sorry dude, like six people beat you to it. 

Well it was worth a shot =p

But that's just it, no one can provide you with the "supporting evidence" that you've been asking for. The only "proof" people have are their respective religious texts, and it is up to you to decide whether you believe in it or not. If you don't believe in God, then good for you. There isn't anything out there that can prove NOR disprove the existence of God besides your faith (which is also belief without reasoning).

What about Scientology? 

What about it? It's a different belief system that some people hold.

we muslims belive in god like seeing the sun and we belive he creates us and creates every thing in this universe and we know that every thing in this universe he creates have a reason the Quraan that the god gives to muhammad is a miracle challenge the mind of men and this book that make us belive,

well mine was a joke where I was implying that I was a Autothiest...

If you find the answers to everything, you leave no room for interpretation. But you're right, there is a simple way for religion to avoid being made obsolete; just claim that all mechanisms defined by science are themselves created by a divine source.  God setting evolution in motion is one example. One mode of thought is to think of God as an architect or engineer who sets all things in motion and then allows it to function without his constant input. 

Trying to prove God's existence with logic through philosophical principles or any other way is just an endless battle of semantics and finding the flaw in the logic.  The point is faith.

This is exactly the problem.  Having faith is irrational, because at it's very core it's believing in something regardless of (or occasionally despite of) the evidence presented, or lack thereof.  It's the act of willful ignorance.  Proof would negate faith, therefore proving god exists would neutralize his purpose.  (according to some philosophers)

And as a man of science, and as a man of logic, I honestly think the world would be better this way.  Without religious meddling we wouldn't have people questioning evolution for all the wrong reasons, we wouldn't have people teaching intelligent design in school, we would have cracked the mystery potential of stem cells by now, and  we wouldn't have had the dark ages where the church stifled knowledge and science in order to retain power over the people. Yes, religion has its place, religion has done far more good than bad, but keep that shit out of science class.  One of the points I was making was to showcase how true that statement is.  I wanted people to offer proof/evidence of a God, and once that was done (if anyone gave compelling evidence), I was going to ask to have them prove that their religion or version of God was more right than the neighbouring theology.  Furthermore, assuming we got that far, I was going to demand they offer substantial proof that their interpretation of their holy text was correct and uncorrupted. 

I know damn well you can't PROVE god exists, no better than you can prove he doesn't (I don't claim to know the answers), but the best and most intelligent thing we can do is follow the evidence, and a book written over a millenia ago is NOT adequate evidence when arguing or debating things like the inception of the human race or even the universe.  doubly so when everyone has their own interpretation of whatever holy text they follow.  Hell, I was in public school in the early 90's, and if we had textbooks written in the 70's or 80's, they were considered outdated and replaced, yet we have people (powerful people) in media and politics basing their entire campaigns on a book written in a time when we still thought mercury was a miracle cure.  THIS IS DANGEROUS.  I really don't need to point out the swath of examples throughout history to tell you that fanatical people following archaic belief systems can do a LOT of damage, do I?  

The point, and the one major thing that upsets me so greatly about all this is that all my ranting and raving is falling on deaf ears.  those who agree with me will probably nod their heads in agreement while condemning me for my rather abrupt and frankly aggressive presentation of my opinions, but those who disagree feel a socially pressured need to rebel against my stance, since religion is such a deeply engraved social phenomenon.  It doesn't matter if I'm right or not, it doesn't matter if I'm angry and loud or reserved and rational, many people worldwide have already made up their minds and my loudmouthed outbursts, regardless of their validity, will only further strengthen their faith, since I'm giving them a clear target.  

I'm not asking for much.  All I want is a world where the religious can pray and hope for an afterlife in peace, and the scientists can continue to seek unbiased truth without meddling from the church.  when that day comes, and we can all live happily ever after, I promise I will never, ever bring up religion again.  Sadly, we don't live in that world. AS long as we have terrorists blowing up buildings and meddling churches interfering with science, I will be right there, front row and center to fight for atheism.  

Or, if someone can prove that God is real and that he is as the holy text says, I will recind all my comments and join whatever cult is the right one.  Until that day, I am Atheist, I am proud, and I am not afraid to ask questions.  

There are always two sides to the coin.

You see, if you had posted this sooner, then your topic would've turned out more towards the type of discussion you were hoping to follow. You can't expect to map out a blueprint then wait until a bunch of random people follow it so you can advance with your questions. This whole time I was under the impression that you blindly hated religion and posted this topic to entice religious people and flame them. 

However, as you lightly aluded to, religion has done plenty of good along with bad. I mean, even though religion has hindered some aspects of scientific growth in the past, it has also played a large role in promoting scientific growth. The nations we know now wouldn't be the same (or even be here) if it weren't for religion. Our advances in medicine wouldn't be at this level if it weren't for religious organizations promoting medicine (heck, Muslims created the first Medical schools). I too am a man of science, but you shouldn't assume that people of religion aren't "logical". I am a firm believer in God, but I am also researching in Biochemistry; I believe in evolution but I also believe in creationism. Science hasn't gotten to the point where it can disprove the major things in religion (like creationism of man and the universe) because we're still at the birth of understanding evolution, and we still don't understand our universe, let alone the stars outside of it.

And I don't understand how it is dangerous for people to follow "old religious" books. Your textbooks are outdated because people make newer discoveries and/or disprove statements in older textbooks. There is nothing out there that has "disproved" anything from religion (such as the Quran, which hasn't changed since the day it was written), so why would the book become outdated? Can't you accept that there are people of science who also follow religion deeply? Hell, some of our greatests scientists were strict Jews, but did their religious faiths hold back or dismiss their discoveries in physics and biology? The only major conflict I see in science and religion is between the creation of humans and the overarching question of how life started. That is a question which might take a millenia to answer, but currently these theories aren't strong enough to dismiss the religious claims.

There might be religious terrorists blowing up buildings, but there are religious insitutions that are helping promote human welfare. Take the genocide in Chilie for example, only the churches and synagoges were willing to "hide" and protect the refugees for essential manslaughter when the United States government was denying them entrance to the country. There might be some churches meddling science, but there are also those who promote human advancement and discoveries. You can't have a biased outlook on religion without looking at both sides, much like how I am not biased for religion even though I am a religious man. It is possible for religion and science to grow side by side, but that can't become possible if we have extreme religious people dismissing scientific claims, nor can it be possible when we have extreme atheists like you dismissing religious claims.

What you're hoping for is an ideal world, and I sure as hell will bet that if religion didn't exist, something else would take its place to create this "separated" feeling of yours. There are always two sides to the coin, and one side cannot physically exist without the other.