No, the key difference is that religions appeal to the supernatural or some true essence to explain the universe, while atheism appeals only to the natural world. Atheism does not require some Daddy figure (or figures) nor does it need some essentialist background. It rejects those. Its beliefs are based on logic, something religions can't claim (except coincidentally).

Are you talking about the reactor vessel or the containment? These are different things. The containment is designed to keep fission fragments from being released to the public following a design basis accident. It is typically a hemispherical shell made of about a 5 ft thickness of reinforced concrete attached to a concrete base mat and lined with a stainless steel shell. The reactor vessel simply houses the core, forms part of the primary coolant pressure boundary, has a flange for connection to the vessel head, and contains connections for the hot legs, cold legs, and safety injection system. The reactor vessel is typically carbon steel with a stainless steel liner that is heat treated to reduce any stress at weld points. The reactor vessel is one of many things that fits within a containment.

First, the Earth's atmosphere consists of about 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 1% argon, and trace other gases (including water of about 0.5% and CO2 of about 0.05%). Nitrogen is not a greenhouse gas, oxygen is not a greenhouse gas, and argon is not a greenhouse gas. Thus, of the 32 K greenhouse effect, CO2 plays a very important role. Water is the dominant greenhouse gas, but it primarily serves to amplify the effect of other greenhouse gases since warmer air can hold more water. Additionally, water isn't as significant as it may appear (having a tenfold higher concentration than CO2) because it will precipitate out at colder elevations. Thus, CO2 and methane are the primary greenhouse gases that are really driving the greenhouse effect (with their effect amplified by the water vapour).

Second, the possible effects of a slight increase in solar intensity have been noted. They are too small to account for the increase in atmospheric temperature if they exist. And even the largest potential effect could only account for about a quarter of the warming that has been observed.

Climate change isn't the theory. It is the effect. The theory is that greenhouse gases raise the temperature of the atmosphere of a planet. This has been well tested with small scale experiments and large scale observations (such as observing the atmospheric composition and temperatures of Mars and Venus). There are a lot of details that go into climate change, but the general idea is very common sense:

Step 1: Shine some light in the visible spectrum on an object through a gas that doesn't absorb a huge amount of energy at most of those wavelengths (for example, from any random object that you might see that has a 5780 K blackbody temperature).
Step 2: Choose an appropriate gas (like CO2 or methane) that will absorb a lot of energy from the blackbody emissions of that object (Stefan's Law).
Step 3: Watch the temperature of that gas rise.

Do you get the gist? It isn't rocket science. If you add a shitload of CO2 to the atmosphere, the temperature of the surface of the planet is going to rise.

Greenhouse gases aren't a concern because they reflect sunlight, they are a concern because they reflect infrared. The Sun emits in the visible spectrum because its surface has a temperature of about 6000 K. The Earth's surface has a temperature of about 300 K, thus it emits infrared.

If the Ares I design is to be replaced, it would be by the Delta IV Heavy, not the Falcon 9 Heavy. The Delta IV Heavy is already flying, its payload fairing size is an almost perfect fit for the Orion spacecraft, and it uses the RS-68s that are planned to be used on the Ares V. NASA would also be extremely skeptical of the Falcon 9 Heavy because it would be using a total of 27 Merlin engines in its first stage! The failures of the N1 rocket (with 30 engines) would make any high engine rocket a tough sell. The Falcon 9 may work, but I'd be very surprised if the Falcon 9 Heavy is ever built. Man-rating a rocket like that would be well-nigh impossible.

The Apollo 1 fatalities were not due to the rocket. Additionally, Apollo 1 wasn't mounted on a Saturn V, so the comparison is moot.