Would the world be better off without religion?

The atheist cannot answer the question George. Just as he recognises no religious authority he also recognises no social authority. He is a law unto himself as de Sade explained at such interminable length.

Law abiding is a section of fearing sanctions along with good manners. What else could they be. Strategies. The fear being the limiting factor and variable.

I would have to guess the world would be about the same. Raphael, Leonardo, and Michaelangelo would have been inspired by whoever provided their patronage.

I am unwilling to call anything "evil"--it is a term which derives from a subjective judgment, and does nothing to describe reality.

unless one can demonstrate that there were social engineers who, as effective "causes", designed societies with this in mind: unlikely.

None of these are inherently evil?

Are they simply expressions of a 'different opinion'?

True it is, that philosophy makes us wiser, but Christianity makes us better men. Philosophy elevates and steels the mind, Christianity softens and sweetens it. The former makes the objects of human admiration, the latter of Divine love. That ensures us a temporal, but this an eternal happiness.

It is, of course, equally legitimate to consider these phenomena from a different point of view. They may be appreciated for a different purpose, and the characterization here offered may be turned about. In speaking from the point of view of the devotional interest, or the interest of devout taste, it may, with equal cogency, be said that the spiritual attitude bred in men by the modern industrial life is unfavorable to the free development of the life of faith. It might fairly be objected to the later development of the industrial process that its discipline tends to "materialism," to the elimination of filial piety. From the aesthetic point of view, again, something to a similar purport might be said. But, however legitimate and valuable these and the like reflections may be for their purpose, they would not be in place in the present enquiry, which is exclusively concerned with the valuation of these phenomena from the economic point of view.

Rl has asked Setanta:

"I hope you don't mind if I ask you about a few specifics.

Cannibalism?

Mass murder?

Rape?

Torture?

Pedophilia?

Terrorism?

None of these are inherently evil?

Are they simply expressions of a 'different opinion?"

This is a classic example of the red herring tactic. RL has listed some of the more reviled acts from the perspective of our society's moral code, a line-up of acts that he knows Setanta and all A2Kers revile (and if there is any A2Ker who does not revile them he would never admit it--well, with the exception, perhaps, of Dyslexia). But that bypasses the philosophical question of whether the listed acts are objective/inherently/absolutely EVIL or whether they are culturally-defined/subjective/intersubjective evils.

Spendius, I agree that the teachings of Jesus would soften and sweeten our minds IF we focused on his actual ethical teachings rather than the myths about his supernatural status. Jesus pointed to the Truth and we only sucked his finger for comfort.

You believe in the existence of witches, and the liklihood that some women deserved to be burned?

But it is interesting that A2K does seem to attract non-believers disproportionately and by doing so gives non-believers a false sense of the attraction of their position. The last poll I saw gave 90% of US citizens as "believers". So while non-believers pat each other on the back and reassure each other it seems they are a small minority electorally.
.