To continue about consciousness; also, unexplainable, is the "sense of self"
Not to confuse with the 'detection' of self, but the 'experience' of self; as in, right now you are experiencing something as yourself, and tomorow, you are still that self and are still experiencing something as yourself, your body is not simply interpreting data, as that is done without 'experience' or the feeling & perception - the experience and sense of self is unexplainable via known science. It's what you 'feel' as perception. That is what seperates the subjective experience from anything deduced by cause&effect science.

And when I say Cause & effect, I mostly mean Action reaction.  If we were to make the same assumptions 'academic' scientists do, then basically everything works via action reaction. There is no 'choice', because you are programmed(through evolution, ie dna, genes, etc) to act, process information, and react, and that's it, no free will. Going from Action-reaction mechanics to free will is impossible the way we understand things now. Conciousness/free will Can be beneficial to the being, but true free will can't spawn via evolution, if you understand the science taught. If you think that we don't really have free will, well, I guess that makes us just robots, only acting and reacting the way we're supposed to, and adapting mechanically; never 'truly' having a choice.

Just because something is unexplainable, it doesn't mean it's not evolution.

Athiests are the most untrusted group in America, even less trusted than Muslims after 9/11 (this study appeared on CNN, NBC, so it shouldnt be hard to find), and athiesm is a crime in many countries.

You're essentially asking me how do I know something that doesnt exist, doesnt exist.  Something that doesnt exist has no evidence of its non-existence, unicorns (mentioned in the Bible) do not exist so there is nothing we can find to prove it doesnt exist.  We can use what we do know, such as the law of physics, that tells us that a being with infinite energy and mass does not exist because if it did we could detect it.  Again, you could say that God resides in a different universe, but its unfounded to 'describe away' God, who was originally described as in our universe, outside of our universe.

Cause and Effect:

Not everything is a result of cause and effect, quantum physics and Heisenerg's Uncertainity Principle is well-known examle of this.  My 'free will' to choose is nothing more than an ability to think through a complex cost/benefit analysis, which on scale is the same thing a slug does when it decides which way to crawl.  And a snails ability to decide which way to crawl is a continutation of environmental responses of more simple organisms, so there is no disconnect here that you speak of.

Self:

A human has a sense of self just as a cat or bacteria has a sense of self.  A cat has a learned personality and is aware of his feelings.  A bacteria is also aware of itself, and simple chemical reactions cause the bacteria to be aware and to react.  Again, there is no disconnect.  My more complex brain just makes me much more aware of myself than a cat or bacteria are aware of themselves.

It could still be evolution, but not the current Theory of Evolution.

I don't know if slugs have free will, just like you don't. Perhaps animals have conciousness to a certain degree like we do too, I'm not denying that.

However, when it comes to what's possible to assemble considering science academically understood presently, awareness wouldn't be possible like we experience it.
We can make a robot that is programmed to receive information, analyze it, and make a course of action based on that and many other things, but there won't be any decisions, just outcomes from how it's programmed. We don't know if the slug decides to go a way, or if it's just programmed to go that way depending on the many many factors. A robot can be made to detect itself, but that form of awareness would Never reach the type of awareness that we have.
All we know is that individually we have free will. I know I have free will, and I assume that you do too.

And I agree that quantum physics isn't simple cause and effect.. and what's the say about that area by scientist? well, looks like we don't understand much about quantum physics after all. Some weird sh*t happens in that area.

"how do I know something that doesnt exist, doesnt exist."

i think it'd be more "how do I know something that I don't know wheter it exists or not, doesnt exist."

There is no evidence for God's existence, and there is no evidence for god's non-existence. What does that leave? Speculation, basically.
It's kinda useless to debate about something that is pure speculation. Speculating itself can be interesting tho.. it's just that it never really amounts to any concrete conclusion... which is fine.
If someone want's to believe something that isn't proven either way, well that's their choice, but neither I nor you can prove or disprove them... just like they can't prove themselves either. But let's not forget that sometimes we experience something that we can't replicate or cant demonstrate, then it becomes a subjective truth, that you only know true but can't prove. It's useless to try and prove something like that.. all you can do is try to put that experience in words and hope that the people you're talking to are open enough to think it's possible, but of course the other people need to experience it too in order for it to be true to them also.

As for believing. Well strong atheism is a belief, it's the belief that god does not exist, and I find it's just as unjustified as theism. However you can be agnostic-leaning atheist (weak atheism) and that just means that you have a penchant that there's no god but remain open to other possibilities until one way or another is proven... it's a bit more logical when no evidence for either side exists. There's nothing wrong for not siding on a side, it's the best way of being both receptive and logical.

One thing i don't like about almost all religions have some kind of hell. There is a reason why: They want to keep you scared with a thread that if you leave the religion you will burn in hell forever! That maybe the biggest reasons why evolution is rejected because it's not evidence(evolution has too much evidence to be disproven)

 Yes. If they need to induce fear in order to make you join, then you know there's something wrong.

The problem they have with evolution is that it goes against the only document that seems to remotely give their 'god' credence.

You can't disprove evolution at this point, but you can prove that it's not entirely right... or I should say, the theory surrounding the mechanics of evolution.

Some religions and religious documents do bear some interesting wisdom though. You just have to take what you associate with, and leave what doesn't.

I think anyone who's interested in spirituality but don't want to deal with stupid sh*t like religions do, should look into Buddism.

So by your logic, you absolutely know there is no way there is any life on other planets because it can't be seen or proven. Just because you can't see something, or prove it exists, doesn't mean it does not.

Subjectively provable??  How do you know you're not just choosing to believe you have free will because it is more attractive?  How the heck do you subjectively prove something anyway? 

I think I disagree with your explanation of cause/effect absoluteness in evolution, but I have to go to work so I'll look at it more later.