When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything .
Man is a problem solver - those that aren't have been naturally selected out of existence.
Man's thinking power is limited, to make the most of it man likes (find it useful) to reduce solutions to their smallest, most efficient, most widely applicable form.
Generic rules of thumb, generalised equations, ultimately 'theories of everything'.
While this is a useful (and successful) trait it does have flaws, in that man may tend to see pattern where there is none, or apply a rule beyond its applicable domain.
Applying a pattern beyond its applicable domain is a fault that can be very difficult to correct - as once the subject believes they are correct they will question pretty much every thing else first, leaving their simple belief or faith till the very last. This may take a very long time, or be impossible to complete in a life time.
Some examples jump straight to mind (I must have seen a pattern before I even knew it) religion, the non aggression principal, climate change, socialism and law.
Religion (towards a god) is such is clear example, it may be that all these things could actually be described as religions.
Law is probably the most damaging of my examples as it permeates all our lives, and is backed with huge force that is almost impossible to avoid. The acolyte of law is most easily identified by an unwillingness to accept that any right is above the law.
I consider the 'right life' to mean no self-blame can be attached to a man doing all in his power to preserve his own life - even if it means many others die as a result. So a man on death-row could not be blamed for killing all the staff in an attempt to escape.
I consider the right to 'free speech' to allow a man to share any thought that occurs to him and that he chooses to share. Literal speech (talking) live or in recordings, and written communications are included in this without reservation.
Where 'free speech' becomes 'freedom of expression' it is for others to define what they mean by 'expression'.
And while a man is free to offer his thoughts to be shared, no one is obliged to receive them (but equally should not be prevented from doing so should they so wish).
A legal acolyte will likely take issue with these two situations - while I believes the law (to be complete and consistent) should say rights are beyond its domain, they are not beyond its domain simply because they law says so, the law is reflecting this situation, not defining it.
Law is not a theory of everything, do not make it your god.
The Libertarians non aggression principle (NAP) has become a theory of everything to many, causing great harm by being so.
The principle states that one should not initiate aggression - and by this alone liberty will prevail. However the problem then comes in defining aggression. Once linked to 'property rights' (the transferable right to exclusive control of an item) actions against ones property become aggression and so the theory of everything becomes that all libertarian human interaction is property/aggression based - so all negative human interaction must be a result of breaching the NAP, and we get the social justice warrior world where 'micro aggression' is seen in everything one does not like (words, deeds, colours, shapes everything is a candidate) and as an aggression is now on a par with physical assault and theft etc...
NAP/Property rights is not a theory of everything, don't make it your god.
Socialism is an imposition on others of a political and social system that denies individuals the right to determine their own lives - as any totalitarian system cannot tolerate competition it must stop progress and development - and if life is not about new experience then it is nothing.
Socialism not a theory of every thing do not make it your god.
Climate change... If you have read this far I hope I do not have to much expand on this. There cult of climate science - where it has been decided that man is destroying himself, and each must be micro managed throughout their existence. So evidence is gathered and it's quality assessed how closely it matches the conclusion already decided.
Climate change is not a theory of every thing, don't make it your god.
One of the highest achievements in showing your devotion to your god is to take what otherwise seems the most perverse, irrational, illogical action but which is apparently justified by your faith alone. Suicidal terrorism leaps to mind, none of these new religions have definitive books of rules, they are all works in progress, there is no limit to what they may lead, or what they may lead their acolytes to do.
It seems man needs faith and if God has been banned, will apply it elsewhere - I suggest God (at least the post Jesus Christian god) was a far, far safer conductor with which to ground this human urge.