>>766846
> live in a third world country where violent and intolerant religious extremism is rampant and criminals use religious propaganda to support their cause.
To quote Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, "violence in the name of religion is violence against religion". As cliché as I might sound saying this, those who interpret religion for violent purposes are worst than atheists - they are idolaters, who worship a bloodthirsty god of their own making.
I guess that if we reword the question to be "would you rather live in a blasphemous and unloving society that claims to be religious or in an atheist society where people seek God even if they cannot find Him in false religious doctrine", I would pick the latter. But as our Lord says, whoever gathers without Him scatters, so it's not as if the latter situation is much better than the former, and such a society is bound to fall into demonic suggestions sooner or later (I know many atheists who would sacifice themselves to shelter the homeless but who also strongly support abortion or eugenics for instance).
>Which one is better, a person who doesn't believe in God yet believes in love, or a person who has great faith in God but has no love?
Well, again, this is an oxymoron. Someone with true faith can only be constantly in awe at God's love. Someone who "doesn't believe in God but believes in love" may be better described as "someone who strongly seeks God but cannot find Him in the false religious traditions that surround them". I would say the latter is "better" than the former, but at high risk of going in the wrong direction (for instance, how many people discard Christianity as a whole because the particular denomination they've encountered was garbage?).