Has Science Refuted Religion?

Let me first start off by saying that I don't wish to offend anyone's beliefs, as you might strongly concur with the idea of a god. I also do not wish to portray any sort of pretentious attitude as if I know, and you don't, because one of the main points I would like to bring up is that no one truly knows. I can't just say that "I believe in the Gerflagenflopple, you cannot prove that it does not exist, so it exist."

Now, why has it always been correct to put faith into something we truly know nothing of, since we cannot comprehend anything beyond us? Let us all face it, there hasn't been any evidence of any sort of supreme being that has created us; if there were no humans, or anyone that can critically think on this planet, then the idea of a god would never exist in the first place. Naturally, like anything else in the world, if something cannot be proven correct, it should not be thought of as correct.
Religion originates far back when science couldn't prove much, meaning we resulted in faith, and made assumptions that made the world much more easier to understand. Any form of universal religion that has survived today is based upon a time where scientific truth was uninformed. Thus, why should we still hold onto these ideologies that came from one these primitive religions e.g. a deity created us, and the universe, and we should worship this deity, and so on.
I'd also like to look at the other side of the argument; Let's say there a god, there is no evidence of him, but in this circumstance there is definitely a god. Still no one knows truly of the god, some do BELIEVE in him, others do not, but no one truly knows. So why should this god get mad at the people who don't believe in him? If this god creates a universe and leaves no evidence of him/herself, why should he expect people to believe in him? So back to reality, were there is no certainty, yet we are in the same circumstance. Why should some supreme being punish those who do not believe in him, when this supreme being leaves no reason for the people to believe in him? Maybe this is just the god's test, but then again we wouldn't know, and the truth of a god existing or not is just 50-50.

TL:DR Why should we put faith into something as important as the creation of everything? Anything that big in discussion shouldn't be assumed, and instead pondered upon, and only the things that can be proven, that work with everything else, should be regarded as truth. Any other mystery in life that isn't explainable yet shouldn't be assumed as the works of a god. I'm sorry if I made anyone with little tolerance to the subject offended, but we must be open-minded about things that we just don't know.

Let me first start off by saying that I don't wish to offend anyone's beliefs (not holding my breath), as you might strongly concur with the idea of a god (not "a god" but God < singular). I also do not wish to portray any sort of pretentious attitude as if I know, and you don't, because one of the main points I would like to bring up is that no one truly knows. I can't just say that "I believe in the Gerflagenflopple, you cannot prove that it does not exist, so it exist." < so what's your point ?

Now, why has it always been correct to put faith into something we truly know nothing of (we're talking 3D not 2D), since we cannot comprehend anything beyond us? Let us all face it, there hasn't been any evidence of any sort of supreme being that has created us (< no not with your head in the sand); if there were no humans, or anyone that can critically think on this planet, then the idea of a god would never exist in the first place. Naturally, like anything else in the world, if something cannot be proven correct, it should not be thought of as correct (okay you're boring me).
Religion originates far back when science couldn't prove much, meaning we resulted in faith ( < as in atheism ? ), and made assumptions that made the world much more easier to understand. Any form of universal religion that has survived today is based upon a time where scientific truth was uninformed ( < until DNA ). Thus, why should we still hold onto these ideologies that came from one these primitive religions e.g. a deity created us, and the universe, and we should worship this deity, and so on (< um, because since DNA discovered science now proves that all life derives from an intelligent source).
I'd also like to look at the other side of the argument; Let's say there a god, there is no evidence of him ( < sure there is), but in this circumstance there is definitely a god. Still no one knows truly of the god ( not my fault you know nothing) , some do BELIEVE in him, others do not, but no one truly knows. So why should this god get mad at the people who don't believe in him? (see Romans 1) If this god creates a universe and leaves no evidence of him/herself, why should he expect people to believe in him? So back to reality, were there is no certainty, yet we are in the same circumstance. Why should some supreme being punish those who do not believe in him, (because you are without excuse) when this supreme being leaves no reason for the people to believe in him? Maybe this is just the god's test, but then again we wouldn't know, and the truth of a god existing or not is just 50-50.

Why should we put faith into something as important as the creation of everything? ( < so be it unto you, no one forcing you to) Anything that big in discussion shouldn't be assumed, and instead pondered upon, and only the things that can be proven (science can only observe the 2D it has no ability to touch the 3D), that work with everything else, should be regarded as truth. Any other mystery in life that isn't explainable yet shouldn't be assumed as the works of a god. I'm sorry if I made anyone with little tolerance to the subject offended (< so skin off my nose, you;re the one running toward Hell), but we must be open-minded about things that we just don't know (< no demonstration of an open mind here)