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.   

>>38
The word is "atheism."  Religious/theistic beliefs = theism.  A- is a prefix that negates the following word. A-theism = lack of religious/theistic beliefs. Here ya go:

ttp://www.alabamaatheist.org/awareness/questions/agnostic.htm

>>37
Hey, you're the one tripping over your feet to apologize for and defend every kind of ridiculous superstition, not me. You're the one who invoked Argument from Adverse Consequences, not me.

>>40
In a scientific context it is improper to use terms like "belief." I tentatively accept a certain hypothesis pending empirical disproof, I do not claim to "believe in" it. And yes, some of the claims of various religions, particularly Christianity, are scientific in nature and fall into the realm that can be empirically tested--such as the Earth being only six thousand years old, a vast world-deluging flood only five thousand years ago, all land-dwelling life on Earth today being descended from a tiny handful of specimens preserved during this flood on a wooden boat, and so on. These claims are empirically testable, and have been found wanting. They are lies and deserve the same treatment as any other lies.