You don't really do this whole 'debate' thing very often, do you?  

1 - I am not claiming there is no god.  The world is not black and white, as it were.  Just because I'm not convinced there IS a god doesn't mean I absolutely believe there is NO god.  that's just you extending or assumptions about me into a ridiculus extrapolation so you can prove my ignorance.  Also known as the Strawman Fallacy.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_fallacy

2 - Okay, so propaganda was the wrong word to use but it seemed the simplest to equate. I didn't want to have to go into detail about how the church promises eternal life, companionship and various other things in exchange for faith and support.  There's a whole debate there but it was easier (and while technically inaccurate, a good paralell) to call it propaganda.  Long story short, hope and fear are powerful motivators.  

3 - Again, I have not been 'beaten down' in any way.  Nobody has provided a single compelling point in the other direction.  I asked for proof of God's existence and nobody has given that. I repeat, I'm not making bold claims, though I ask that those who do support those claims with evidence.  It's honestly not too much to ask and the closest anyone's come to offering solid proof in the other direction is offering some powerful philosophy (thank you Dr Grass), but that's only a "what if' scenario, not proof.  Proof has tangible results, the scientific demands the results can be replicated with infinite accuracy , etc.  Seriously, your analogy fails because nobody's swinging at me, they're just talking about how silly I am for wanting to fight them.  

4 - Again with the strawman (in a roundabout way.)  I have no idea who built the pyramids, maybe it was aliens, maybe it was a race of sand creatures.  all I do know for a fact is that the pyramids are in Egypt...and according to science were built in the same period the ancient egyptians were supposedly there.  If I follow the Evidence, then yes, it's fair to assume the egyptians built the pyramids, but if there was any actual evidence claiming something to the contrary, I'd honestly go "hmmm, interesting." and continue to ponder it.  

5 - That's your final argument?  This is not an argument, it's not even philosophy.  It's not even an apples and oranges comparison, more like apples and ankhs. God never came down, there's nothing in our textbooks about God, jsut about a whole lot of people talking about god.  people talk about Xenu, too...do you believe what the church of scientology has to say?  Lots of people say they've been abducted by aliens, but just because a lot of people said it, that doesn't mean it's true.  It's just a bunch of people making claims without proof.  Just because the concept of 'God' caught on early in our history, in a time when people wanted answers and couldn't figure things out.  

Ha good stuff!

I thought so at the time, I was hoping someone would call me on it so I could argue why I belive that I am in fact God and created this universe. It is a argument I have spent some time pondering.

Scientists go on and on about Carbon Dating......yet they have dated coal to 300 million years, but was actually more like 1000 years. 

You like to have proof for everything it seems, yet science is a whole lot of theory and assumption itself. But you only choose to believe what you believe.

The Scientific Method is the best system we have at the moment, but it is grievously flawed.  For one thing, it is not a fraud detection system.  It is easy to read the reports and deduce the validity of their methods, but if someone fabricated results it is not so obvious.  The strange belief that there's a positive correlation between vaccines and Autism is a testament to this.

Secondly, bias influences the peer review process; there are many scientists out there who are not so pure as to permit contradictory conclusions to their own hypotheses to gain momentum; indeed, some throw their weight around to suppress new discoveries that threaten their own work.  When corporations finance scientific research, this becomes commonplace.

Finally, there is a disparity between nations when it comes to representation in scientific journals.  Even in cases where the methods and conclusions are quite reasonable, research and discoveries made by those in developing nations is admittedly underrepresented by the scientific community. People also erroneously conclude that a lack of data acquired by the Scientific Method equates to the absence of phenomena.

The Scientific Method is the best system we have but it is far, far from perfect.  At its best, it is a tool for critical thinking.  At its worst, it is a device to reject information even when it is correct.  And it does not prove things.  It sets the parameters for making the most educated conclusions based on present understanding.  That's why things change as new discoveries are made.  Scientific Laws only apply to mathematics; universal constants (although new discoveries suggest that the Laws of Physics are different elsewhere in the universe), and should an event arise where the Law fails, all science based upon it must be ba cast aside.

This is why there are Theories, the closest thing to Laws that can exist without mathematics to back it up, Laws the closest things to Facts as far as we know.  Now you know why there's Mendel's Laws of Heredity, but evolution remains a Theory.

You are flat out wrong. ALL of these religions are directly linked to a God or Gods. There is no getting around it. Please provide a link to your numbers claim !!

It seems like everybody ignored your post, but I think you raise a number of good points. The one thing I always found ironic about the scientific method is that it actually utilizes an invalid argument form (affirming the consequent). The way the scientific method is structured, it says,

1. If hypothesis A is true, B will be observed.

2. B is observed.

3. Therefore, hypothesis A is true. 

This is an invalid argument form. As a counterexample:

1. If there is fire, then there is oxygen.

2. There is oxygen

3. Therefore, there is fire.

Obviously, this is false because the presence of oxygen does not mean there is fire. In the same way, the first argument is false because the presence of B does not mean hypothesis A is true. This is why there is such an emphasis on repeatability in science, and scientists are always quick to point out they don't prove theories. The best they can do is repeatably confirm them, and they argue that repeated confirmation allows theories to become knowledge.

Overall, I agree with you that the scientific method is the best system we have for gaining knowledge about the empirical world, but it is still a flawed system.

It seems like everybody ignored your post, but I think you raise a number of good points. The one thing I always found ironic about the scientific method is that it actually utilizes an invalid argument form (affirming the consequent). The way the scientific method is structured, it says,

1. If hypothesis A is true, B will be observed.

2. B is observed.

3. Therefore, hypothesis A is true. 

This is an invalid argument form. As a counterexample:

1. If there is fire, then there is oxygen.

2. There is oxygen

3. Therefore, there is fire.

Obviously, this is false because the presence of oxygen does not mean there is fire. In the same way, the first argument is false because the presence of B does not mean hypothesis A is true. This is why there is such an emphasis on repeatability in science, and scientists are always quick to point out they don't prove theories. The best they can do is repeatably confirm them, and they argue that repeated confirmation allows theories to become knowledge.

Overall, I agree with you that the scientific method is the best system we have for gaining knowledge about the empirical world, but it is still a flawed system.

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.