That's called having a belief. Religion is a set of beliefs, but a belief is not necessarily religion.

there have been, not even exaggerating, millions of gods that mankind has believed in throughout history. All of the stories told about them have been discovered to be fake based on scientific discoveries, not theories, discoveries, meaning we know these things to be true. if that many gods have already been confirmed false then how can we say that this one specific god is any exception.

not to mention, it is far easier to prove that something is real than something is fake. and if god was real then we would have some real evidence, which we dont. 

"All of the stories told about them have been discovered to be fake based on scientific discoveries"

if the polar ice caps melted entirely would there not be a flood like what has been described in the bible?

None of your links support your claim that "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence"

The first explains the history of bloodletting, how it was used in the days when the human anatomy was not fully understood, and shows its decline as medical science advanced.  It even cites an experiment conducted in 1828 by a scientist that proved bloodletting was ineffective for 'flu, and that by the 1870's, patients had to be convinced not to be bled when they fell ill. Finally, it details the use of leeches in modern day medicine and how they are beneficial, backed up by scientific reasoning. The use of leeches today is certainly not based on faith within the scientific community.

Your second details how, in 1911/1912, a skull and jaw were found by some workmen, treated with chemicals and dyes, with the teeth deliberately worn in certain ways to make them look like they were the 500,000 fossils of an early human, and passed on to scientists. The level of scientific testing of the time was not advanced enough to call the authenticity into question. In fact, your link says that despite extensive investigations and work, it was clear that something with these bones did not fit with human evolution, and that skepticism abounded among paleontologists for the next couple of decades. It wasn't until 1939 that chemical analysis was developed to date bones, and not until 1953 that more advanced chemical analysis was able to debunk the hoax. Carbon dating was not a thing until 1959. In fact, your link shows that continued questioning and scientific testing uncovered the truth in the end, that the scientists involved in the 'discovery' were the victims of an elaborate hoax. They could only, perhaps, be accused of being distracted by the fact that the 'find' had been made in England.

Your third link is some research about the risks of almagam fillings written by a Swedish dental professor. On reading it, it sounds like having an amalgam filling will result in mercury poisoning, yet we all know millions of people in the world have almagam fillings with no ill effects. The use of almagam is subject to restrictions in certain groups of people, so risks are recognised, but I don’t see how this link supports your claim about scientists having “a good deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence.”

On to your next comment:

“many people believe in the big bang even though its just a proposition... its quite alright to say that its just a proposition... but people don't really behave like that's the case with these things”

These people you refer to are not scientists.

On to your final point, where you wanted to know what claims you'd made without supporting evidence: 

“i do think science has had more significant negative impacts on the planet than religion... and i don't think anyone can really disagree with that”

“The development of these and other weapons and the other peripheral effects i touched briefly on (global warming for example) have arguably lead to the loss of more life than the conflicts of religion have...”

(in response to Pemalite’s comment "Ironically, it's the far-right, typically religious conservatives that are against the idea of things like climate change and thus the solution to many of those issues you have listed.") 

"how is it ironic? it could only be ironic if religion caused the problem to begin with... i'd argue that since religion is against technology advancement that its actually quite the opposite"

"i think what you are missing is that " ignorance, greed" are indispensable aspects of the practitioners of science "

(In response to Pemalite’s “That's not evidence that the Scientific Community uses faith.

That is just evidence that the Science wasn't fully understood.") 

"they had faith that the evidence presented in these cases was accurate and as a result they used harmful procedures or pushed lies... how can you really deny that?"

I would love to see some real supporting evidence for these. Maybe then we could have a proper discussion.

Although….

Hedra42 " What point are you trying to make about this? That we should never have progressed from the stone age?"

 o_O.Q “maybe, i mean at least we'd still have dodos”

Maybe a proper discussion is off the agenda.

Syria's turmoil was largely caused by the uprising of extreme Islamism prior to the US's interventionist proxy war.

This an ad hoc fallacy. Correlation =/= Causation.

This is an incorrect interpretation of what caused climate change. Climate change was caused as a result of the overuse of certain fruits of science. Currently, people are using science to figure out how to counter that. In addition, it is impossible to suppress science entirely by religion, so you're presenting a largely impractical scenario. This doesn't even put into the account the additional (negative) baggage religion brings to the table.

Are they atheist nations or nations that happen to be atheist?

Actually, when it comes to the Soviet Union, they were not atheist as Stalin often promoted himself as the God figure like how the North Koreans often exalt their dictators as supernatural beings. Maoist China's problem was not atheism, but strict authoritarianism. Authoritarianism and religion have a lot more in common with each other than authoritarianism and atheism because for a religion to survive, it needs to impose authoritarian measures to keep followers in line. Atheism, on the other hand, is not a religion as it is an expression of skepticism. There is no "holy book" for atheism and as a result, atheism does not have a set of authoritarian rules to keep atheists in line.

There's a large difference between the colloquial theory and the scientific theory. Just because there is "theory" in the Big Bang Theory, it doesn't mean it is a proposition. In other words, you're making a fallacious argument based on mere association. Physicists have shown that space has been expanding at a faster rate and we can see remnants of the Big Bang by observing the cosmic microwave background.

And to finish, this is Poisoning The Well. Who is "they" and are "they" representative of the entire scientific community? What kind of lies are you referring to? Were the lies pushed because of science, itself, or because the "scientists" improperly implemented the scientific method? Not only is this part of your "argument" a pre-emp ad hom, but it also lacks any specificity.

no actually. the Bible states that God started to feel as if the living being he created were becoming evil, or for lack of a better, so he takes it upon himself to flood the ENTIRE PLANET with a heavy rainfall to kill off all life and start again. if the polar ice caps melted (which is far different from a month long rainfall) at the very most the increased ocean level would still leave 80% of Earth's land mass above sea level. and 99% of life on the planet would still continue to exist.

"The first explains the history of bloodletting, how it was used in the days when the human anatomy was not fully understood, and shows its decline as medical science advanced."

yeah... and before medical science advanced they believed in these procedures without adequate evidence... so how does that not substantiate my claim?

"The level of scientific testing of the time was not advanced enough to call the authenticity into question."

yes... that was my point, thank you

"In fact, your link shows that continued questioning and scientific testing uncovered the truth in the end"

yes after decades of faith in bs

you seem to not understand that i'm not calling this a permanent condition necessarily but it does exist and it looks like you acknowledge that it does even if you won't concede my claim 

"These people you refer to are not scientists."

i know of people employed in scientific fields that believe in the big bang and most likely you do also... i think what you meant to say is people educated on this topic

"“i do think science has had more significant negative impacts on the planet than religion... and i don't think anyone can really disagree with that”"

well i mean logically, i don't think someone could believe that logically, since explosives, pollutants etc etc etc are creations of science right?... what about you? do you think anyone who believes that could be thinking logically?

"“The development of these and other weapons and the other peripheral effects i touched briefly on (global warming for example) have arguably lead to the loss of more life than the conflicts of religion have...”"

definition of "arguably" - "it may be argued (used to qualify the statement of an opinion or belief)."

""how is it ironic? it could only be ironic if religion caused the problem to begin with... i'd argue that since religion is against technology advancement that its actually quite the opposite""

oh... you disagree that religion suppresses technological advancement?

""i think what you are missing is that " ignorance, greed" are indispensable aspects of the practitioners of science ""

yeah... i've never met a human that wasn't ignorant or greedy to some degree... have you?

""they had faith that the evidence presented in these cases was accurate and as a result they used harmful procedures or pushed lies... how can you really deny that?""

the fact that these things went on for decades and centuries in some cases... are you denying history?

"“maybe, i mean at least we'd still have dodos”

Maybe a proper discussion is off the agenda."

what is your problem with dodos?

"Syria's turmoil was largely caused by the uprising of extreme Islamism prior to the US's interventionist proxy war."

this was the initial event that justified the bombings

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-warcrimes/syrian-government-forces-used-chemical-weapons-more-than-two-dozen-times-u-n-idUSKCN1BH18W

but eventually it was discovered that assad was framed and it was actually rebels that the united states supported

https://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-un-mission-report-confirms-that-opposition-rebels-used-chemical-weapons-against-civilians-and-government-forces/5363139

https://www.salon.com/2016/07/11/u_s_backed_syrian_rebels_committing_war_crimes_torture_abductions_imposing_harsh_sharia_law_report/

from the beginning these rebels sought to overthrown the government and put sharia law in place and the united states aided them knowingly

"

This an ad hoc fallacy. Correlation =/= Causation."

i didn't say that i believe in prayer, i just made the suggestion that he should try it, what is wrong with being open minded?

"This is an incorrect interpretation of what caused climate change. Climate change was caused as a result of the overuse of certain fruits of science. "

yeah, i don't see how this is different to what i posted

" Currently, people are using science to figure out how to counter that."

yes i acknowledged that

 "In addition, it is impossible to suppress science entirely by religion, so you're presenting a largely impractical scenario. This doesn't even put into the account the additional (negative) baggage religion brings to the table."

but i think arguably it can suppress science to the point where it doesn't have a worldwide impact... science on a small scale doesn't have worldwide impact but it does on a very large scale like with most people engaging in activities which cause pollution for example

and i concede the baggage religion brings but i'm putting that to the side just to look at this one aspect

"Are they atheist nations or nations that happen to be atheist?"

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2017/oct/26/why-the-soviet-attempt-to-stamp-out-religion-failed

"Under Khrushchev it became illegal to teach religion to your own children."

"Authoritarianism and religion have a lot more in common with each other than authoritarianism and atheism because for a religion to survive, it needs to impose authoritarian measures to keep followers in line."

sure i agree

"Physicists have shown that space has been expanding at a faster rate and we can see remnants of the Big Bang by observing the cosmic microwave background."

you can't prove without a doubt that it all came from a singularity

"And to finish, this is Poisoning The Well. Who is "they" and are "they" representative of the entire scientific community? "

they refers to the practitioners of science at those time periods

"What kind of lies are you referring to? Were the lies pushed because of science, itself, or because the "scientists" improperly implemented the scientific method?"

these situations happened because humans are limited and they will continue to happen for the same reason

We accept scientific theories because they're the most suitable explanations of what we observe. As soon as we discover a hole in the theory we patch it (see inflation in cosmology) or replace it with a more accurate representation (see the ether vs special relativity). There is, in a way, a sense of belief in some aspects of physics on the quantum level in which the mathematics drives the theory and occasionally disagrees with intuition. Take the Higgs Boson, for example. It was theorized, based on the mathematics in the 1960's. We "believed" it existed until it was actually discovered a few years ago.  

Religion.