An Attempt At Organizing My Philosophy
All right. I, as a person, cannot stop religion/science squabbling. What I can do, however, is lay out my own views on the matter, and hope I've done so in a way that makes sense.
First: I must tell you, and emphasize, that I hold your opinion to be valid and valuable if you have thought it through carefully. That is a very big "if". For example, religious faith that you hold because the preacher said so, because the sacred text of choice said so, or out of fear is useless. So is reactionary atheism--that is, you are an atheist because something bad happened to you, because religious people have mistreated you, et cetera. I know people who believe in God 'because the Bible said so'. I know atheists who claim atheism because religious people have "been mean to them". I know a woman who claims to be an atheist because her mother died--no, dear, you're not an atheist, you're a grieving woman who is angry at the God you still believe in deep down, and are trying to 'get back at him'. None of these have put any real thought into these beliefs, and so they're not so much believers as parrots.
Second: Science and faith. They are not mutually exclusive--but neither are they meant to be mingled. Faith must not interfere with science, and the truly faithful do not allow science to interfere with their faith--they only recognize that the laws of science indicate that the particular myths of their chosen religion are not always correct. The fact that science and faith are not mixed leads to another thing that seems obvious to me: you cannot use natural law to prove or disprove that which transcends nature. There are religious people who believe a sunset proves God exists. No. It proves that the sun and particles in the atmosphere exist, though you can say what you like about an evolutionarily useless ability to appreciate beauty. They will also say that the occasional case of spontaneous recovery from seemingly hopeless illness proves God exists. No. It proves that there are facets of the human mind and body that we do not yet understand. Similarly, atheists will claim that the proof of evolution and the fossil records prove that God does not exist. No. It proves that God did not create the world in seven days(substitute any religious creation story you like). There are phenomena that are still not explained by science; perhaps someday they will be, but perhaps they won't. If it is truly supernatural, then natural law does not apply, and there is no proving or disproving. Belief or disbelief, therefore, is reduced to a question of personal choice, not of intellect, and no one has a right to criticize another's choice in the matter. You've thought long and hard and decided you don't believe in God? Good for you! You've thought long and hard and decided you do believe? Good for you! You've thought long and hard and decided take the agnostic stance of 'it can't be known'? Good for you! Just don't be a jerk, share your beliefs calmly and with understanding, listen to those you want to listen to you, shut up if asked, and keep debates civilized. (Curiously, the peculiar irrationality of "science disproves the supernatural" is clung to most fiercely by those who claim to be completely rational. I have far more respect for the agnostic, or the atheist who is certain he is right yet open to the possibility of being wrong, than I do the "science proves my stance" crowd.)
Third: religious texts. They were written by humans with agendas, translated by humans with agendas, and interpreted by humans with agendas. Say what you like about 'inspired by an infallible God'--the fact remains, humans wrote this down, humans are fallible, and in any of these texts you can find passages that are self-contradictory or utterly wrong. The Bible, Torah, and Qur'an are all rife with the immorality their adherents claim to eschew. What's that you say? It's not fair to judge the texts by modern standards? Yes it is--it's completely fair. After all, we judge and condemn geocentric theory based on modern findings. This is no different. This isn't to say that the texts contain no good ideas--they have some very good ones. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", for instance. They are not, however, Life's Little Instruction Book, and I fear and pity those who live by them. Faith in an idea is one thing. Faith in stories thousands of years old is another entirely.
Fourth: similarities among different traditions. Look at them. They're fascinating. Let's start with, say, Christianity and Hinduism. Different, right? Monotheistic versus polytheistic, Heaven versus reincarnation. But let's dig deeper. Look beneath all the cults and sects of Hinduism, to the core, the original, the purest version. You find that there is ONE god, who takes on different aspects(Kali, Ganesh, et al)in order to interact with humans in the way that they best understand and that is best suited to the situation. Sounds quite a lot like angels and the Holy Trinity, don't you think? Then--the reincarnation issue. Keep being good, basically, and you are reincarnated into better and better lives until you achieve perfection and are reunited with the Godhead. On the other side, be a good and faithful believer, and your conditions improve until... you are reunited with God! Hmmmm. (Jesus and Buddha, by the way? Same guy, different regional trappings. Read Living Buddha, Living Christ by Thich Nhat Hanh if you're interested in such things beyond putting up with my rambling.) In the end, you are given the choice between (A)something is going on, and different regional quirks get attached to it, or (B)there's something to the theory of collective consciousness.
Lastly, afterlife, if any. It is determined by morality, not what you believe as far as spirits, angels, invisible old men in the sky, and so on. Morality. Religious, spiritual, agnostic, or atheist, morality is the key. The religious will leap from there to "but where does morality come from?" It comes from common sense--from being able to say "I don't like it when people do this to me, so I won't do it to them either". What you do with the fact that feelings can be hurt as well as bodies, with the fact that we have emotion and feeling as opposed to being completely rational creatures focussed only on survival, is up to you--and I respect your views on that. Morality and respect, my friends--make whatever informed, thought-out choices you will as far as belief, unbelief, and not knowing, be open to being wrong, and respect other's choices as you do their other human rights. That's all anyone should ask of anyone.
It's too bad human nature makes this so hard.
Sorry for the boring ramble. Feel free to argue--just be civil.