You're right. It is religion that makes people to do that.

"You're right. It is religion that makes people to do that."

but atheists kill people too right?

There is so much wrong with this one comment.

1. It doesn't break the laws of physics. We simply don't have a law written to correctly quantify them yet.  No different than needing to add onto Newtonian physics to correctly quantify quantum mechanics.
2. They won't be rewritten but added to.  Think of it like a new chapter rather than a whole new book.
3. That doesn't require faith.  That requires more study.  To simply, we know 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + X = 20.  It doesn't take faith to know we must solve for X.

Those are not intrinsic factors of technology in itself.  I get what you are trying to say but you worded it incorrectly.  A technologically developed product can result in nuclear waste but technology itself is not nuclear waste.  A technologically developed product can result in CO2 emissions but technology itself is not CO2 emissions.  Oil spills are neither a byproduct of a given technology nor is it a technology itself.  They are the result of human error.

Read those definitions again, slap yourself in the face for your intransigence and then get a clue. Is this guy seriously this incompetent? His own definitions establish his extra chromosome. FFS

Faith, specifically in Christianity, is rooted in the understanding that God has a plan that absolutely defines the past, present, and future.  Fundamentally, science attempts to put the control in human hands.  Even negative results from a study can positively contribute to the progression of science because future researchers will have one less option to consider.  Faith need not apply when both negative and positive results are beneficial.  

No, the evidence already exists.  A mathematical or physical inconsistency, such as infinite density at some point in time, warrants the search for a better model.  Every model that we use across physics and other sciences can, at most, be considered the best model we currently have and not the final, complete solution.    

Cosmology is still a relatively new field and there are so many advancements every year that textbooks quickly become insufficient.  It's crazy because so many other fields have been (essentially) untouched for hundred of years.  

It's an infinite density.  In a nutshell, the density of an object is equal to the mass of the object divided by the volume of the object.  When the mass of an object or system is constant, we can see that the density will decrease as the volume increases.  The mass of the universe is constant and the volume is increasing (the expanding universe), therefore the density must be decreasing with time.  As you can imagine, if we go backward in time the density will increase indefinitely because the volume will keep getting smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller.....

In the off chance that a model violating the conservation of energy passes peer review, it will swiftly be retracted in the next cycle.  Noether's theorem shows that the conservation of energy is not dependent on time or space; it will remain valid anytime anywhere.  If at some point we find an exception to the conservation of energy (which is possible, but not plausible) then we would need to entirely rewrite physics.  

And just to comment on one of your points with Pemalite:

In a subsequent paragraph of the same link, it states:

"The existence of a singularity is often taken as proof that the theory of general relativity has broken down, which is perhaps not unexpected as it occurs in conditions where quantum effects should become important. It is conceivable that some future combined theory of quantum gravity (such as current research into superstrings) may be able to describe black holeswithout the need for singularities, but such a theory is still many years away."

The laws of physics are not broken.  We just do not have any physics that describes what's happening in that very small scale.  There's a big difference between being broken and not being the best tool.  I wouldn't call a phillips-head screwdriver broken just because it can't turn a slot screw drive.  We can either chisel away parts of the screwdriver to make it work or find another tool.  But the phillips-head screwdriver is not broken.  

Sure, but atheism doesn't tell anyone to do anything, arf. Their motivation comes from different sources, arf.

well i'm just making the point that atheists aren't bastions of moral virtue

No one made the claim that they are, arf. You attacked your own strawman, arf. How about attacking what bdbdbd said, arf.