Strange

Most people already do. (Reject the message, anyway.) If they are not going to believe him for that reason then they are not going to believe him when he appeals to national pride, or the superiority of their race, or whatever. If they are going to act for that reason, then they would act on appeals to nationalism, racism, or money or whatever else motivates them. If religion was really as powerful as you think it is, then presumably we could solve the world's problems by just telling people that "it is god's will". But life and people are not as simple as you seem to think. ("Oh, the book says so. OK, I will set aside my doubts about this insane leader spreading words of hate, and risking the lives of all my family and friends, and follow his lead" I don't think so.)

A neutron is a specific example of a baryon. There are other baryons and mesons that are not neutrons.

As you keep saying, there is nothing special or unique about using religion for one's purposes. If it were possible to get rid of religion (in some fantasy version of reality) then the same people would use some alternative justification. Or invent a religion.

I don't see why. There are plenty of people who see no conflict. For example, some religious people have a problem with evolution. Others make a very strong case that religion and evolution are completely compatible, for example: http://biologos.org It is (some) people that are the problem; e.g. the anti-religion attitudes we have seen in this thread, and the anti-science views you hear from some religious people. But there are people who have expressed strong anti-science views for non-religious reasons. And people who are against religion for non-science reasons. (Actually, all anti-religion views are non-scientific as science has nothing to say about religion.)

Of course, a small number of people do that. But the vast majority don't. And some people argue for slavery or killing others for non-religious reasons. So I'm not sure why you keep banging on about this. It is a problem of human nature, rather than religion per se. You would have to ask them. But presumably because they believe it is important. And why not.

Radiation with enough energy to disrupt the behaviour of electronic circuits is generally easy to shield. For example, ICs are packaged in opaque plastic or ceramic which protects them from UV, for example. If you try and operate a chip out of its packaging (as is done for test purposes) then you can she a bright light on it and stop it working properly. A bigger problem is other forms of ionising radiation. Even the packaging materials can generate small amounts of alpha radiation, for example. Some components are built to cope with some level of radiation; especially if, for example. they are intended for safety-critical applications or to be used in harsh environments like space. For example, memories can use a checksum or, better, an error correcting code so that if a bit is disrupted by radiation it can be detected as an error and corrected. Or, you can just build the circuit with bigger transistors so that it is less likely to be disrupted by a single alpha particle. Part of the test and characterisation process of devices is to check the level of radiation that causes the circuit to misbehave. However, to "destroy" a device would require much higher levels of radiation. At that point, the state of your electronic equipment is probably the least of your worries! Note that this is part of the problem with trying to get robotic equipment to work in the Fukushima reactors. The radiation levels stop the electronics working.

Not much good as a justification then. Self defence would probably be better.

Is it? Can you enter that as a plea in court? so we could go round in circles again ...

Because science doesn't assume things. It looks for evidence. Because we have good evidence it was hot and dense (but not infinitely so). Because it is still the best explanation for all the evidence.

And Baader Meinhof. And the Red Brigade. And (arguably) both sides in the Irish Troubles. And ...

And the same may be true if it is finite.

I never said it did. It is just the path some people choose.

On the other hand, as there have been purely political (non-religious) terror groups it might not make any difference. Some people are morivated to use violence to express their grievances and will use religion, politics or anything else to justify it.

There is no evidence that the universe was "created". It may be infinitely old. We don't (currently) know. The early hot dense universe was finite if the universe is finite. It was infinite if the universe is infinite.

I'm not sure where the obsession with numbers comes from. There may be religions with only 10s or 100s of followers. There are others with millions or billions. How do those numbers invalidate what people believe?

I'm not sure what "popped out of" means. But if the universe is now infinite then it was also infinite when it was hotter and denser.

Because there is no evidence either way. Because a universe that is evolving from an early hot dense state. Being finite or infinite doesn't affect this. Not sure what I this means. But if the universe is infinite then it has always been infinite.

So? You think people can only believe something if enough other people believe it?

Apparently it leaves enough "good" bits for a very large number of people.

I wouldn't agree it doesn't leave much. But even if it does, so what.

The overwhelming majority just ignore the "bad" bits.

"I am an obsessive monomaniac. "

They will have picked the bits that suit their agenda and ignored the bits that don't. As everyone does.

So you can't present your hypothesis, model, predictions and experimental results then? Not a surprise.

If you could present your hypothesis, model, predictions and experimental results under those headings so we can see what you are talking about.