The initial question is not well-stated. I believe the question is whether "bogus" (false?) religions that promote good behavior are ultimately doing more harm than good for society.
Ultimately, believing in falsehoods is bad for society. People taught to believe things that are false necessarily develop poor / flawed reasoning skills. Poor reasoning / poor thinking can be blamed for the major ills of society.
As one example, Alphamus posted on the "no" side that religions were responsible for algebra, astronomy and physics, and then marktwain964 agreed. But this is a totally false assertion, and it is just bad logic.
Consider this: If a person wearing a hat cures cancer, do you credit the hat? So if a religious person makes an advance in science, do you credit the religion? Clearly not. Scientific advances have been made by atheists, agnostics, and religious people. While religious people may help advance scientific knowledge, there is no reason to insist that this means that without the religion, those scientific advances would never have materialized.
Contrary to the opposing posts, religion did not "lay the foundation" for logic, nor do we owe our scientific advances to religion. The very fact that such weak notions get thrown out as if they were logically sound is actually the best evidence that embracing false religious notions clouds your ability to think logically.
1. "Bogus religions"
2. "Good of Logic"
3. Has a picture of the Bible being marked as wrong.
Every human thought process tries (and fails) to be logical - as in, based on certain evidence. The authentication of that evidence is up to you. If you're talking about "bogus" religions like classical Greek/Roman beliefs - sure. Those have enough evidence against them to sufficiently express disbelief.
But MAJOR ones like the classical triad of Abrahamic faiths? Absolutely not. Too much people in favor of it, too much evidence that supports their beliefs, and too much controversy. And BTW, logic has no separation from beliefs - and considering the secular nature of science today anyway, religion does not in practice end up restricting anything. Your so-called "bogus" religions WERE responsible for a few things like algebra, astronomy, physics, (hint: all of science) -> just to name a few :)
While I must say that the extreme sides of religion (the ones that want EVERYONE to think what they think and will literally kill for it) should be shut down, people can believe what they want to believe, so why not just let them? People can have a belief and still make logical decisions, advance science and generally not act like someone from the middle ages.
I should not have to argue the existence of good and evil, since that is a different question. But I am building off of the conclusion that they do.
I should not have to argue that religions involving morality (which is most of them) that value goodness in seemingly various definitions, are bogus because of so. This very question uses a definition of good, or positive, and to disband the definition of 'good' would be counter-productive to what is suggested. --"for the good of logic".
Like Alphamus says before me, religions laid the foundation of the world as we know it. Without them we wouldn't be as advanced with at least our sciences today.
Can they be "scrapped"? No. At least, you'd probably have a better chance to kill of an entire human race, than destroy almost all religious organizations. And permanently so to add on top of it? This is a very silly question.
This question assumes that that would be for the "good of logic", but as one should find, logic not only lays it's foundation on religions but is pushed further by it.