"I think you're looking at the question wrong, and your first answer tells me this.

Is there really a god? You said no. "

The first question states "is there really a god," to which I replied no. I'm looking at the question exactly as it was posed, and I answered it.

"Someone mentions evolution and now it's a fight over god or evolution. Evolution cannot tell us how life came about from NON-life. It can explain life as it is now and how it came to be as it is now, but that's something entirely different."

You and I are going to disagree on this point, and I'll explain why. Let's imagine for a second that someone discovers exactly how the beginning of the universe was created. By this I mean the actual initial creation of all energy and matter, not simply its rapid expansion as described by the big bang. Now, what properties would this discovery need to contain in order for us to label it as god rather than a scientific natural process? There would have to be some immense differing quality about it in order for us to say "this isn't simply some scientific process that we previously didn't understand, this is god." The only properties I can think of is some kind of personal relationship with humanity or some kind of intelligent act.

What exactly is an intelligent act? How do we attribute something as being intelligently done rather than simply being science? Is there an example of anything intelligently designed in the universe so far as we know it? What about personal relationships between god and humanity. In fact, the origin of humanity is the perfect thing to argue against the existence of a god, due to the perceived intelligent design attributed to it and the notion of a personal relationship between god and humanity; the last point being one of the most important points of any religion.

The problem with religion and the idea of god is that the very fundamentals of evolution goes against it. Religions are all about the relationship between god and humanity. Evolution, on the other hand, is all about the random mutations and changes that, over time, diversify life in an unknown way. Put simply, religion tells us we're special, and evolution tells us we're not. It's a fundamental reason why I believe evolution and religion are not compatible, and the reason why I argue its case so strongly in religious debates.

We happen to be extremely intelligent (well, comparitively at the moment) creatures who have the mental capacity to make up concepts such as a god, and unsuprisingly we expect these made up gods to, in some way, care about us and love us, and demonstrate purely human qualities back upon us. Unfortunately though, if we evolved, you have to accept that we're not special. We're just what happens to be here in this place and this time. In millions of years time we may have evolved further, or we may still be here; but we evolved to this point, we're in no way special, and therefore the idea that evolution can occur as we know it whilst also having a god who is personally involved in the lives of humans are conflicting.

This actually goes on to answer most of your argument. You're arguing that we simply don't know, and I understand that, but in order to attribute the things we don't know to god rather than to science, it has to display some kind of personal involvement with humanity; otherwise it's simply science we don't yet understand. From this point of view, its reasonable to dismiss the very idea of a god and feel justified in doing so.

I hope you understand the point I'm making, and I hope it allows you to think clearly and feel more confident about being able to say "we don't know what's out there" whilst also being able to say "but I know for sure it wasn't god!"

Embrace the atheism, my friend!