Gun wounds are a product of someone shooting someone else. Nothing more. Religion X says it should kill everyone who believes in religion Y, so they need guns to do it. 

Awww... How sweet. 

"It has supporting evidence like the Cosmic Microwave Background and the expansion of the universe from a single point."

so i'm just going to conclude that you do not have evidence that scientists have modeled a singularity despite claiming so

"It really is considering all the empirical evidence I provided prior. "

for what? so far you have not backed any of the claims you made to me

"And I provided Japan as an example."

japan despite the problems they have is not an atheist country, its a secular country... 

"I asked if you agree with the theory of Evolution and Natural selection. - You replied that some aspects can be debated.

Ergo, one can assume you disagree with some aspects."

i made the reply i made not because i disagree with any particular aspect of evolution but because i understand that science is about constant refinement and enquiry

apparently you disagree with that

the attitude you showed btw is why people burned witches in the dark ages ( people refusing to remain open minded and assuming the knowledge in a particular area is perfect and needs no discussion )

"The fact you believe the laws of Physics are broken and need to be rewritten is just icing on the cake."

i said singularities break the laws of physics... wtf

"Sure. Certain aspects of Evolution and Natural selection for starters? :)

Or hows about the fact you believe all our knowledge regarding the natural world should be scrapped and remade?"

which aspects? and when did i say the our knowledge needs to be scrapped and remade?

"Prove it. Provide evidence. "

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_blackholes_singularities.html

In the centre of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate.

do you believe in gun control? if you do please tell me why

It seems the Dunning-Kruger effect has claimed another victim...

Your claim (verbatim) was that "technology is intrinsically harmful"

ANY consequence resulting from technology use is EXTRINSIC as it does not concern the nature of what the thing is. Claiming that pencils are intrinsically harmful to humanity is beyond false, it's stupid and that is your argument at this point. That someone can use any random piece of technology to cause harm to others. That not only fails to support your claim at all, since we're speaking INTRINSICALLY, but is hilariously inept.

PS: Start reading (again): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biproduct

Stop embarrassing yourself.

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.  

"ANY consequence resulting from technology use is EXTRINSIC as it does not concern the nature of what the thing is"

the definition of extrinsic is as follows

"not part of the essential nature of someone or something; coming or operating from outside"

" not forming part of or belonging to a thing"

if you can't see how hilariously stupid your argument was now... we might as well put a stop to it here

to put a finer point on it, pollution for example does not come from a source outside of technology, it is a derivation of technology

intrinsic : "Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing."

anyone who understand what technology is understands that an ever present part of technology is waste

that's where the concept of "efficiency" comes from and no machine is 100% efficient there is always some percentage of the input that comes out as waste and that waste almost always is harmful to people and the environment

"Stop embarrassing yourself."

lmao right back at you

I am talking about Anti-Vaxxers being Anti-Science by propagating false information like Vaccines causing Autism.

How can you make that statement when I have provided the evidence to the contrary?
If ignorance is Bliss... Your life must be a bloody paradise that no one has ever experienced before.

Liar. Liar. Liar.

And again, Atheism and Secularism has components that overlap.

Do you even read? I never once said that knowledge in any particular area is perfect and needs no discussion.
And I quote myself:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8687703

"Laws of Physics are broken and need to be rewritten"
And I quote:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8691461

"Physics as we know them cease to operate" Which is NOT - "The Laws of physics are broken" which you claimed.
You are conflating two different issues which is ignorant.

If you wish to truly have an understanding of Physics (I.E. You don't currently.) then you should study the field in intimate detail.

What is actually being suggested is that part of our model needs to be updated, not scrap everything... And people like Stephen Hawking are working on that very issue.

I do. It is because not all people are responsible enough to carry a gun.

Religion's time as a driving aspect of the world I think has pretty much come and gone. It's not the massive factor from where humanity goes from here.

Technology very obviously is though, and things like A.I., gene editing are going to be probably change humanity in massive ways over the next 200 years or so I would say.

many people believe the same argument could be leveled at humans with regards to technology

its not that technology itself manifests the driving force that causes harm but they'd argue that we haven't been responsible enough to use it properly without significant adverse effects

just like a gun by itself doesn't pick itself up and shoot people