The greeks believed in gods....

To an extent I can totally agree with that. But alot of scientists actually have a shred of intellectual integrity. And second to look at the mounds of evidence from genetic fields and the fossil record and say "Man they are really trying hard to keep this evolution thing on life support, I guess they really need that meal ticket!" is frankly absurd and ignorant. If there is a better explanation as to the variety of life, every scientist would be scrambling to make a name for themself by finding it. Competition is always an incredible force for accomplishing things. And the alternative of "This really old book that clearly isn't accurate says an invisible man made all life individually and distinctly" isn't valid either scientifically or from a purely reasonable standpoint.

That is unless of course you want to do what religion is good at and take that as the obvious indisputable answer and then try to explain why the facts are either wrong and actually support that. God made the fossil record that way on purpose to test our faith. reusing genetic code was just more effecient, and there is no need to get rid of any of the old stuff, ect ect ect. Which anybody with an ounce of intellectual integrity is going to say is an absurd way to discern truth.

As for your second post, I'm not certain religion was necessary. If wars, corruption, ect weren't a result of religion but rather an inevitable thing that happen to involve religion, why can't rules and orginization also not be a result but an inevitablility that involved religion? Any society that didn't have rules, or governance would die out. You can't have society where anybody can kill anybody and take anything, that's anarchy. But if a powerful, charismatic, or cunningly intelligent individual could create rules and govern by them, why would an invisible all powerful being watching everyone and judging them be necessary? His civilization would survive and thrive, and spread the others would die out.

I think religion was inevitable, but not necessary. Man personifies everything, it's part of his psyche and has certain benefits, but also some major draw backs. My brother used to think the computer hated him because it would crash when he would use it, but not when I would (I just knew how to work the damn thing), people yell at their cars, get angry at the weather, we will plead with our cell phone, beg our TV to work, anything. Who hasn't been caught acting like an inanimate object is actually alive? Today we're smart enough to know that there is such a thing as cause and effect and most of nature and objects are completely indifferent and not actually alive. That wasn't the case long ago. We weren't that educated and not that smart. If an ancient tribe is experiencing a drought it wasn't just because of a cold front on some region was causing an unfortunately dry season, they assumed that the weather was alive and it was probably an elk...a big sky elk...that was angry...and then just make up the rest from there based on what made sense from a cultural perspective. Then tell their kids that they need to burn some fruit every other half moon or the sky elk won't make it rain, and viola a new religion is born. Without education, religion is inevitable. But much like war would've existed without religion, so would civilization.

And sense your so fond of quoting the statistic that religious people are more charitable, it's also statistically true that religious people aren't as educated. Statistically religion thrives in poorly educated areas. More educated areas become more secular.

I'm not saying that evolution isn't real.

I am however saying there are plenty of theories that have plenty of evidence against them that aren't even being given a second look.

You can't always "scramble for the new theory" because you don't have the training in that... and you don't know it.

I also never said an Anarcist society couldn't exist. I believe it could exist. I even stated that wasn't my intent. Though I do think there were a few cases where religion actually managed to be the "only thing" that saved the worlds ass from being set back some in a couple cases.

Also, I think you really are underestimating the intellegence of people of the past. It's something people do a LOT even a large number of Archalelogists....

because like most other scientists... archaelogists NEVER want to admit when they're wrong. They kick, scream and yell at the new guys who make discoveries that were wrong, saying that the technology was way too underdeveloped to make that battery or whatever, and it must of been a pot or something!

Until kicking and screaming they are dragged foward and proven wrong.

Scientists are no less stubborn then people of religion.

As for there being more uneducated religious people... well duh.  It's the common place.  You have to actually try to identify yourself as not an atheist.

Though, most people are "secret Atheists" i'd say.

You've probably heard the phrase "Their are no atheists in a fox hole."

An equally apt phrase would probably be "Their are no religious people when things are fine."

Well not equally so... but i imagine most people who call themselves of a religion, actually know very little about it.

You and I have different opinions.  You think most people raised without religion would be atheists.

I believe most would likely choose a religion.  But they'd actually know stuff about it.  Unlike now.

Yes they did, but neither were they closed to science and math which might go against their gods. In fact Athen supported that for the longest time.

So... I don't get your point then.  You seem to be saying you aren't against religion.  But against vast religious orginzations that control everyday lives.

Also most of the knowledge of the greeks was... well lost or ignored... because they didn't have anybody to save it.  Hence why a lot of it all had to be rediscovered.

A lot of which wouldn't have been if there hadn't been an orginzation like the churches around that gave tons of people good educations without a focus on a practical use.

Other great scientists.... like Arichemedes for example, were only that way because their science had direct profitable output.  Like weapons and such.

Also as for Byzantium. It didn't do a lot of good.

We lost LOTS of tech from rome... and lots more was saved only do to the churches.

If religion didn't have such an effect on people's actions, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. Greeks did the exact same with their religion with what is being done right now, they supported their philosophers, they had a god just for that, but still used religoin to twists the commoner's beliefs. I'm not saying I liek the Greek religoin any more thananything today, I'm just saying it was much better than what transpired between the end of Rome and modern times. If I had to tag one very well known true religion as a favorite it would be the Roman one. It humanized their gods way too much and in general Romans were very secular.

I don't think religion does have much of an effect on anyones actions... aside from like... priests... and people who are actually very religious... which is a small minority that got there by thinking about religion... a lot.

More of it has to do with 4 things

1) Genetics

2) Childhood religion being kinda irrelvent compared to how your raised.  As most people don't really teach religion.  They just teach their own set of values and mores... with brief mentions of god being an extra reason to not do them.

3) Security

4) Power

The general values and mores people have then, are the same that they'd have today. 

Lots of people still wouldn't believe evolution, but instead of a religous reason they'd probably pick spontaneous generation or something else... because they can't understand evolution as a process

I mean.  Keep in mind.  OJ got off partially because people didn't understand DNA.

You need to make a crime show in which criminals are found via evolutionary data.

Then more people will believe in evolution.

Take a loot at the leaders of the vatican.  They believe in evolution, all the disagree with is that evolution is random.  Yet for some reason most people take that as "evolution isn't real genisis is exactly how it happened!"

So obviously the crusades had such widespread support because one of those 4 reasons? All the Pope had to say was "They are against out God!" and everyone in Europe started screaming for blood. How is that religion not affecting their actions? They clearly supported it and many joined the crusades because of that one statement. Even today there are people who did not vote for Obama because of religious reasons.

Two of those reasons actually.

3 and 4.  I can't comment to how people were raised/born.

The crusades is actually my biggest example towards this.  So i'm glad you brought it up.  The pope screaming god and pointing in another direction is... no offense, a very lazy straight out of a text book quoting of history for someone who wanted to be a historian once.

Lets look at the time period.

War was very profitable... for the invaders. It was a great way to gain money and increase economic output.

For the invaded however... death tolls were massive for peasents do to how people would go without and your economic damages.  Even if you won the war the damage was often unbelievably great.

International trade was a no go... countries hated each other....

so you've got countries with bad relations, little reason to NOT go to war with each other, reasons to go to war... but the risk of being invaded.

How can you eat your cake and yet still have it then?

The Catholic Church wasn't in control because of religion.  It was in control because it was a good intermediary to resolve disputes... a fairly unbiased group that worked as the first "EU."

They gave Europe more security... of wars.. and disputes being solved fairly fair.

The crusades... gave everyone more power... and riches... and even after the crusades ended.  Europe was better off without it.

Had there not been the catholic church... it's highly likely a secular alliance would of arrose... and since they wanted money, power and had unused military might... it's highly likely they would of invaded someone... maybe they would of picked a different target...

but it would of been the same.

"They're against our god" is little better then "They're different then us" to the average person going off to war... and really that is all secondary to "I'm about to get rich by looting the bejeesus out of everyone we come across."

The Crusades were nothing more then an allied response to a request for defense about the turks.  (The first one anwyay.)

The rest as well were all related towards increasing power, keeping or building unity and gaining money.

The crusades were nothing but wars created to solve a number of political problems within europe.

As was the catholic churches dominance in europe... which is eaisly seen by different countries dumping it, or attacking it the minute the church stopped being a useful mediator and actually thought it was in charge.