you don't know if atheist kill people or not?

and what I'm looking for is citations. Actual articles where someone in the field says something to the tune of "though there is no current experimental evidence for the actual physical existence of a singularity we believe that such evidence is only waiting to be discovered" or some such nonsense. Otherwise you don't have faith but scientists attempting to apply a mathematical model to the real world, a practice that is perfectly normal and rational. 

"He talks about the influence of religion itself, arf. You reply has absolutely nothing to do with his"

his statement was rhetorical... its the kind of statement that is obviously true and doesn't need to be addressed further... so i did not

if i told you water is wet, would you feel the need to challenge that statement?

"Uhm, why should I disprove a claim which you for example created"

its not my claim, its a claim that religious people would make of atheists

"You just dodged his statement and went straight for atheists who also kill people to build a strawman"

strawman definition "an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument"

if i "dodged" his statement how can i be making a strawman? edit: and how did i misrepresent him?

" I've yet to see the numerous news on the media saying: atheististic group rapes women, throws suicide bombers into a group of people, throws gay people from roofs, going on a killing spree at a church"

i'm not understanding your point here... are you trying to say that atheists are more moral than other groups? or that they don't kill people in news worthy ways?

"While you say that it is the grace of God who shields you against the devil or so to say your believe in him, arf. Would you go killing and sinning all over the place when you don't believe in God, arf?"

"Is religion just an invention to keep people from going to do whatever they like to do, arf? Just think about it for a moment, arf. Why fear humans if you have to fear God's wrath, arf?"

its not my view, so i can't address your question

probably the most famous physicist alive in our era stephen hawking

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

"However, the expansion of the universe, is like the time reverse of the collapse of a star. I therefore want to show you, that observational evidence indicates the universe contains sufficient matter, that it is like the time reverse of a black hole, and so contains a singularity."

i can get more if you want

So again, he's applying the current evidence and mathematical models to state that he thinks there was a singularity. I can't agree that this is having faith in something. If I give you my best guess as to a certain enzyme's mechanisms even though we don't yet have enough data for it to be conclusive am I giving you a hypothesis or do I have faith in my explanation?

he makes a lot of assumptions though and that's my point

for example "observational evidence indicates the universe contains sufficient matter, that it is like the time reverse of a black hole"

for one thing, black holes aren't understood that well and another is that the idea that there is sufficient mass is another assumption

another thing is "observational evidence"... around 3% pf the universe is currently observable to us... they just call the rest dark matter

No, I don't know.

When we have something that's infinite in physics, it also means it's beyond measure. I believe the Hawking example of singularity is the shrinking of actual space-time so, that the interaction happen in Planck scale, where the universe appear to be 2D, and the only recognisable force would be gravity. 

Somehow we've transitioned from the Big Bang to black holes, but the same principles apply.

General relativity is a classical field theory that describes space and time through a gravitational field.  Field theories propose that matter interacts with a field, such as a gravitational field or electric field, instead of interacting directly with other matter.  General relativity is classical in the sense that it does not account for quantum mechanical effects; therefore, we might expect that general relativity does not apply (breaks down) in the realm of subatomic particles or minuscule time scales.  The black hole singularity appears because we're applying general relativity in a realm where quantum mechanical effects are present.  There is no physical evidence that supports the singularity and the current state of research involves building a theory of general relativity that includes quantum mechanical effects so that the theory does not produce a singularity.

I think you missed the point.  In WWI and in WW2 religion played a part. It was very prevalent in WW2 considering Hitler was targeting Jews. The point however is that much like politics with two sides opposing, religion is much of the same with an even more dangerous narrative. Religion is used in every culture as a way to control people and create a hive type mind. Make everyone fear a "God" and do his bidding so that anyone in a position of authority in said religion controls the masses. Back when religion was invented it was an ingenious way for a different class of people to gain power by manipulating people into belief based on "miracles" and scare tactics. Why people still believe in these fairy tales is beyond me but it is having the same effect now. People are radicalizing because it gives them purpose where they have none. It makes them important in their heads and gives their life meaning. That is very dangerous as it gives reason to do unspeakable things in the name of your religion and for people on the edge is an enabler. 

"Can you show me the passage in the atheists doctrine that directs atheists to kill people?"

you're answering my question with a question? do atheist kill people or not?

"the fact you suggest the laws of Newtonian physics and the laws of quantum mechanics may need to be rewritten and not just expanded on tells me that you are not well versed on the subject."

strawman

i said that singularities are not currently accommodated in our physics laws

i then said that two possibilities are t(1)hat singularities may not exist and (2)that we may have to change our current laws of physics (furthermore i didn't say that these are the only possibilities )

the idea you are pushing that there is only one path with regards to this problem - that singularities exist and we simply have to add to our laws of physics to include them is actually the silliest idea i've heard so far... let me reiterate this so you get it... we do not know yet if they even exist in a practical sense, got it yet?

" You are arguing from ignorance and incredulity.  "

only because you are attacking a strawman though ( and even the strawman you attacked is a possibility since it is possible that our physics laws are not perfect, this stance as someone graciously pointed out previously is anti-science )