Planets are overrated. For the same amount of mass as what comprises the earth, we could have millions of times more living space and energy availability if we took all the planets apart and built space habitats.

Science is superior to religion because it grants both the ability to destroy the world, but also the ability to save the world. Morality has nothing to do with it, science is not a moral framework. I would double down on science if I were calling the shots, because I can't see any reason why the same institution that you think is destroying the planet can't also save it, and possibly even be profitable.

Consider this: suppose some way to hijack the carbon cycle and take CO2 and methane directly out of the atmosphere and utilize it for commercial purpose, turning it into plastic or hydrocarbons, or through genetically enhanced algae turns it into sugar or bio diesel. These projects and others are already underway, and I believe that not only can they reverse climate change, but they can potentially provide the kinds of controls necessary for complete control over the weather of this world, as well as enhance rather than restrict the goods and services available to the average consumer.

You could also go back to religion and pray that things get better and everything fixes itself.

False comparison, its not science which has caused these issues, by our society and its capitalist over socialist values. If we value the product of our people (GDP) more than we value the People themselves (socialist policies to ensure health and wellness of the people) then we get what we have, production for profit with little or no eye to the effect on society, environment, or health.

Religion and tradition, IMO, haven’t repressed people and kept them stupid. People are plenty capable of doing that for themselves. And I’d be reluctant to blame science for what is really a genetic moral failing of our species.

Our only sin is being spectacularly successful as a species. Speaking of “Science” and “Religion” as forces to be reckoned with, almost personifies these human mental products into external abstractions, at minimum, or ghost-like beings with agency, at the extreme end.

But they are internal. They are emergent properties of Homo sapiens. They are two things we actually do pretty well, and have, so far, contributed to our survival.

The problem is not which one of our psychological adaptations is going to destroy us, but whether we can wake up fast enough to realize that it’s our entire nature that is destroying us, and, that devising an intervention for such an evolutionary-scale phenomenon will present a supreme challenge for our kind.

If religion wasn't retarding Logic and Reason, science would have dealt with Climate Change about 20 years ago. And profit would have been made whist doing it.

Theism teaches that we are fallen from a higher state.

Erasing that teaching from our minds requires more than merely quitting theism.

Your saying we are doing badly says you have not yet erased that teaching.

When you have erased it, you will say what we are capable of doing without implying it is better.

I have yet to see any evidence that we can destroy the ability to live on earth. Yes, religion is worse, as it prevents us from fixing any problems we may encounter.

Just to be really picky...
If you BELIEVE in global warming you already started wrong, because you are saying that it is an option or a belief.
I accept the evidences that shows climate change is real and mankind has a significant role on that. Or at least I believe in the scientific consensus that says....

I know "i believe" is just an informal and fast way to say it but it opens for the consiprationalists to put their bull to produce...

It seems to me there is more struggling to find belonging and goodness. Too many pieces of our social order has been tossed up in the air and must be sorted out. Religion keeps people thinking too narrowly and that hampers personal growth. Atheist have no less moral and ethical behavior than Christians, if fact a lot of Christians that I have known seem to twist their unethical behavior into something acceptable, much more than non-believers.

science isn't causing us to do what we're able to do. we could've ended humanity in the stone age by just setting each other on fire. we can just do it faster and better now. the planet would survive -- but it would be uninhabitable by humans and a hell of a lot of other species (more if we destroyed ourselves faster, fewer if we took our time and destroyed them first). freedom of movement is just freedom of fast movement; we moved out of africa and we never did stop moving. religion is the arbiter of morality; ethicality is the purview of the secular, and i will not talk about morals as a good thing. i talk about ethics as a good thing. religion and ethics often clash. living in a fantasy world has its own intrinsic problems, whether religion or mental illness is the cause.

so is your question about whether religion is worse than climate change? apples and oranges. or are you asking whether religion is worse than science and freedom of movement? yes, of course it is. science is good. freedom of movement is good. we can control what we do with our knowledge and abilities. whether we WILL control them is another story.

g