Is God Disproven, therefore making religion obsolete?

The conversation below is between me and an interesting person on reddit. 

 He/she goes by 0hypothesis and you may find the link here: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/2qg7r4/science_and_religion_are_not_at_odds/cn62nmf

Ohypothesis took apart an answer I gave him/her and then challenged or questioned my answers.  

 Below you will find:

1.       What I shared in a previous discourse

2.       His/her challenge or question

3.       My response to his/her challenge or question

This dialogue is about whether or not all people are religious and if religion has value or is a tool.

1. What I get as value is an understanding of my fellow man. I learn other peoples perspective. I can learn why other people believe, or behave a certain way.  What is more, though it cannot be empirically proven, I have the possibility of finding something that makes sense and gives purpose.

You said: Although you might say that it makes sense and gives purpose to you, you have no rational basis for adjudicating whatever conclusions you reach over other ones other people reach. Unless you can demonstrate that mechanism. Can you?

This is what my goal is… to get people to think.  I have no desire to try to make people believe as I do.  Every human believes, has faith in what they believe, and cannot prove what they believe empirically about the topics of how and why we are here.  I know I will never be able to prove empirically but none can disprove either.  And none can prove their beliefs empirically.

2.Now this goes far beyond religion. Let me say that if it is the case that there is a God, and he does want relationship with His creation, it does not matter what religion an individual is, all that matters is how the creator revealed. Thus religion becomes man’s individual attempt at explaining his belief system which may or may not include a god. Those who think it does not include a god still reach to something outside themselves as the "why" behind their beliefs and therefore still have belief in a supreme something they prefer to not call god, but is god none the less.

You said: So, your logic chain starts with the idea that a god does exist--a form of presuppositionalism. The rest of course works then, but you've just assumed that point. In which case these do go beyond religion. You're just assuming it does. This is not a valid form of argument. You need to start with proving a god in order to do this. I'm not going to ask you to, but I'm just saying that this form of argument is not valid.

Everyone makes assumptions about origins.  If it is not my God then it is another god, which includes the universe/multiverse god.  No one can say they are the origin of everything and therefore they are god.  My contention is that all have a god whether they call God, God or not.  Even atheists have a god if they attempt to explain origins.  If they choose to not attempt to explain origins they cannot truly be atheists.  How can they say I do not believe in God without saying I believe in…. and then put whatever they believe in.  Agnostics can say I am not certain.  But they too lean one way or another.

3.So, religion has taught me that I can logically grapple with metaphysical concepts of love and hate, good and evil. These things actually make sense and do not have to be subjected to individual interpretation and meanings. They are objective truth if there is a God.

You said: You've talked about this topic a lot. Although you've said that it does this for you, I'm still confused as to what mechanism you use to do this grappling. What chain of logic--since you said above that you are logically grappling with it--did you use to reach unique and necessary conclusions about love, hate, good, evil, and god? And can you tell other people that have reached different conclusions that they are incorrect, and substantiate why? If not, what use is this?

One great example is this.  If binary code grew a consciousness and the 1 said there is no human and the 0 said I think humans must exist, how else did we get here?  Both can logically argue their positions similar to how we humans do but both positions are not correct.  But again, I know that people who believe other things can come up with different ideas to validate their points.  As I have stated over and over again… my goal is never to prove why my point is more correct then their point.  If that were possible it would have been done long before me.  My point is to get people to think.  And for them to recognize we are on an equal playing field, but both of us cannot be right.

4. I can call pedophilia wrong absolutely and not question whether it really is wrong or just that most people do not prefer to be pedophiles. The list can go on and on and on and on and on.
The reality is that without religion, or the understanding that we all have to address these issues, which makes us religious, i would never know these things are wrong. But you may argue that I can look to myself and see that they are wrong. Yes and no... what of the pedophile who looks to himself and thinks it is okay? This term wrong becomes a subjective meaningless term that is dependent upon an individuals preference instead of absolute truth.

You said: So why do you think that morality must be supernatural to be valid? Reason-based morality has been around for longer than many organized religions including even Christianity. Have you studied it at all?

All I have said is that morality has to come from a higher source for it to be valid.  If it does not come from a higher source then it is subjective and dependent upon individual interpretation.  I think it is more logical to believe this higher source to be God, rather than evolution as god, but I cannot prove that empirically.  

5.An honest search for truth has to be religious. If it were not we would not be asking enough of the right questions concerning the meaning to life and good or evil, and rightness or wrongness etc... etc... etc...
Science cannot give us these answers unless, of course, we decide to make science an religion. As you looked at my blog you see where I am coming from.

You said: I disagree with this assertion than an honest search for truth must be religious. You are just calling certain lines of inquiry religious. Now, I haven't limited my tools to scientific ones, which are confined to empirical questions. I also use critical thinking and logic. And, for that matter, an understanding of politics and even literature. And especially discourse. But the lines of inquiry itself about morality and good and evil does not make it automatically religious. Those topics are appropriated by religion. I believe so that those in power at the time could dictate their answers to those questions and say that it "came from god(s)". But considering that the answers to moral questions many religions come up with sound like the ravings of Iron or Bronze age war-tribes, it's pretty clear that they are not timeless answers to those questions, but rather an attempt at the answer based on what rather fallible people believed at the time.
As I've said repeatedly here, I do not see how "religious tools" come up with distinct answers that let me decide between religious answers, so it doesn't seem different than imagination and textual analysis of whichever the person's favorite holy book is. Is it more than this? And if so, can you explain the mechanism so that I can use it too?

You can disagree but you do it anyway.  Everyone is religious.  Do you have opinions about love and hate, good and evil?  Show me love and hate and not just the acts of these things.  Show me good and show me evil and not just actions.  If you have ever had an opinion about what these things are you are religious.
Below is a list of 25 different definitions of religion.  Just because you do not agree with a definition as being correct does not make your one or two definitions of religion all encompassing.  But every human being fits in one or more of these definitions.

1.    The human search for ultimate meaning in life. A quest for and response to ultimacy.

2.    The quest for the values of the ideal life and for the means of achieving them, including a world view that relates this quest to the surrounding universe.

3.    "A set of symbolic forms and acts which relate man to the ultimate condition of his existence." (Robert Bellah)

4.    A specific system of belief in God, doctrines, etc. God’s relation to humanity and the universe.

5.    A set of rituals which transform the state of man. Rituals which are rationalized and confirmed by sacred myths. A supernatural power behind the ritual brings the transformation.

6.    The feeling of absolute dependence. A sense and taste for the infinite. (F. Schleiermacher)

7.    An exploration in self-discovery.

8.    "What an individual does with his solitariness" (Alfred North Whitehead)

9.    "A person’s ultimate concern" (Paul Tillich)

10.  "A system of beliefs and practices directed to the ultimate concern of society."

11.  A personalized set or institutional system of beliefs and practices pertaining to the supernatural. (Supernatural: An order of existence beyond human experience and observation)

12.  Belief in invisible superhuman power together with feelings and practices that flow from such a belief.

13.  Humanity encountering what is authentically real and unconditionally important.

14.  "[The seeking] of divine truth, exploring who we are, why we’re here, and how we should live." (Joel Beversluis, ed., Sourcebook of the world’s Religions)

15.  Ways of interpreting life and ways of living.

16.  Belief about reality and living in accord with that belief.

17.  The search for the "more" of life; questioning, seeking truth.

18.  The ultimate sense that people give to their existence.

19.  The betterment of yourself and the betterment of the world you live in.

20.  A set of beliefs and practices designed to improve the nature of oneself.

21.  A means to ultimate transformation.

22.  A way to understand this experience that we call "life"

23.  Religion is the journey of life whereupon individuals attempt to achieve the highest possible good by adjusting their lives to the strongest and most magnificent power in the universe.

24.  A set of beliefs and practices which serve to subordinate us to something superior or holy in order to justify the events that control our lives 

25.  A person’s journey within themselves and within society on a search for truth, love, community, and "holy connection".

You said: Well, first, I don't see that you have any actual answers above. You've just said that you use religion--without specifying a particular religion--to answer questions. An answer for what question in particular?

As I have already addressed… though I believe strongly my blog is not to try to beat others into believing as I do but to get them to think.  I believe these topics are very important.  Anyone who does not desire to engage in the topic with me does not have to.  Notice not many are getting in on the conversation.  And I do think I have answered why religion as a tool is a tool that has use just as science is a tool that has use.

So are you going to keep asking questions or start answering some to defend a position?