If all of your material needs were met. Nice house, nice car, nice spouse, freedom to choose whatever you wanted to work on or to not work, could we get rid of religion? Or do you think people would still need religion?
It's not a matter of only material needs being met. All of my needs are met without religion simply because I was raised without it. Others look to religion for community. I have that elsewhere. Some need to be reassured that their minds won't be extinguished at death. I've long ago accepted that possibility and am comfortable with it.
Likewise with the things religious people say religion comforts. Some need a sense of being watched over. Others need to believe in cosmic justice, so they want somebody to reward the good and punish the bad. I have learned to understand that the world might not be that way, and that is fine.
I don't need to believe in the supernatural to see the universe as astonishing or to feel connected to it, or feel gratitude for life, or to experience mystery or awe.
I don't have any need for religious stories or advice on right and wrong to be believed by faith. I have better stories from science and history, and a better method for making ethical decisions, rational ethics, the system of compassionate reflection that can tell the scriptures that their slavery is immoral, for example.
So what would religion have to offer such a person? Where's the mystery that some of us feel fulfilled without it, and not just materially. What else does one need but leisure, good health, beauty, financial security, love, friends, and a sense of purpose and belonging?
Unhappy people turn to religion.
Yes, but even more so, people with little control over their lives - the very poor, uneducated, and vulnerable. When you are defenseless against your plight whether that be famine or dictators or bombs falling everywhere or sex slavery or whatever is degrading your life and preventing happiness, you turn to prayer for comfort. You pray for your children.
But people who feel like they have power over their lives and whose needs are met, who feel safe and empowered, are going to have a different view of such things. This is why you'll have an easier time converting people on Skid Row and Death Row than Restaurant Row.
I am grateful for my good fortune, but not to a god. People sometimes ask, "then whom to?" Well, I'm grateful for my parents and teachers, for those who came before and paved the way for the education and economic opportunity that made life better, and other good fortune a person born into mid-20th century America might enjoy, but basically, this gratitude is gratitude without an object.
I never think about Atheists in such a way; how come, Atheist do? Feels belittling too, like "I am better than you, I am not dependent on ...."
Did you feel that I was belittling you?
I do consider needing religion to be a disadvantage, but isn't that the case with needing anything?
You may find this offensive as well, but it is offered as a neutral analogy, not an insult. I used to be a smoker. Before that, I never needed or wanted a cigarette until I began experimenting with them, but afterward, I did. I might even say that smoking gave me comfort as it eased the withdrawing from nicotine. But is that really comfort? Compare it to the nonsmoker who has that comfort at all times, so much so that he doesn't even notice an issue there like the smoker does every twenty minutes.
What should I make of the smoker and the religious person who tells me that they get comfort from something that cannot comfort me because I have no discomfort there to begin with.
Religion, like cigarettes, creates the need for itself. If you grow up going to church for forty years or smoking for forty years, you'll have great difficulty pulling away. If you grow up with neither, well, neither has much to offer you.