Furthermore, there would be a massive gap in my sig.

people would find other reasons and justifications to fight each other

The same.

People will find a reason to hate, devide and kill about five seconds after religion is gone. Human nature is the problem. We hate and stuff because we want too. We misuse religion for it.

The idea that the world would be better off without religion, is just a wet dream for Atheists. We probably got (My guess) whole sets of genes connected with religeous feelings. It's part of us. 

What's up with all the religion stuff lately? Are people just bored in summer?   

This.

No dogmas? Freethinking?  I don't know really.

Look at how many dogmas have replaced religous dogma and how much freethinking have been restricted in the short time since religion lost it's grip of Western society.

• Everyone must love immigration or else you're labeled racist.
• You have to love the environment and care about nature.
• You have to not only believe in global warming but also be concerned about it and actively support measures taken against it.
• You must accept evolution theory or you're labeled a nutcase.
• You have to be against drugs or be labeled someone who doesn't take responsibility of himself.
• You shouldn't be religious or people will label you ignorant.
• You should accept abortions or you're barbaric.
• You should not support the concept of revenge because that's considered primitive.

Without religion I think we still live in mental slavery.

I see your point, there are pressures that society place on people and I know that society can make one feel as though they are outcasts for not accepting the norm. But I would argue a few of the examples you gave.

A dogma is a doctrine that should never be challenged from within. Some of your points don't fit this definition.

For example some things can oscillate between views over time as accepted by the general population. A dogma wouldn't allow for people to accept it one decade and not the next. Your point about immigration is a classic one. Whole populations have often swung from accepting immigration to condemning it and vice versa. Whilst right now it may seem as though you are alone in opposing immigration the population there will come times when anti-immigration feelings are high.

Because of this oscillation from one extreme to another I don't see it as fitting the definition of dogma. You can also see a similar trend with Climate change scepticism right now, which is clearly changing from the general population accepting climate change to becoming more sceptical about it. 

Another example is where the idea itself is ever changing, and this can be seen in the theory of evolution. A dogma doesn't change over time, it remains a static unquestioned belief. The theory of evolution is very open to valid scepticism in order to change and better define the model. The theory has become dramatically better defined since the days of Darwin. Evolution and other theories will always be open to change from scientific scepticism. Further to this point you will always find that as the theory becomes better defined as evidence is discovered more people will start to accept it (in general), until those that don't become the minority.

As for being against drugs, I think that's just generally a 50/50 thing, abortion too. You tend to find a find a mix of opinions.

But for your points about things like environmentalism, I can see your point that there are dogmas that societies do have. We have always had people applying environmental pressure to get other people to "clean up their act". I think that things like that are just generally part of human nature though.

I dunno. That point was only semi-serious anyway.

Wether or not it fullfills the definition of dogma is for me irrelevant. Call it mini-dogma then if you like, but it's certainly has the same effect on people's lives.

Those oscillations don't do me any good. I live here and now and I am affected by all these mini-dogmas. It doesn't comfort me one bit if the climate fools finally will have been proven wrong in 20 years when I'm already old and the people in charge are so old that they don't even have to pay for their crimes.

Your analysis of what's gonna happen to evolution theory is flawed. The more we learn about evo the more dogmatized it will become. There just happens to be an appearance of flexibility today because we've only come so far in actual scientific studies.

Drugs. No. In Sweden it's simply a big no. It's illegal and everyone is against it and you will pay the consequences if you argue for it or use it.

Abortion. No. In Sweden it's legal, it's going on, it's very prevalent and everyone who opposes it is seen as a nutcase.

As for your (near) last paragraph. Exactly. People always want to control each other, and to do that they create dogmas and restrict freethinking.

Religion was important in forming early societies. I'm not sure how well humanity would have done without religion to cause us to form groups large enough that some people didn't have to spend their entire lives trying to survive and so had time to spend time advancing society.

So maybe the world would be far behind.

On the other hand ever since perhaps the Greeks the early benefits of religion have gone and it has been doing more harm than good in my opinion.

The United States wouldn't have a constitution.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

It's hard to say where we would be in terms of technology considering many early institutions of academics were affiliated with religion (in order to educate priests/other religious authorities). Early on education was not valued so much outside of religion. Yes, science would no longer be restricted by certain religious teachings, however, the advent of science may have been put off by a couple centuries at least.

Laws would be much more difficult to establish as there were be no consensus on an authority to establish said laws. In particular I believe that foreign relations would suffer as people would be swayed more by cultural values rather than religious values, hence there might be even more prejudice; if this were the case there would also be less spread of technology from one nation to another and likely more wars.

And the list goes on. I am not particularly religious (I am not an atheist but I do not attend church or other religious activities), however, I find the notion that a lack of religion provides one more freedom absolutely ridiculous. When you take God away from people they will not live without a God, they will simply make one of themselves.

I think the major difference is that those dogmas are more likely to change if and when new evidence/circumstances presents itself. With Religious dogmas there is a whole lot of confusion if we're presented with new evidence contrary to past dogmas and many just won't accept it until the majority of society does (which takes a long time if the religion is dominant). Without religion I don't think this would occur.

A lot of what you put up there as well varies from country to country and I don't neccessarily agree with. Just because large groups have reached similar conclusions doesn't equate to mental slavery. See comments above.