what evidence do you have to show that god does not exist?

i'd argue that unbridled compassion is what the forces of darkness are using to bring western civilisation to its knees

compassion/empathy must always be tempered with logic

"Stop saying saving the planet that's factually incorrect"

you don't think we have the potential to destroy the planet?

did you know that they considered that the first nuclear tests might have lead to a chain reaction giving out for more energy yields than intended?

and that was decades ago

"We know that either can be used for good or bad means, and that neither alone is sufficient to kill on a large scale."

nuclear war or accidents cannot kill on a large scale?

"Science can be used to kill, but there are countless benefits of science (or technology) that cannot be gained through any other means."

as i asked someone else, what is the point of those benefits if due to global warming we all drown when the ice caps melt?

"On the other hand, there is, to my knowledge, no benefit that we can get through religion that we can not achieve through other means. There's no benefit that requires religion to balance out the dangers, so it's not useful to keep it."

fair enough, that's your perspective

The collapse of Mesopotamia is partly attributed to ignorance about irrigation. They basically poisoned their own fields by letting the mineral salts build up in the top layer of the soil. Humans are very capable of wiping themselves out.

Processes we developed have yielded far better results in sustaining farm land than without science.

A lot of extinctions have resulted from going about our ways without properly understanding how things work. Like spreading diseases, introducing plants and wildlife into new areas that can't cope with it. Over fishing, is that caused by science making fishing more efficient or by ignorance or willfully ignoring the impact on the ecosystem.

On one side science have decreased the number of infant deaths and lengthened our lifespan, yet it also provides ways and incentives to reduce birth rates. However religion is still perfectly fine to have you reproduce like rabbits. Over population is the biggest problem. Having 1 less kid will save the environment more than anything else you can possibly do.

"Science has the potential to stop/reverse that."

there are many instances of irreversible harm being down to people or the environment as a consequence of our technology

the coral reefs marine biodiversity lost from increasing sea levels

the biodiversity lost from rainforests

the damage caused by various nuclear accidents and tests throughout history such as chernobyl or fukushima

and the list goes on and on and on with many different things i don't know of

"Religion does not."

you can't prove that, you can't prove that praying to god does not have positive impacts on the earth

"Seems you already have a confirmation bias on this particular topic?"

lay it out for me, i'm all ears

"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

"Fact of the matter is, nothing lasts forever.

The Earth will one day come to an end... "

true... is this some kind of justification for the damage we've caused to the planet?

"The collapse of Mesopotamia is partly attributed to ignorance about irrigation. They basically poisoned their own fields by letting the mineral salts build up in the top layer of the soil. Humans are very capable of wiping themselves out. 

Processes we developed have yielded far better results in sustaining farm land than without science."

"A lot of extinctions have resulted from going about our ways without properly understanding how things work. Like spreading diseases, introducing plants and wildlife into new areas that can't cope with it. Over fishing, is that caused by science making fishing more efficient or by ignorance or willfully ignoring the impact on the ecosystem."

as a result of technological advancement without understanding the consequences... so you're pretty much pushing the science is more dangerous side

you have to acknowledge that this is a constant problem for mankind, we never know completely what the consequences of adopting new technology will be

"However religion is still perfectly fine to have you reproduce like rabbits. Over population is the biggest problem. Having 1 less kid will save the environment more than anything else you can possibly do."

i could argue that overpopulation occurs because science has increased the standard of living for humans, stopping us from falling to the causes that would naturally keep our population in check

i'd also argue that its not necessarily our population size that is the issue but how we live as a result of our use of technology 

The funny thing is science will probably be what kills off our race in the end. Would have lasted longer as cavemen believing in God's lol

i actually totally agree with the second part of your post

religion tends to be the scapegoat for irrationality and ignorance but i'm realising more and more that they are an unavoidable consequence of being a human being.... the most irrational people i've been seeing recently are funny enough atheists

well i'm saying that at this point in time, more empathy is not needed, what is needed now from my perspective is reason and if we can't do so the consequences will be dire in my view

"I didn't say just empathy on our side, did I?"

empathy is inherently polarised... it is always mediated by a preference, because people always value some things more than other things or are in other words subjective in their views

for example, how much empathy do you have for a male sexual harasser?