I have a pretty thorough knowledge of the population of people competent to hold

I have a pretty thorough knowledge of the population of people competent to hold a debate on the virtues of the abrahamic religions, and the argument comes down to their claim that religion is good for people, and mine that a non false religion is much better for people, because false religions like alcoholism and drug addiction produce negative externalities.

Here is the simple version: any population with an average IQ of less than around 115 (pre-industrial revolution england) will include a sufficient portion of the population that requires the most simplistic formation of moral ethical and normative rules.

The evidence is rather stark that religions are dying in the west but that the underclass is switching to state dependency especially the more influence women have in the polities.

So for the good of all, it appears that a new religion is possible, somewhat like secular humanism combined with stoicism, or some equivalent transformation of christian charity and natural law, into a natural religion that gives homage (debt) to nature, our people, our ancestors and heroes.

Because the whole point of the abrahamic religions is sedition against the meritocratic masculine.

Reply addressees: @HakeemDemi