I dare the world leaders to launch all their nukes at the earth's weakest points and an observing astronauts to monitor the damages I guarantee you all the nukes will not be able to even fully destroy the crust let alone the earth

well i'll admit that i'm speculating, i don't have direct experience with these things

There are conflicts between Buddhists in Asia.

There are conflicts in Africa due to Christianity and Islam. (Lord Kony ring a bell?)

Religious Terrorism is a concern across the globe.

Because I am not an idiot?
Besides, even if a theistic deity did hypothetically exist, said deity would not interfere in the affairs of man anyway, making the entire process completely and utterly a waste of time.

Climate change is also caused by non-human influences.
So no, even if religion did suppress science, climate change would still have occurred, it just wouldn't have occurred at the same accelerated state that we are seeing currently.

But without science we would never have understood that.

Japan.

This just reinforces the idea that you have ZERO god damn idea about science.

A scientific theory is the complete opposite of the regular "theory" that you cling to. - The Big bang has fucking evidence. (Which I linked to, go read it and get educated.)

"Just a theory?" - Guess what?
* The theory of gravity is just a theory. (Go drop an Apple.)
* General relativity is just a theory. (Our GPS system wouldn't work without it.)
* Evolution is just a theory. (Our medical systems use it to predict disease outbreaks and new upcoming strains, aka. Seasonal Flu.)
* Field Theory is just a theory.
* Quantum Mechanics is just a theory.
* Thermodynamics is just a theory.
* Conservation of Energy is just a theory.
* Fluid Dynamics is just a theory.
* Special Relativity is just a theory.

And guess what? We use all them in real life, today.

A scientific theory is something that has been observed, has evidence, working models. - It's usually the religious nuts that will claim they are just "a theory" and thus not real, making their position ignorant and just plain wrong.

No. You are wrong.

They had a lack of information to come to an appropriate conclusion, science is allowed to be wrong, in-fact, science will happily change it's position on something as soon as new information/evidence comes available. - And that happens often.
And that is not a bad thing, in-fact it is a good thing... Religion on the other hand will deny evidence, logic, understanding in order to continue with their own ignorant, indoctrination confirmation bias.

It wouldn't cover 100% of the planet. Go look at the models.
https://www.vicchi.org/2013/11/07/maps-for-when-the-ice-caps-melt-and-when-the-magnetic-poles-reverse/

There is also zero evidence of a world-wide flood that was depicted in the middle-eastern Abrahamic religions. (Christianity, Judaism and Islam)
Australia for instance has the oldest, most nutrient-poor, un-touched soils in the world, meaning there was no hydrological event in the interior of the continent.

Anyone who believes the Genesis account anyway is wrong, science has thoroughly debunked it.

That just reinforces the idea that God is an immoral, hateful, evil monster and shouldn't be worshiped.

Religion is the only one of the two that incentivizes irrational decision making.

Science is just trying to learn how reality works. Theres nothing threatning about it. Science doesn't make social and political statements. It's not a doctrine. It's a source of verified information.

"Religious Terrorism is a concern across the globe."

i didn't deny that, but you didn't acknowledge that there's also conflicts outside of that, you made it seem like if it was all due to religion

" said deity would not interfere in the affairs of man anyway, making the entire process completely and utterly a waste of time."

on what evidence are you basing this claim?

"Climate change is also caused by non-human influences."

"the point i made is that climate change is caused as a result of science in terms of the current global warming trends"

"it just wouldn't have occurred at the same accelerated state that we are seeing currently."

so therefore we're in agreement

"The theory of gravity is just a theory."

are you really putting the big bang up against something like gravity as a comparison?

"A scientific theory is something that has been observed, has evidence, working models."

no one has observed all of the matter of the universe springing from a singularity

you can't model a singularity

to compare this with gravity is really reaching don't you think? since we can observe it directly and can model the acceleration of 9.8 m/s

"They had a lack of information to come to an appropriate conclusion"

yes... we call that faith

"science is allowed to be wrong"

that's great, but it doesn't change that fact that they had faith in things back then that were not true

"Japan."

japan is well on the path to collapse with the strain their aging population will put on the country in the next few decades

what do you think of the soviet union and maoist china?

"It wouldn't cover 100% of the planet. Go look at the models. "

i haven't... tbh i was just joking with that comment anyway

What evidence do you have for the contrary being true?

Sort-of.

No one saw the Dinosaurs walk the Earth, but we know they existed.
Comparing it with gravity is accurate. They are both theories. They both have evidence. They both have working models.

And we can model it thanks to the Cosmic Microwave Background or CMB. - I already posted information regarding this piece of evidence for the big bang a few replies back, clearly you haven't read it, clearly you need to scuttle off and do so. So get to it. Chop chop.

No. That is not faith. Lack of evidence or incorrect information is not faith.

Faith is merely believing in something despite any precedent or evidence.

You are conflating two separate arguments, fact is... Faith is a load of bullshit and is a completely separate construct to that of science.

You are conflating a completely separate issue that has absolutely nothing to do with religion or atheism? Right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_irreligion

And it still does not detract from the fact that the rebels' motives were religiously driven. The US exacerbated the conflict, but they did not initiate the conflict. Big difference.

This is pivot and it's not fooling me. Prayers do not do anything because all you're doing is praying. Just because you pray for something to happen and that thing happens does not mean that the prayer caused that event. That would be an ad hoc fallacy.

Then explain how it is not different. Your argument is that if religion was allowed to prohibit science, then climate change would not happen. You made the assumption that because of science, climate change exists. However, I rebutted that it is specifically the overuse of certain fruits of science that led to the conflict. My argument is different because it is more specific than yours.

There are multiple flaws to this argument:

1. Your argument also seems to make the errant assumption that only religion can be the regulatory factor. Obviously, there are multiple ways to limit the influence of science. However...

2. Is it science or the overuse of specific fruits of science? Your argument is too dependent on generality and as soon as you are forced to be more specific, your points fall apart.

3. So now you narrowed the cause down, we must ask ourselves what is the cause of the overuse? In fact, there are multiple causes to that effect, ranging from people not being aware of the consequences to them being apathetic towards the environment to tech corporations adopting design-for-the-dump designs. And note these are only a few examples that contribute to the overuse, but as you can see, as we increase the metaphorical magnification, the specific causes are not "science".

Mandating illegality of practicing religion is not atheism because that is not what the definition of it. As a result, it is not a atheist policy which makes the Soviet Union not an atheist nation. In addition, you did not address my point where the Soviet Union basically had their own type of religion where Stalin was exalted as a "God figure" as propaganda. Just because Khrushchev made religion illegal, it did not make the Soviet Union immune to dogmatism, a characteristic that is abundant in religion. You could say that the Soviet Union prohibited the practice of the popular religions to push their own religion.

And what evidence do you have that argues against the scientific theory of the singularity? The cosmic microwave background provides evidence that the Big Bang was a rapid expansion because the once high-energy radiation cooled down as the universe expanded. Energy of light is dependent on the frequency where the higher the frequency, the higher the energy. Microwaves have longer wavelengths and thus, lower frequencies which make them lower energy. Lastly, even if I were to grant you the argument, scarcity of evidence is not evidence of absence especially when you have provided no evidence that argues otherwise.

And how does this support your point? What time periods are you referring to? Your statements sorely lack any specificity.

This does not answer my questions. In my second question, I gave you two explanations to choose from and you chose neither. Also, when you gave your own alternative explanation, like your previous arguments, it suffers from the lack of specificity. In what way are humans limited? How does the limitation cause the situations to happen and how do you know?

"What evidence do you have for the contrary being true?"

none

"Comparing it with gravity is accurate. They are both theories. They both have evidence. They both have working models."

i don't think scientists working in the field would put both on the same level but ok

and i'll repeat, you cannot model a singularity

"And we can model it thanks to the Cosmic Microwave Background or CMB."

are you claiming that you can model a singularity using CMB? can i get a quote on that?

" Lack of evidence or incorrect information is not faith."

correct, but belief in something without adequate evidence is faith though which is what i said... and in every case i brought up, the people believed and acted on their belief

"Faith is merely believing in something despite any precedent or evidence."

there always has to be some type of precedent or cause associated with a belief, people don't just believe things in a vacuum, there is always some type of stimulus that affects their behavior

people may believe in god because of a book, or spiritual experience or whatever

the other thing is that people regard these things as evidence to themselves subjectively so what you put there is not entirely right 

there is a reason for example that the doctors of the past believe in blood letting just as the christian believes in god because of their bible

"You are conflating two separate arguments, fact is... Faith is a load of bullshit and is a completely separate construct to that of science."

its ironic that you'd say that... you spoke of CMB before 

have you personally done the experiments to verify the existence of it? if not you therefore have faith in what the scientists who have are telling you correct?

that's not to call their evidence into question but to demonstrate that you right now have faith and you can take issue with  me saying that but if you're being objective you'll know that its the truth

 "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_irreligion"

those are not atheist countries, just secular... you said specifically atheist countries previously

I think you raise a good point.  Singularity is just a consequence of the Big Bang model.  But because the Big Bang model describes the observable world so well, it makes sense to explore its consequences.  I wouldn't consider it as a "belief" in the singularity though... it just means that it's within the realm of possibilities and has not been disproven yet.  

And also, a quote from your first post:

These are more engineering developments.  Science explains how the universe works, engineering is how to use it.  

"And it still does not detract from the fact that the rebels' motives were religiously driven."

which i did not at any point make a comment on

"The US exacerbated the conflict, but they did not initiate the conflict. Big difference."

well they kind of did by funding, training and arming the groups that these rebels sprang from