choice: Do we abandon religion as a whole and teach morals to our children outside of this religious context, or do we further secularize it and keep the good stuff to teach our children about how to be a nice person? (This will still give crazy people incentives to blow themselves up / kill people in the name of their god)

I feel that this is a very important question because as far as I know, I don't know of any way to teach children how to be a good person without pulling in notions of religion. Kids are so impressed with the thought of that if you are an asshat in this life, you'll get punished thereafter. It's a perfect coathanger to show them why to be nice.

I wonder if there are any other ways of taking people by the soul and telling them to behave nicely. (Best rough depiction of religion evar, btw)

Because if we misstep on this one, we'll throw back society a great deal back. In fact, some people say that this is already happening with todays youth. I'm sure all of you have seen people that seem to have been raised without any form (or not a lot) of morals, leaving you a bit disgusted.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Personally, I feel religion has played a very big role in bringing people together and helping them create morals and values, at least in the beginning of mankind.

At the begnining of mankind yes. Played an important role yes. But we have perfctly good explanations for the universe without needing a god. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying your justifiing it today, I'm just making a point.

 

[delusional]

I dont think all religion should be abolished, but only revealed religion. Religions where God reveals religion to single guy and then every one has to take his word, that he spoke to God. Such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and Sikhism. I believe natural religion isn't much of a threat since these religions don't focus on an all powerful God or outdated texts commanding undivided obedience advocating violent acts. Religions such as Deism, Taoism and Buddhism.

I don't think we need a world with only atheists, but if we add Natural Religion to I think it could have a positive effect, not negative. I don't think we would have to completely remove christianity from society either, or any other revealed religion. We can do what Thomas Jefferson did to the New Testament. Removing all the prophecy, and supernatural parts only leaving the Moral teachings. And then we could do the same thing to all other religious texts and turn them into books of morality. Personally thats how i would envision a world without religion.

 

[PvtRyan]

Would mankind be better off without religion? Perhaps by a bit, but I doubt it's gonna change much about the state of the world.

Would mankind be better off without irrational, unsubstantiated beliefs? Absolutely, and this would automatically get rid of religion.

And that seems to be overlooked a bit here, religion is only a small part in the spectrum of irrationality. It's only one kind of expression of something that can best be summarized as faith. Every kind of faith needs to be delt with, be it faith in a political idealogy (communism/socialism), faith in pseudoscience/'alternative medicine', faith in your own superiority (nazism or general racism) or faith in a deity.

It's clear that an atheistic society can be just as dangerous as a theocracy (communist China / USSR / North Korea) so the key to a happy society lies not in the absence or presence of religion. What places like the USSR and for example Europe in the middle-ages had in common was faith. One had faith in a political idealogy, the other in religion.

 

[Absinthe]

It's not an excuse, you're right, it's a weak arguement. What religion does give is a justification from a idea GREATER than mankind, much like the idea of nationalism does - people are willing to kill solely for their country and it's greater glory.

But at least nationalism is grounded in the real world. It can be approached by human intellect. The same can't be said for supernatural entities that allegedly operate on a totally different (and often unrelatable) set of standards and rules.

In any case, yes. Blind nationalism is also bad. But that doesn't diminish the impact that religion has. To be quite blunt, what does fanatic nationalism have to do with religion, other than the fact that they're both negative forces in the world? I'm only focusing on religion because it is the topic. In no way am I implying that there are no other forces that have massive destructive potential. My reasoning is simply thus: why not attempt to remove at least one of them?

I'm certainly not arguing that it's benign, I'm merely arguing that it's comparable to any other controlling ideology that is justified by ideas. While it may be hard to criticise religion, it is questioned far more often than communism, or nationalism. ( I am talking about differing distinctions within the same broad spectrum of faith here, for example, Lutherins, Calvinists, Swedenborgians - they question the institution, and it's very foundations )

Religion is most probably questioned more often than Communism because it's a far more relevant and widespread force in the world as a whole. Communism can't claim to hold a stake in every geographic region. Religion can. The existence of inter-faith criticism doesn't really support your argument all that much, as it's simply people arguing over who has the correct god. The concept of religion itself isn't damaged at all.

And after thinking for a bit, I think this topic is pretty misleading. There's little point in just removing religion from the world. There's little to gain from instructing school children to be atheists. Secularism for the sake of secularism is useless.
Fanatical ideologies, religious or otherwise, exist because of a lack of critical, rational thought. It is quite right that in the absence of religion, there would most probably be replacements of a similar nature. Granted, I do think there would have been less bloodshed in the absence of faith institutions. But targeting religion by itself is of little value unless there are good reasons behind such acts. Otherwise it's just dogma.

For instance, one can be an atheist for all the wrong reasons. One may not believe in a god because he believes his couch told him there isn't one. There is no reasonable justification behind one's atheism in such a scenario. The Soviet Union is an excellent example of atheism warped into dogma in an obscene tapestry of irrationality. A stronger emphasis needs to be placed rationalism. More pro-reason than anti-religion. Atheism and secular, positive ideals should naturally follow critical thought. Because it's safe to say that you'd have far less extremists in general if a there was a more concerted effort placed on educating people in subjects such as Theory of Knowledge.

So what would the world be like without religion? Different, to be sure. But the distinction is largely meaningless if there's still an absence of reason.

ADDED: PvtRyan stated my position. Just in shorter, succinct wording.

 

[VirusType2]

I was thinking about this for a little bit and decided I would like to know how you would envision a world without religion. Would humanity be better off? Would many of the wars we have had be non-existent?

Ironically, I feel that maybe if there was no religion, there would be world peace.

I posed the same question here once, and got similar answers. One can only speculate, however.