No evidence supports religion at all.

Atheists reject theism.

They don't reject faith.

This is not a discussion on terms, grammar and wording. Or rather, it is... and it shouldn't be.

My request still stands: could any religious adherent who stumbles across this thread please provide reliable evidence to support their particular belief system.

I dunno. As an atheist I can say that I live my life assuming that he doesn't exist but I can't be certain that he doesn't exist. That's just how I interpreted the evidence. Most athiests I know feel the same. Agnostics haven't made a decision either way. They don't follow religion but they don't say that it's wrong either. They abstaiin.

You're the one who keeps trying to incorrectly define the words atheist and agnostic. If you don't want it to be about the definitions of words.... don't use them

To conclude this grammatical disagreement, since it is getting off subject, agnosticism literally means 'not knowing'. I classify my self as an agnostic, since I do not know the nature of God's existence, nor does anyone. There is no conclusive evidence on the subject. If atheism literally means 'not theism', then agnosticism falls into the decidedly broad category of atheism. But if an atheist is considered to be a person who believes with certainty that God does not exist, then that means atheism is an unfounded belief, like theism. If they do not belive with certainty, then they do not know - they are agnostic.

Actually agnosticism can fall under athiestic and theistic. There are different types of agnostic.

I do agree religion is a private matter which is why I get annoyed sometimes by these threads. Most of the religious people I know DONT ram is down peoples throats. I don;t. I don;t expect you to do the same.
You know what else is metaphysical though? Defence mechanisms, emotions, faith itself is metaphysical. It's just one of those things you will never be able to prove. The simple asnwer to this thread is that you cannot and never will be able to prove for certain a religion is correct becasue the evidence cannot be directly observed, it is not replicable and you can not run experiments on it.

As I have said already, I do not consider certain beliefs to be enshrined in the sanctuary of religion, and that criticising them is some kind of taboo. If someone else believes something which seems logically absurd, it should rightly face logical criticism. 'Ramming it down people's throats' is certainly an open way of forcing of religion on other people, but it is usually dismissed. More subtle practices, such as the indoctrination of children into their family's religion from the moment they are born, is something which happens invariably in religious societies, and failing to question it would be extremely apathetic, when you consider the implications it has for 80% of Earth's population.

Yet again, 'religion' is seen as synonymous with theism. Theism, at its barest definition, is the belief that God exists. This is completely non-specific, and is not necessarily clothed in religious doctrines and practices. My point in this thread is that religious belief systems, with their specific descriptions of God, God's will, and mythology, are fallible. The concept of God itself is a metaphysical one which is beyond rational discussion, but no world religion is supported by strong logical evidence with regards to the claims they make on the nature of God and other beliefs.

Perhaps it is worth noting Kierkegaard's remark that without being irrational, religion could not be a matter of faith. I would challenge this by questioning whether faith is good in and of itself, or is merely considered virtuous by religious people due to memetics.