Athiesm doesn't work

Intelligent people, including scientists and philosophers, have reasoned for the existence of God.  While it's easy to see their self-justification and rationalization (Aquinas, Chesterton, Sartre, Kant, Pascal), they really are basing their views on belief and faith.  The same with all followers of theistic religions.  Even if one can affirm that no God or afterlife or supernatural exists, there is the sense of emptiness and lacking in a life with no written purpose or directed goal from some superior all-knowing being.  Thus people feel that "it can't hurt" to believe in something anyway, in hopes that that belief will lead to a better afterlife (Pascal's wager).  Many people feel an intrinsic need to be looked after by something greater or have some absolute laws that are unquestionable, putting faith in this authority like a dog would to his owner.  Without a master, humans are lost, empty, and find no purpose.  So religion just "feels good" even if it becomes  proven as illogical.  Besides, what else can prayer, hymns, cathedrals, and complicated ceremonies with special titles and clothing dedicated to a higher glory or state of being be used for, when nothing is there?  Humans hate to worship humanity for its own sake.  Even believing that we create our own laws and morals implies that nothing is absolutely right, as long as we are just simple biological creatures on a life supporting rock for a limited period of time.  Humans have a hard time accepting their uncontrolled, unmonitored position, and put faith in something even if there is proof it doesn't exist, in order to justify that their spiritual bases will be covered "just in case it exists."  It's easy to say God doesn't exist.  It's harder for most people to believe it.     

>>59
In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis. That is, it:
is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense;
is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct;
makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory;
is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for changes to be made as new data is discovered, rather than asserting certainty, and
is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing the Ockham's razor test.

This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, evolution, etc. Theories considered scientific meet at least most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; those that meet only several criteria, or none at all, cannot be said to be scientific in any meaningful sense of the word.