This is something that can be proven or disproved.

History tells otherwise.

The worst atrocities in history have always come about due to someone believing they are correct, that they are moral, that they have the right to intrude or prevent another person from doing something, including existing. While religion does not inherently cause this, and while science does not inherently prevent it (many do things in the name of false studies), science is far more equipped to continue to change and adapt what it says, to grow over time to inform people on what things truly make our society run best. What is "moral". At least, moral in the way that I define morality.

Nice out of context quote there. More accurate would be to quote me saying

Lack of disproof does not give any credibility to an idea

When I say the vast majority of religion, I refer to religions with some form of deity, and some form of solid book, set of beliefs, etc, that say definite things about the world. Secondly, if you are a christian, you at the least believe that there exists a god, and that there exited a Jesus. That's enough literalist for me.

What, exactly, is a non-scientific question?

I never stated that religion implies insanity, although I do think it implies someone who follow religion because of either lack of knowledge or a unwillingness to accept the evidence they have been given. Or a lack of knowledge of what exactly counts as evidence.

I feel that a personal hatred of fanaticism on your part colour your perspective.

I would more say a tendency for literalism caused me to hate any ideas that turn it into fanaticism.

I feel as though a debate is not your mission, and I prefer to remove the stage and podium.

My mission is the spread of more solid ideas, the idea most solid of which I believe is atheism, through debate. If you are unwilling to debate, it is a signal to me, more than anything else, that you are unable to without reducing things to the final-endpoint of every other atheism vs theism debate I have seen.

"I feel this is true, and you should respect my opinions. Evidence does not mean what I think is not true, science does not give me a reason to live".

That is a very bad and biased explanation of the endpoint, but it's the one I have seen happen over and over.