I think the logical result of what you are purporting is exactly what we have today.
Except that what we have today is the product of 2000 years of christian brainwashing. Explain how that has anything to do with rationality.
Be precise in your explanation.
History of an Error
This selection from the Twilight of the Idols contains 6 stages outlining the "History of an Error." The first four are a de-valuation of an Ideal; the last two are Nietzsche's re-valuation of an Ideal. It is Nietzsche's historical deconstruction of the God-Idea. The original text is followed by a brief analysis.
1. The true world -- unattainable but for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man; he lives in it, he is it.
(The oldest form of the idea, relatively sensible, simple and persuasive. A circumlocution for the sentence, "I, Plato, am the truth.")
2. The true world -- unattainable for now, but promised for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man ("for the sinner who repents").
(Progress of the idea: it becomes more subtle, insidious, incomprehensible -- it becomes female, it becomes Christian.)
3. The true world -- unattainable, indemonstrable, unpromisable; but the very thought of it -- a consolidation, an obligation, an imperative.
(At bottom, the old sun, but seen through mist and skepticism. The idea has become elusive, pale, Nordic, Konigsbergian)
4. The true world -- unattainable? At any rate, unattained, and being unattained, also unknown. Consequently, not consoling, redeeming, or obligating: how could something unknown obligate us?
(Gray morning, The first yawn of reason. The cockcrow of positivism)
5. The "true" world -- an idea which is no longer good for anything, not even obligating -- an idea which has become useless and superfluous -- consequently a refuted idea: let us abolish it!
(Bright day; breakfast: return of bon sens and cheer-fulness; Plato's embarrassed blush; pandemonium of all free spirits.)
6. The true world -- we have abolished. What world has remained? The apparent one perhaps? But no! With the true world we also have abolished the apparent one.
(Noon: moment of the briefest shadow; end of the longest error; high point of humanity; INCIPIT ZARATHUSTRA.')
Outline of an Analysis
Dualism of Being ("true world") and Becoming ("this world"). The "highest level" is attainable through wisdom.
Dualism of Heaven (true world/the other-after-better-life) and Earth (this world/life). The "highest level" is attainable at death.
The Critiques establish the nature of the "true world" as beyond human knowledge (reason), though it might serve as an ideal, a goal (it would be 'useful' in the moral sense).
Knowledge of this world suffices. The "real" is the empirical -- Comte's emphasis on the 'positive' (natural) sciences.
5. Nietzsche's negative critique
The "true world" is a USELESS idea -- this is N.'s 'nein-sagen,' his critique of God (cf. The Madman).
6. Nietzsche's positive assertion
Nietzsche's 'ja-sagan,' a RE-VALUATION OF ALL VALUES: a new determination, a new comportmant toward existence -- embodied in the image of Zarathustra (cf. The Greatest Stress).
- From the "Online Guide to Ethics and Moral Philosophy"
P.S. Keep in mind that when you ask others to be precise that the definition of precise becomes what you mean it to be, which is an underhanded tactic in discussion because in all instances, regardless of the clarity of the others explanation, you can simply state that it is not precise and avoid analysis of what they are saying. A more proper method of discussion is a non-dialectic one, in which you state the implied or observed results of a counter-idea and leave an open space for analysis of the participants in the discussion.
P.S.S. A little more food for thought; the why argument wasn't meant to ask the question of what stops people from murdering, from working hard, etc. Anyone who doesn't want to suffer, and is mentally balanced, knows why they don't want to be lazy or kill people for fun. However, it is meant to provide a why as to why strive for greater things. Greater things, materialistically, mean nothing. The only thing that matters in a world of realistic thinking is living or not living, regardless of its conditions. And so, we can have a society that is like ours, in which we are living and comfortable, but create no great things, and the realist is perfectly fine with that. The why argument is asking "What will inspire us, what will motivate us to create beyond ourselves?" I believe that Nietzsche's Zarathustra provides answers. Realism, however, does not. Realism is disenchanted, which isn't to say it's bad, but it comes to a world in which people strive for nothing beyond what allows them to live longer and more comfortably, because it assumes that the only positive aspect to life is that which provides positive feelings physically. This is not a failure of a way. In fact, it is very scientific and very rigid. However, I strive for more.