[Dumar]

grobbee is right. until the human condition sees a major change, religion will always be with us and serve as an overall positive aspect in the majority of people who choose to partake in it. whether a particular religion is true or not makes no difference whatsoever.

if you look at star trek on a more serious note, you'll see a human condition presented that's almost devoid of any religion, where the masses adhere to scientific principles and logical thinking that many of you seem to adore. in fact, many of the more serious criticisms of the show stem from how they portray the human condition in this fashion.

that human conditon also has no competition for resources and no strive for material wealth though, and thus no money; communism in its most perfect idea. it's in this state where people would do as many of you ask because no one person is greatly empowered more so than another.

many people tell the masses to be more logical in their decision-making; more critical of deep-rooted ideas; more broad in their thinking. people like dawkins. but could you tell people like dawkins to give up their ferraris? to abandon their elegant homes? would dawkins do that? the capitalist answer to this is that they worked hard and deserved it, but that's not the issue here. the issue is that empowerment shouldn't be wanted in the first place.

i'm hardly a closet communist. i'll never have faith in humanity such that i think that scenario would be even a remote possibility, even if the tech provided such.

if you want to absolve the minds of the masses from religion, you must give them incentive to do so. telling them to be more "logical" and what they believe is wrong ala dawkins and co. is not an incentive.

edit: kolle, please don't start that again.. please. violence is part of the human coniditon, and that's why it's in every major religious text.