I think I made a mistake in my original contention, so apologies for the following Motte and Bailey. Let me rephrase my contention,

"Religious identity is weakly correlated with terrorism."

Now, a very important point of note - If your contention is, "The content of religious texts are strongly correlated with religious terrorism specifically".

That is a separate claim, that I do not have any evidence for or against. Please note by evidence, I do not mean a specific entity doing terrorist activities in the name of religion. I mean that a particular terrorist act must be caused not by generic lines of "violence against outsiders", but rather by very specific passages asking for the specific type of violence committed by the attacker. Additionally, this must come from the attacker themselves, and not people attributing a motivation to the attacker post-hoc. One must then demonstrate that a significant number of attacks are done with such motivation, and an insignificant number of religious attacks were caused due to other reasons.

Moving forward, I will be arguing for the claim "Religious identity is weakly correlated with terrorism."

this actually doesn’t make any sense from a common sense perspective basically, people are not just sitting around and deciding on their own to commit crimes and justify it with their religious scriptures later, even just saying that makes you want to take a look at those scriptures, doesn’t this alone makes you at least suspect that the scripture has to do something with their actions, I mean you just said this ... That’s the contradiction, as a detective/doctor who wants to cure Humanity from evil you have to suspect every element of the equation, not dismiss it… Especially if that element is the core component of the equation, I’ll explain why below

I definitely believe that an epistemological algorithm unrelated to truth, which is necessarily baked into religion plays a factor. However, if your contention is that religious texts are a necessary factor for terrorist acts, you will need to provide evidence for it, not just cite "logic". The scientific literature on this paint a reasonably clear picture. For example, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tim-Krieger-2/publication/258833074_What_causes_terrorism/links/58996d2c4585158bf6f6e6a4/What-causes-terrorism.pdf - Clearly seems to indicate at best, a weak link between religious identity and terrorism. In contrast, from the same study, institutional order and economic deprivation both seem to indicate stronger effects.

For further evidence of this, we see religious crimes committed even when the explicit text of their religion says otherwise, for example, Christians committing crimes against sex workers, for their very existence. How does this makes sense in your hypothesis that the religious text is a fundamental component of religious crime?

To note, even the "stronger" links I mention here are disputed. It could be entirely possible that you are absolutely correct, and that a principal and necessary factor to committing terrorism, is motivation provided by religious texts. But the evidence is unclear as of now, which in turn means you are coming to a conclusion without the necessary evidence.

Also, I agree that it is important to determine how much each causal factor affects the possibility of a terrorist act. However, not all factors are equal. For instance, a factor that causes terrorism may be the average temperature of a region - https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP14300 indicates a statistically significant link between high temperature and crime, but there is no significant link between high temperature and terrorism indicated so far in the evidence, even though terrorism is a form of crime.

Yes… But how do they know… they’re getting it from somewhere, right? An original scripture (Quran/Bible/Torah…etc.)… which bring us to your first argument.

If your contention is that people use religious texts to determine how to act in life, I do not disagree that it is certainly a factor. This still does not indicate that religious texts are fundamental for terrorist attacks internationally.

The issue is not of who’s making the twisting, the issue is that the text as peaceful as it might be, IS STILL Twist-ABLE, which doesn’t indicate that a Divine authority with infinite wisdom wrote it in the first place, does it? God doesn’t make mistakes, right? How could he fuc* it up so bad… Like you could avoid controversial lines, bruh… annnnd avoid genocides that took place over centuries, avoid entire civilizations, minorities, cultures, tribes being wiped out off the face of the earth because they don’t share the same beliefs

Do you think I believe religion exists? Because I certainly don't. My point here is simply that the cause of religious terrorist acts is not necessarily the text as written. Additionally, as much as I wish it wasn't true, a lot of people religious and otherwise believe some crimes against humanity are ethical. Which brings me to,

Here’s the thing, in any religious society there are Categories of people, from the least conservative (progressives) to the most conservatives to the extreme fundamentalists, the great misconception people have about religion, is that people misinterpret the scripture and then become extremists, nope… like I said I used to read (explicit not vague) extreme passages that incite violence and still thought there’s nothing wrong with the text, there’s no hate speech, and that my religion was perfect… so what’s happening here?

I am rephrasing your argument here for my clarity - "Even in cases where extremist lines are explicitly part of the religious text, people will assume the text is fundamentally ethical, even if it causes negative outcomes for them or the people they care about."

This is just groupthink, right? In my case, I believed in religion because my parents, teachers, hell even popular scientists of my country believed in religion. This was the case all the way until I understood the scientific method, then epistemology, then meta-ethics. With my understanding of each of those concepts, I started following less and less of my religion until I gave it up entirely.

Groupthink ethics is fundamentally down to the lack of meta-ethical clarity - That is, if I were to determine if an action is ethical, even if said action has negative outcomes for me and the people I care about and humanity itself, the problem is that my ethics algorithm is broken. Religious twisting of ethics is one possible cause of this, but certainly not a necessary one, as evidenced by the numerous secular and irreligious cults.

The answer is people don’t actually follow the teachings of their religion to the letter, they’re just happy being conservatives, it already gives them all they need, a sense of unity, protection and that they’re part of something bigger… and then there is the serious minorities (AKA the fundamentalists) who take their stuff Seriously, and they’ll follow every single order with “blind faith” (being sarcastic)

This to me sounds like you're saying - "Religious texts and the actions that religious people take have little correlation with each other, excepting specific circumstances" - Which is exactly my point. I'll talk about your specific circumstances in a minute.