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.

Well I'm not going to dispute any of that. I just thought you were trying to say evolution is a croc, and might as well be a faith based religion. Which I think is ridiculous.But that's not what you were going after, my bad.

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.

Sorry if I wasn't clear in my writing. I wasn't saying that a lack of religion would create an anarchist society. Rather, I was trying to get across that just like today rules could exist without somebody saying an invisible man is going to punish you if you don't obey them. And also that alot of people say that religion didn't cause wars, and torture, crusades ect, but rather people and politics did and used religion as an intrument. But alternatively they say that religion created rules and society. Maybe rules and society are the same way, and would've existed even if there wasn't an invisible man attached to them. But since religion existed they became the perpetrater of rules, but not necessarily the only logical cause of them. There are lots of logical ways for society to form without faeries and gods. But because of the human psyche, faeries and gods were bound to exist in an uneducated society.

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.

That I would disagree with. In societies of the past there were definitely intelligent people...but they were the exceptions, not the norm. Like I said before, you just have to go to papua new guinea to see the education level of people from thousands of years ago, and it ain't pretty. And even then, they are probably smarter than alot of ancient civilizations because in the past fifty years outsiders have been gradually influencing them. Just because various ancient civilizations found ways to make time telling devices, or other clever things doesn't mean they weren't incredibly gullible and superstitious. 

Scientists are no less stubborn then people of religion.

I would debate that, but it seems kind of silly. Because honestly some of them really are, but most of them (I would venture to say most) actually are trying to discover truth. But to try an quantify how many belong in each camp and then compare that to religious people some of whom really are very reasonable and the ones that are just stupid and believe jesus will save cause grandaddy said so, is really an inane thing to argue over.

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.

And I can respect the disagreement. I think if somebody used a mind erasing device that elimated religion from the minds of people tomorrow, educated societies wouldn't revert back to assuming there is a god and creating religions based on it. I think less educated societies would revert to superstitions to explain things they don't understand, and then the educated societies would promptly scoff at them. I think that people naturally look for personifications, and purpose in things, but I see that as an evolutionary benefit and a strictly physical action of the brain rather than intepret that as spiritual need. And once a society becomes educated it still tries to personify things day to day, but it realizes that it's silly and that the car isn't really breaking down because it's angry at you and that you can't appease it with some arbitrary act, and that it's not providence or punishment but an indifferent cause and effect result of not putting oil in the car.

I totally agree with the fact that most religious people don't know jack about what they believe. I used to be a highly religious person and spoke and debated with a great many people on religious matters and almost overwhelmingly  people didn't even know the most rudimentary things about their religions, just that there was a god, here's a list of rules, you'll be rewarded if you follow them, and punished if you don't. I don't mind belief in god honestly, but I absolutely loathe the ignorance and piousness that comes from the uneducated populations that are almost unanimously religious. The people you see holding signs that say "God hates faggots" at rallies are never the ones that are reasonable, educated and religous in a thoughtful way. It's the people that know absolutely that there is a god, here's a list of rules that must be followed at any cost, and if you aren't obeying them you're a bad person.

By anacrist i meant to say atheist. I do agree that an atheist society could exist without needing a god as a moral compass.

Which is kinda my point. God isn't even very useful as a moral threat anymore.

I mean sure, maybe back in the middle ages when it was near impossible to get caught for stuff... maybe it would help keep the immoral in line... but even then probably not.

Now though, it's damn hard to get away with a crime anyway... and current punishments are deterrent enough.

Hence my "I don't think religion really prevents anything" arguement.

Sure someone may steal and say "God told me to steal from the infidel.

If there was no god he would steal and say "He's different so i deserve it."

If they were the same he would steal and say "I needed it"

If they were the same and there was no way anyone would believe he needed it... he would just steal it.

lol, my bad I thought that in a hurry you just mispelled anarchist. A couple letters makes a big difference.