I have no issue accepting that scientist invented some of the worlds greatest killing machines, why would you even assume I would have issue with this? What you seem to not understand is the purposes behind these inventions, read a few books on Alfred Nobel (inventor of dynamite and the Nobel Peace prize) or Robert Oppenheimer (lead scientist of the Manhattan project), these men went out of their way to perfect warfare not so that more wars can be fought, but so that man would see the horrors of war and would never dare to fight ever again. They thought if people would see just how powerful these weapons are, they wouldn't dare to fight ever again. But what happens is fervent nationalism, ideologies and ultimately religion divide the human race. Only when we see ourselves as different do we have an easier time killing each other, when in reality we aren't very different at all.
Read my post, justifying war and causing war are different.
Religions do provide a beneficial service but ultimately they don't do anything that secular groups aren't doing, the only reason religious groups are better at it is because they get more money from the congregations. The harm religion causes far out weighs any good that it may cause, this is very well illustrated in one of the Intelligence^2 debates:
YouTube - The Intelligence Squared Debate, Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry vs The Catholics (1 of 5)
It's a five part debate so you may want to open it in another window if you watch it (however I doubt any of you will, god forbid you have to listen to people talk for more than 5 minutes)
Not all scientists are nonbelievers admittedly a disproportionate amount are, relative to the general non-scientist population. It's not that scientists are philanthropists and religious people are all malicious pricks, they both are trying to do what they think is best, science just happens to be a more effective means to achieve improved societal well-being.
You really have this fantastically diluted understanding of who scientists are.
I clearly pointed out why this is incorrect and regarding the pro-evolution scientists... you know you just described practically every scientist?
Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientists may appear smug to you because it gets amazingly frustrating to have some trucker walk up to you and ask you if you "believe in evilution", then when you tell them "sure", they give you a completely inane, piss-poor argument and expect you to be convinced that the research and rigorous testing done by the entirety of the scientific community is disproven by the crockaduck.
Wow, talking about completely inane, piss-poor arguments...
I honestly can't do through two sentences in your post without face-palming because of all the monumental ignorance you spew. Let me introduce you to fractal-wrongness, because you kind sir are the epitome of it.