Would no religion really benefit anyone?

Sure there are religious wackos, terrorists, god driven mass murderers, and delusional religious freaks.  I'm not talking about those.  I'm talking about the everyday citizen of any given country who happens to believe in their god.  They have some faith, some hope that believing in this god will benefit them later, regardless of whether or not this is a valid belief.  Like believing that "if you're good this year, Santa will bring you more presents" or "if you tip the waitress you'll have good karma brought to you" or "if you work really hard for the company, you'll have an excellent retirement package  and won't get laid off."  In other words, hope is the driving factor behind many of our actions.  To eliminate religion would eliminate people's day to day hope. 

Even if their beleifs are "scienticifally incorrect," think of all the people in the US that cling to God to get through their own lives.  Look at black churches that have joyous singing and dancing.  The Bible typically refers to its followers as sheep, and that's what they are.  But isn't it better than being convinced that there is no god?  To actually KNOW or have it forced upon them that no god can possibly exist?  You'd have people with no hope, purpose, or reason to differentiate right from wrong.  Sure, some people can act morally on their own, but others can't.  They need a reason to not steal or kill or cheat on their wives, and with no moral or spiritual "penalty," what do people have to lose?  Do you really want a completely atheist society?  Religion makes an excellent behavior control system, just like government laws, accepted behaviors, popular beliefs and opinions, TV advertisements, and political statements from our current political leader.  The validity of these systems may be wrong in some instances, but at least they offer some kind of order.   

>>34
Kewl! A work of fiction containing a ridiculous caricature of the opposing point of view is now an acceptable argument, eh? You will excuse me, I hope, if I call that casuistry.

Stalin et al opposed the church because they saw it as a rival for power. I would be astonished by credible evidence that any of them gave a tinker's damn about truth and lies, given that the governments they headed were themselves so completely built on falsehood that they inspired Orwell, once a dedicated Socialist, to write "1984."

Satanists are as ridiculous as Christians, and I have the same contempt for them.

And there is nothing irrational about atheism. The religious have utterly failed to prove their claims about gods and angels and magic and evil spirits, so there is nothing whatsoeve irrational about laughing at them.

>>33
I'm not sure what he's saying at this point. His reasoning (if that is quite the word I want) grows more convoluted by the day. He has taken sophistry to positively Jesuitical levels, but when you cut through the sprawling weedy verbiage, there's nothing much there except "but it will make people feel bad," as if that were ever an argument against the truth.