i wish i would have joined this thread earlier...

i think sargeman is being misunderstood. there seems to be some confusion between the terms "amoral" and "immoral". sargeman proposed that without religion people would be "amoral" (without morals or concept of morals). whereas csflim automatically translated that as "immoral" (recognizing a moral framework, yet going against it).

people can constantly modify the specifics of morality, but who can claim to know the source of our awareness of the principle of morality apart from an outside (perhaps divine?) source?

and finally... can we please put to rest the crude notion that religion is responsible for all the world's ills? violence and aggression from atheistic states is certainly no better than theocracies or purportedly religious movements. jealousy and greed cause most human conflict, believing the religious facade composed by the manipulators does not bring us closer to truth.

Hmmm, if all religion was forgotten then atheism would cease to exist as well, being a religion and all.
I guess it would also eliminate a huge chunk of history, politics, family values and beliefs.
Intersting thought, but I thank GOD that it isn't forgotten.