It's not really a fair analogy to invoke animals in my opinion. For one, they don't have the capability to destroy with small likelihood of consequence as we do (my dog isn't quite yet trained with firearms). Second, I don't think my dog can rationalize lying, stealing, killing, etc like humans can. Third - there certainly are animals that will kill with disregard for your family (a bear for instance).

That said, however, you've now invoked a simple trust in human nature to keep chaos from erupting as everyone decides to be their own God and do what makes them "happiest". Take away religion and I'm not sure that balance is going to work out for you. The 20th century was the bloodiest on record - and most of this was at the hands of atheist leaders (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc). I'm not so worried that everyday people would just start killing each other, but I am worried about powerful world leaders that can justify genocide and ethnic cleansing simply because they only have to answer to themselves and those that are on the right side of the killing equation. There really is no argument against a Hitler in an atheist worldview other than "sucks that he didn't choose to be a restrained person of his own good nature".

You may not agree with religion, but I think you vastly underestimate the violence and destruction that will come of a society that completely eradicates a notion of religious morality. It's proven quite dangerous time and time again when those who lead us find themselves unaccountable to God. You are hoping that they all decide to act like tame dogs; I'm worried they will be wild bears.

That's an interesting statement, and it points out a troubling problem with agnosticism/atheism. Without a God, what is "right"? How did you decide? You argue for a notion of what is "right" or "true", but without any universal basis to claim such. This makes statements like this meaningless. Why should I care what you think? Obviously religious folks disagree with you. Those in Ireland apparently feel threatened by your claims, so how do you tell them you are "right" and they are "wrong" and have any objective basis to underpin your argument? In the absence of God, you are simply elevating yourself to the position of God in allowing yourself to set objective truth.

Nietzsche saw this problem. People like to stop with the first 3 words of his most famous quote. They should really read to the end:

Hitler was essentially carrying out Nietzsche's argument to it's natural conclusion. He decided he could choose what was right and chose to murder millions of Jews. How would you argue against him, and what makes you "right"?

If you are going to hold to a universe with no God and cry out for the rest of humanity to join you - you need to consider what to do next. What will be the basis for laws and justice. Who gets to decide?