If we were to believe in a "religion" without the use of a prophet and a God, what would we have? We would simply have a group of people who followed a set of rules that spelled out how to live a certain way of life. In other words, a God is not necessary to have a set of rules to follow. All society needs is a very smart and clear thinking individual who would create a set of rules and then extrapolate into the future the chain of events that that set of rules would create. Using science, reality and critical thinking,* the creator of the set of rules could then weed out the bad rules and strengthen the good rules creating a way of life that would produce the best possible society. The use of the God/prophet scenario is what always screws everything up. The God/prophet/religion situation always brings into the equation nonsensical claims. The writer must then create elaborate stories and scenarios required to make the claims seem plausible or factual. This is what is wrong with belief in the God/prophet/religion scenario, it is based on pure imagination and nonsense.
On the other hand, the human animal being what it is, we will probably never see an ideal way of life. If not religion mucking things up it would be something else. Life is brutal throughout the entire animal kingdom. An enormous struggle from birth to death.
*critical thinking: "One who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter, involving a judgment of its value, truth, or righteousness or an appreciation of its beauty or technique." Webster.
