There's a saying that's been discussed for a while. People say that without Society and it's social conditioning, everybody would slowly turn into savages. To put it more simply they say that evil is born but is maintained by societies laws, conditioning and influence. To be honest I don't know what to say about this. When you think about it when you have a thought in your head whether you remember or not one of the first things that you think of is negative. If you were born with another society which had no laws, rules or any social conditioning, what would your first instinct be? You haven't learned how to be good or bad but lets just say you have the basic knowledge to survive. The first thoughts you would have are bad but then you learn from those bad thoughts or mistakes. I think William Golding demonstrates this theory in "The Lord Of The Flies" if anyone's read it. It basically shows how a group of boys turn from decent people to complete savages on an island with no adults or rules. They slowly lose the cling on social conditioning.

What are your thoughts on this?

It depends on whether it is a situation in which you were born into societal conditioning, or if you were born into a world without it.

If you were born into societal conditioning: A similar situation akin to The Lord Of The Flies would ensue. People want to take control in a group, and lead, and survive. People would likely vie for that control, and in the process, kill others. I am sure some people could maintain their sanity and remain non-savage, but that will likely not be the case for most people. 

If you were not born into societal conditioning: Survival of the fittest. You would likely be thrown once again into the food chain, and at a lower
tier. It would be like the animal world, but people would become a part of all the carnage. Ultimate savagery, but you are born into it. I am assuming this is someone fending for themselves in the wild, in a dangerous land inhabited by deadly animals and bugs. 

The social cling would have never existed in the second option, so there would never be a chance for someone to lose it, but the odds are, that if you were thrown into the sort of situation that would allow you to lose your attachment to social conditioning, you would surely become disconnected (in most cases). The first option simply fits more into a societal based standard, where someone is in the position on top, and peons end up below them, the second option is simply you vs. wild, no society. Although, I suppose The Lord Of The Flies still has some semblance of society, considering they are all together on the island. 

Please tell me if I am misinterpreting anything that you might have mentioned, I am not sure if I was answering what you were going for.

In some society's stoning is seen as fit punishment for various 'crimes'.
Social conditioning doesn't necessitate correct behavior, merely whatever is considered the norm by society.
It can be good (no murder, crimes etc) or bad (Nazi Germany anyone?).
Its like saying if you had a dad youd be better off. Perhaps you would, but not if that dad was an abusive alcoholic.
Its not necessary, although it can be beneficial, to live in a society.
Thats my honest evaluation.

Well basically you are thinking of an Anarchist.

Anarchy's vision is to have no laws. And no God, no roots, etc.

Well, IF you could try living that way in today's world, chances are you wouldn't survive.

tRIUNE : I am not sure if you are saying that anarchists simply do not believe in a god, or that they are against god. Either way, those are both sweeping generalizations, and therefore, incorrect. Some anarchists are against any god, but it is not all of them, and it seems as if Anarchists are more against organized religion than they are against any god. Some do still believe in God. 

"The original message of the great religious teachers to live a simple life, to share the wealth of the earth, to treat each other with love and respect, to tolerate others and to live in peace invariably gets lost as worldly institutions take over. Religious leaders, like their political counterparts, accrue power to themselves, draw up dogmas, and wage war on dissenters in their own ranks and the followers of other religions. They seek protection from temporal rulers, bestowing on them in return a supernatural legitimacy and magical aura. They weave webs of mystery and mystification around naked power; they join the sword with the cross and the crescent. As a result, in nearly all cases organised religions have lost the peaceful and tolerant message of their founding fathers, whether it be Buddha, Jesus or Mohammed."           -Peter Marshall 

Anarchists can also stem from any branch of religion (likely dis-organized followers of the religion), and they are certainly believing in some sort of god or supreme being. 

Also, I am not sure if you are saying that you can't survive without a god, or you are saying that you cannot survive without laws, a god or gods, AND roots, or if you are just saying that living as an anarchist, you would not survive. Either way, people live just fine without a god or religion, and some also live just fine as anarchists (or else this topic would  probably not exist). Anarchy, at its base form, is also a good thing, as most things start off, but has been twisted by people to mean different things, and true anarchists would live fine in society, unlike the extremists. Anarchy simply means "no rulers", but that can also be interpreted as something of a voluntary cooperative, where everyone shares the burden of being the "leader", sort of like democracy, but likely less-involved. Anyways, I am going off on a tangent here, but I would implore you to clarify in case of my accidental misinterpretation of your statement.

sop281 : Okay I won't debate over the religion aspect - bottom line: if there were no rulers in America, America would not be; it would be wiped out by invading countries' military.

tRIUNE : Fair enough. It likely would not work in today's world.

Humans are social animals and we'll have some sort of socialization.  Lord of the Flies is an example where the rules change but there are still rules.  The rules are the strong ones survive and can take over the weak ones.  That applies to today as well.  Look at the United States bring freedom to other countries.  We can do it because we have more money, a stronger military, and usually those countries have resources we would very much like to have.  

All social animal groups have rules.  Dogs, birds, hyenas, elephants, etc, all have culture and a social hierarchy with rules and expectations.  Humans are conditioned to believe one thing as good and others as bad.  Americans look at certain groups or religions and think, "They're terrible."  Those groups look at what we do and think the same thing.  The definition changes but there really is no "savagery/inhumanity."  There are simply people trying to survive and make their own lives better.

It's not evil to want to survive.  No one is born evil.  People are bred that way with their culture and their upbringing.  I'm sure even Adolf Hitler, as a two year old, played with other kids who may have been Jewish and shared his toys.  It wasn't until later that he became the person we know today.

This depends on the person some go insane easily, while others are fine.

For some the lines between reality and fiction can become obscured
For some others these games teach them that they strangely like killing

So when it happens its sad but its not the games fault