@metaphor- might be true, that is why there is democracy and free speech. With that, people will accept more coercion from government, because they can discuss to change things, rather then resort to violence.
Religion is a big one, and in my view often an irrational one. One more based on what people really want is based on the left-right discussion between individualism and community, but i might be wrong, there might be more.
Also, people do not affect each other directly on all levels, which also helps keep the peace.
@rocknrolf77 I agree, greed is a problem.

By your definition, cheeseheads are a religion.

I suggest you reconsider.

How about this, from dictionary.com?

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Or this one, from the American Heritage Dictionary?
1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

WordNet:
1. a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
2. an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"

Indeed, the primary definition of religion in almost every dictionary I look involves a belief in the supernatural.

having no religion is not a faith. even if it becomes the norm.

Human nature is adapting to survive. That most people nowadays have chosen faith as a way to adapt to their environment or to their lack of understanding of it, doesn't mean that religiousness is a fatality or a part of human nature.

I dislike the "word wars" that go on here, but you've finally made me crack open my dictionary. The roots of the word mean "to restrain/bind back" and "to bind together". I think the difference between the "supreme being" and "set of moral beliefs and codes" definition is rather thin. My version of Webster's Unabridged Dictionary cites "Christian religion", among others, as examples of the latter definition. The current version uses "religous" to define "religion"! Is that useless or what?

I think the roots of the word are the most telling. "Bound together" as a group who share common beliefs (referencing the second definition), and who are bound by their beliefs (referencing the other root meaning "to restrain/bind back").

I think it's perfectly fine to say that your religion (second def.) is no religion (first def.) if that defines you. As such, forcing no religion is a religion in and of itself.

"Cheeseheads" are not a religion. It just doesn't fit either definition of the word.

c.dric: Faith is not the same as religion...

You could be right, but I am fairly certain that you aren't, if only because every single human society has developed religion independently. I suspect that if you eliminate religion by some magical method, it will come back in the form of cult-like movements (like Scientology). It is very likely that there is a part of the human brain that is responsible for religiosity and it's even possible to artificially stimulate this part of the brain by inducing mild seizures (80% will report religious experiences, that can also be measured by brain imaging). Interestingly, Richard Dawkins has taken part in this study and was one of the 20%.

The point is that the capacity to feel religion, and the hunger for it, is not merely cultural but biological. Take away current religion and something else will come to fill the gaps, and that something could be far more dangerous than modern religion.

I would suggest that instead of eliminating religion, we should work on reforming it to fit the modern world.

PS: I consider your usage of the word fatality to be quite inappropriate. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the feelings of religiosity, and I would even go as far as saying that those kinds of feelings have been the most wonderful ones I have ever experienced. The fatality of human nature is extremism, but extremism is not always tied to religion: look at fascism (which is unrelated to religion) and communism (which is fundamentally antitheistic).

religions are based on faith. that's why i can't let people dismiss atheism as yet another faith or religion.

I'm quite sure it is biological, but human biology is not set in stone.

It wasn't my intention to sound pejorative here ... i meant it in this sense: "The quality of being determined by fate". i just couldn't find a better word at the time. maybe 'destiny' would have been more appropriate.

It is as far as we are concerned here. Sure, religion could be weeded out by evolution in a million years, but I don't think that's what we're talking about. Certainly we are not going to be modifying our genes to get rid of religion so I'm curious... what do you mean, exactly?

human nature shouldn't be defined by today's norm. that's what i meant.

I was listening to that song a bunch yesterday, and I would love such a place.

Actually, that song is almost word for word the communist manifesto (no countries, no religion), and it quite accurately describes socialist countries.

impossible!
history is factual evidence!

I do agree that it will be a wonderful place. 1000 year reign from a one world government ruled by Christ and his followers with a rod of iron!!!
pfft...and you think it's rough now?

if it were ever properly implemented.

I find it humorous that people think that there is one thing that causes more problems than anything else. Humans have problems for so many reasons it is mind boggling. Religion seems to cause so many problems, but in reality human stupidity is at fault there. Peace is the measure of time that passes between two wars. War is going to happen no matter what people try to do to prevent it. This true too of all violence. People are violent. What of it? Greed is the driving force of our planet. It brought humans further than anything else. People in a capitolist society are constantly looking for a way to make money. This means that if there is a want/need someone will find a way to meet that need or want for a certain price.

we cant ever stop having religion...
its too comforting to people who use it, gives them a reason to do things...
if it didnt exist beforehand then maybe this world would be unimaginably different...
religion caused loads of killng, but it also helped in building and many other ways... maybe we would have found other reasons to create the stunning architecture...

Just a little quote about "Imagine" by John:

"the song 'Imagine' is virtually a communist manifesto, even though I am not particularly a communist and I do not belong to any movement. You see, Imagine was exactly the same message, but sugar-coated. Now, Imagine is a big hit almost everywhere -- anti-religious, anti-nationalistic, anti-conventional, anti-capitalistic song, but because it is sugar-coated it is accepted. Now I understand what you have to do. Put your political message across with a little honey."

Please continue.

I dont't think religion won't ever end.
I just hope monotheistic ones will end soon.
If you think ONE God exists, you can identify with it, therefore you can incidentally guess you're superior to something else.
If, on the contrary, you believe in Gods (think of Roman and Greek ones, or other animistic religions) you can identify yourself with one of them. And no Gods is superior to any other god. They all have their own pros and cons.

What do you think?

I think that this is the wrong way to look at it. Polytheistic religions are the ones that lead to conflict: you acknowledge that other gods exist, but think that yours is better, so you fight the ones who worship the inferior gods. Monotheism, if properly interpreted, means that all people share a single God and if others believe in another God, they really just mean the same one (for example, according to Judaism, any monotheistic religion is correct for non Jews, because it has to be the same philosophical God as the one the Jews believe in).

Furthermore, religions such as Hinduism and Taoism are also monotheistic at their root: they acknowledge a higher power to which all people and deities belong. This is probably the best (or at least safest) way to interpret monotheism, as it recognizes all humans as believers in the same higher power.

In fact, the problem with religion today is that the Abrahamic monotheism is splitting into faiths that are almost polytheistic. You have American Christians who believe that their God is not the same as Allah or even the Jewish God, and I am sure that you have Muslims that believe the same thing. Any biblical scholar and non-radical priest would obviously see that such claims are absurd both historically and philosophically, but the masses believe in them nonetheless.

I think that one fragment sums up most of the problems with religions.

҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈ ҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈ ҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈ ҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈ ҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈ ҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈ ҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈ ҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈ ҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈҈