I assumed by invulnerability you meant some kind of belief in the afterlife.
Science has increased fear of certain dangers (eg nuclear war) but has decreased fear of other dangers (eg infectious diseases, starvation)
Religion can lessen fear but can also increase both fear and hate as we have witnessed throughout history and as we continue to witness today.

Does this suppose that religions should be to blame for the actions of their followers if those followers claim to be acting as required by their religion? Would that then support, as an example, that Islam is to blame for groups like ISIS or the Taliban, or Christianity for the KKK or the Army of god, and so the religions are the cause and the 'problem'?

Besides that the second part might be only true in certain regions, as said progress requires improvement. If Science didn't improve it, its progress is fake news. Its progress is kind of sanctimony. Just like churches or mosques which close their doors to escape serving the poor. They only open when Mr. X feels like lecturing others. They don't improve anyone's life. You might say but science is capable to do exactly this, helping the poor. But I don't believe it, till today it didn't work. The problem with science is: Wherever it opens a knot, somewhere else it creates several new knots.
An example: In the past when people did become sick, they thought they have commit a sin. But nowadays one is already thinking about diseases before getting sick. One cannot eat without thinking if it is healthy or not. One's life cannot be more miserable, it is practically reduced to fear only.

Now of course religions as institutes didn't do any better than science. But the main teachings beginning lets say by Zarathustra and Buddhisms up to the Ibrahimovic religions have been always the same:
Where do conflicts begin? The answer is fear: Fear of death and related to it fear of showing weakness. (Why do most discussions not only in this forum but all over the world end up in insults and not solutions? Because everyone hates showing weakness.)
When Jesus says, give up everything and follow me what does it mean? It means: You are going to die anyways and whatever you do (Just ask Hitler, Ghaddafi or Steve Jobs or Muhammad Ali, whatever you gather there is no way out), you cannot escape your weaknesses. So give up living in fear. The more you have (you gather it to feel safe) the more you fear. When you have a car, you have also the fear to lose it etc.... It is science which enables Ferraris. Why do we love Ferraris? Out of three reasons: 1) Feeling strong (reducing fear) 2) Pissing other people in the mouth: I am strong and successful and you are not (again trying to reduce fear) 3) For others say hello in the right way with respect. This all means conflicts. When we draw a territory we have to defend it. When we fear to die on hunger we have to fight for it. Fear causes conflicts and conflicts lead to wars.
The second thing that religions teach is: "Be the change that you want to see in others (Bravo Gandhi)". Don't try to make others saints. Become a saint so that whatever you do and whatever you say will be an invitation for others to come back. To come back to the human from the animal. While science tries to improve everyone's life just like those churches/mosques which draw lines and want to bring everyone into paradise. Both are liars because it is not possible. The nature has a rule, whatever has a rule it has for sure also a ruler (at least it is more likely Mr.Sklansky), you cannot change its rules unless you become the ruler.

Claiming to act in the name of a religion is not sufficient, no. However, I do think that Islam as a religion is at least partially responsible for the actions and beliefs of groups like ISIS and the Taliban, and Christianity for the Crusades (and socialism for the USSR, and liberalism for colonialism, and so on). But I accept a wider, sociological definition of religion than do most religious people.

Can you elaborate on the bolded as I'm wary of asking questions that might be loaded, intentionally or otherwise. I'm interested in this because the subject of whether or not Islam is a violent religion (which I understand to mean 'instructs' violence). I'm aware that there's a massive thread on this but for now I simply want to know what you think. If it turns into a general conversation I'll happily decamp to the other thread.

Here's some objective data:

https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy/

I'll quote the following excerpt:

This argument applies pretty much globally. You can hardly blame science for not having competely eradicated world poverty. Unlikely religion (condemning condom use in AIDS-ridden Africa) it has provided tremendous improvement in this area.

Pseudoscience is a scam... and let me clarify not all science is bad, just the stuff we cling to as fact that is theory based.

Religions may not be perfect. But there has to be a higher power of some sort. Things don't just magically align for life to exist. Here's my proof since someone requested:

So let me spell it out for everyone. You have been told that you live on a spinning ball traveling roughly 1000/mph soaring through space while gravity and other made up forces are acting on the "planet" in order to keep us at the perfect distance from the sun to sustain life. Less than 1% zone, if we are any closer to the sun we fry, if any farther we freeze. I say this story is unlikely. Much more likely is that a higher power or intelligent designer had something to do with our perfect living conditions. The sun and the moon also appear to be the same size. So in order for this to happen, they magically have to be the perfect far and close distances away and measure the perfect sizes in order for them to appear to be the same size.

There's also the fact we are on a 23.4 degree tilt.. they've literally tilted us... which everyone should know this tilt would mean that 90-23.4=66.6 degree of tilt. Oh they also lost the coordinate points when going to the moon. The great deception is real people.

They indoctrinate us with this in school and we take it as FACT. Never once questioning any of it. I think it's far more likely there is a higher power who set this all up in perfection than it is likely a random occurrence through pseudoscience such as the bing bang, which needs evolution and gravity to support it's claim.

Now this isn't a perfect proof... all i'm saying is let's put the beliefs and theories in the same category of UNKOWN!

Then let's go from there.

sounds like you're the indoctrinated one. you should read up on what a 'scientific theory' is. hint: theory in this sense does not have the same meaning as in everyday use of the word.

you have it backwards

God is rational and values intelligence and rational thinking

because of this, all atheists go to heaven when they die

the religious people are sent to hell for all eternity to suffer for being so stupid

How can I disobey God if he's never spoken to me?

I can't just go around obeying everyone who claims they know what God wants, can I?

He must be right because he is named after an awesome video game. Watch out for the hula dancers.

ldo

Either way it's clear Christianity is a scam.

All believers are just wasting their time. > amen brother

u guys believe in god because some grown up told you to do so
u where indoctrinated and conditioned to believe bull**** from an early age if u would have been born in india u will be laughing at christianity dismissing it as heressy.

glgl

I do have perfect proof of your God not helping you! A God not helping you, might as well be a God that does not exist! At the end of the day he does not help you because God does not exist, fact!

Experiment: We both put our hand in burning oil. We measure the heat (with science) to be 500 degrees Celsius, again Science!

Now what will happen here, I the non believer will get my hand burnt.
You the believer will get no help from your God and you will get your hand burnt.

Case closed, God does not exist.

If you have anything to persuade me, that the result will be different from this scientific experiment, I will be all ears!

I have more:

You say the story about gravity and earth, moon and sun are just lies. So how do explain that the sun moves during the day? You agree it moves right, or earth moves or both?

The moon and the sun are the same size? If that were true wouldnt they collide during an eclipse? How do you explain an eclispe, surely one has to be smaller than the other and at different distances. If they are not moving, how would you explain an eclipse?

Wouldn't they always be stationary?

I have more:

You say because we live in the Goldi locks zone of distance form the sun, it must be God who created it that way. Even if that were true, why does it have to be God?

Not only that but if it were created why wouldn't there be ten planets or a hundred planets around a sun. We are already struggling for space and resources on this planet. Does not seem very intelligent, does not exactly scream designer does it!

Also maybe that's exactly why it is not designed, because of the enormous chaos our Universe really is. Life is unique as far as we know. We have searched for life and if it were "intelligently designed" wouldn't there be way way way more planets that support life? Wouldn't intelligent life be all over the place? Wouldn't that be intelligent design?

Maybe God has a prime directive which keeps him form intervening.

Maybe God does not exist!

Does repeating yourself make your position any stronger? There was a valid challenge to your claim, and all you've done is ignore it. Does that seem like an intellectually valid approach to the question?

I did not find it valid at all. If it were valid there wouldn't of been a maybe. Maybe suggests, exactly that, maybe. We can speculate all we want, it is pointless.

If God does not intervene, then he also does not intervene by putting you in heaven!

You can't have it both ways, either he intervenes or he does not.

And yet, your post seems to be built entirely on a speculation.

This argument is terrible. There's basically no content other than an assertion. Do you find blindly asserting things to be more useful than speculating? I don't. I see them as being more or less the same thing.

This logic is as successful when applied to God as it is when applied to international politics. Clearly, there's no way that anything can be in between the two.

Maybe not. But you said he dose not and nothing in what you wrote there shows that.

God might exist and not intervene. Like some versions of the Jewish God.

Which post is built on speculation?

We have countless real life examples were God did not intervene. These cases are not speculation. Think rape victims, victims that get tortured for years. Repeated rape, day in day out. God did not intervene after the 1st, 2nd or even 3rd time. In fact he did not intervene at all.

You could argue that once the rapist gets caught, that then God intervened, but then he still let it go on for 100's of times, making him indeed EVIL.

Agreed, it is possible that he exist but does not intervene. But would you agree that he is no longer a good God but an evil God?

Well, most of your posts.

Yes, and we have countless examples of countries where the US has not intervened with force. Therefore, the US does not intervene at all?

If if we argue that God intervened, then you would have just contradicted yourself in saying that God does not intervene. The question of whether not intervening in previous situations implies evil would all depend on your notion of evil. It would seem that by your concept of evil, everybody is evil because there are things that we could be doing to help others at almost any time of the day, and most of the time we don't.

Do you accept this as a consequence of your conception of evil?

Id see the one that can and does sometimes but not all the time in a worse way.

Course id be judging from a an ants perspective. So...