The only point that religious people should be making is that there is no way to ever prove a properly set up religion wrong, and the only point as a reaction should be that this is not a reason to value belief over what has been and continues to be an accurate model of the workings of the universe.
IMO.
All of this argument cannot achieve anything.
If the argument could be resolved then it would have already. Belief and superstition are so deeply ingrained that they are impossible to unseat. Similarly, the beauty of science is its ability to rewrite itself to be the best possible explanation of all observable phenomena. Essentially, any valid point against it will be duly recognized and incorporated. It is simply a matter of evaluating how religion and science should interact in social/legal settings.
So what you're left with is an argument over freedom vs freedom, and then there is the inevitable "my right to punch you in the nose ends at the tip of your nose."
While you can have street preachers and references to deities, you can't have them within a public infrastructure. The introduction of religion WILL cause unnecessary argument, anger, conflict. Historically it always has, in just the same way as any kind of oppression of religion. However, not incorporating religion into systems clearly otherwise directed is not oppression. It is only the case if there is an active contradiction of religion. There is no active contradiction of religion by stating what has been found under the premise of science.
So you're confident, in the face of a possibility that it might be wrong.
That's faith geniuses. Confidence is used on things that can be proven.
According to your definitions, everything is faith. The only way to prove anything is by observation, and observation is the sole root of all science. Any postulation is an offered explanation of things that are observable. The way that science differs from religion is in its beautiful step-by-step base.
