Neither. Realistically though, people can do nothing more than make assumptions (granted, some assumptions are more probable than others).

"But then I question if BIG BANG happened,what made it happened.Scientist say it was because of Nitrogen and Hydrogen colliding.But where did they come from?"

I have never heard of any scientist saying that, let alone it being a consensus; the two main reason being that:

1. if there were hydrogen and nitrogen atoms before the big bang then there could not be a big bang as matter as we know it did not exist in the moments (yeah I know, time too, let's not make it too complicated) before the big bang but where created during it. So if they existed before the big bang they were not created during the big bang and thus the big bang theory would be invalidated.

2. We have hydrogen and nitrogen atoms today and if you collide them what you get (if the force of the collision is strong enough to break the Nitrogen's triple bonds) is ammonia; you know, the stuff that makes your piss smelly (bacteria in your urethra decompose the urea of your urine in ammonia).

Could you point us to where you heard that theory.

"and by the scientific theory that once all humans die,they just do not exist but that contradicts science.As nothing just stop's existing,it goes in another world"

Where does science say that things don't stop existing but go in another world? It tends to be religions saying that.

What science says is : "rien ne se perd, rien ne se cree; tout se transforme". Nothing is lost, nothing is created, all is transformed. It is the principle of conservation of matter (though E=mc2 complicate things somewhat). What science says is that when humans die (and animals and plants and everything else...) they cease to exist _as humans_ but they still continue to exist as corpses, food for worms, worms once eaten by them, fish if you pick a worm from a corpse and use it to feed a fish...

Now if there is a part of humans that is not made of matter (the soul) then Science can say nothing about whether it exists in the first place as it is not part of our material universe and thus can say nothing about what might happen to it upon death if it does indeed exist. Most scientists tend not to believe in the soul hypothesis but as the scientific method cannot be applied to it it is not a belief based on science (only influenced by it) but a religious belief (or rather, a lack of religious belief).

"Now I am starting to believe that Religion is actually stronger and think it is a form of old advanced science"

It most certainly is not. A good phrasing of what science is (from wikipedia) is: "Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world"

Religion is a set of dogmas and rules decreed from on high that are mostly non-testable (as they pertain to things that we cannot test against. like life after death) and are often proven wrong when testable (like the earth being flat). also religion's predictions are far from science's prediction (if my theory is not wrong and we do this then that should happen) and on the level of a carnival medium (i.e. cannot be used to make forward predictions but are vague enough that you can claim a particular prediction was fulfilled after the fact).

Look, religion deals with things outside of this material universe and their occasional interferences with it (apparitions, miracles...). Science is a method of refining our understanding of our universe. Those part of religion talking about things outside of the universe (hell, heaven...) cannot be proved nor disproved by science because they are outside of it (and that applies to every religions' supernatural realms) and those part of religion talking about things from outside of the universe interfering generally cannot be proved or disproved because they are one time events and science is not interested in one time events but in discovering repeatable rules.

It doesn't mean that any religion is false, because if your axiom is an all-powerful being with no beginning nor end then his power extends to being able to create the universe 6000 years ago (or 2 hours ago while having spiritual tea and crumpets) and make it look like it has existed for billions of years (including your memory of your life up until 2 hours ago in the second case).

But even if that was the case that a god created the universe in such a way then the scientists would still have come to the correct conclusion with the big bang and evolution... as they are the theories that best fit the facts of the world as we know them (in that case the theories themselves are not wrong, but it is the world that would be a lie).

Yeah, but believe it or not, you find more people willing to ponder such issues on forums than you do in real life.

Honestly, why bother thinking about it? The only thing we can be sure about is that there is no proof of a god of any kind and that Big Bang seems the most likely theory. As to what caused it, right now we have no way of knowing it. Personally I don't find it terrible interesting or useful to ponder about things we may never be able to know. Science seems to be the only dependable way to advance things (including our knowledge) so that's what we should stick to. If that way we are able to learn about the origin of the universe, good. If not, too bad.

Fun fact for you: Big Bang thoery was brought up by Catholic church.

''Now I do believe in Science that every happens because of a reason and that every action has a future consequence.And I was also started believing earlier that I was an Athiest.''

You say you ''believe'' in this deterministic science, yet such a science no longer exists. I think you should actually study this science before you put your belief in a world governed by statistics and non-determinism.

''But then I question if BIG BANG happened,what made it happened.Scientist say it was because of Nitrogen and Hydrogen colliding.But where did they come from?''

Nitrogen and Hydrogen didn't exist in the early universe, nevermind causing its existence. Who on earth told you that?

''then the second theory,if GOD created the universe then who created GOD?''

Carl Sagan famously made this point at the end of his celebrated 'Cosmos' video series. The reasoning is that this 'mechanism' (God) serves no purpose as it was artificially inserted into the chain by ignorent, early humans.

Baaah! Carl, you puzzle me with your foolishness

''and by the scientific theory that once all humans die,they just do not exist but that contradicts science.As nothing just stop's existing,it goes in another world.''

It really isn't very clear what you are trying to say here(?).

''Now I am starting to believe that Religion is actually stronger and think it is a form of old advanced science and modern science reasoning is based upon looking at everything as simple objects and religion knows what life id about better.''

''and think it is a form of old advanced science '' - Pretty much what I believe. Considering early human civilizations and they're cultures is a humbling experience.

''modern science reasoning is based upon looking at everything as simple objects'' - Yeah, trying to find the most fundamental way of describing a phenomenon. That's where the early idea of 'atom' comes from.

This.

There is God as portrayed in religion, the problem is most people portray the religion wrong or in the wrong way, and thus portray God wrong as well

I take the Big Bang theory over the creationist theory, but I am also skeptical of the concept of the big bang. The reason being as people often say, 'What went bang?'.
However, I thing to beyond our ability to comprehend or deduce, so I doubt we will ever find definitive proof of what really happened.

It have to be GOD are we would of died out and became extinct like the dinosaurs a long time ago.