I agree 100%, maybe I wasn't very clear - sorry, I'm typing fast. My only point was that if we make a claim through science that appears right, it is still provisional and is subject to change if we garner more information that could possibly falsify it. If someone published a paper about water on mars, and said "we identified it all wrong, here's why" we would read it, and it may change some people's minds who believe this falsifies it. People who are religious often take the bible for proof, and our claims of evolution (etc) do not falisfy it for them.

Atheism is on the rise, and I agree, it appears to be a direct result of the increased education more evident in our society. I disagree with the method of change though. We are dynamic, but I think the change originates from themselves first. I really doubt that most people arguing for or against religion will have their opinions changed after a debate. I grew up in a (minorly) religious household and always had an interest in science. I attribute my passion for science and learning to discredit religion for me. But place somebody in a society where everyone tells you that religion is wrong may have an effect, but unfortunately, it is a taboo topic to discuss for the most part. Maybe trying to change somebody's mind in one go is unrealistic for me to assume and I am only one data point in thousands for the change to be attributed to. Who knows. It's pretty fascinating though.