Show me a religion with logic as its basis rather than some inflexible demand to accept a set of unsubstantiated beliefs and I'll reconsider my view of that particular ideology.

And if someone has some belief in a "God" of some definition, the definition of that God would seem to be relevant, wouldn't it?

Define "God".  Then we'll talk.  Until you do, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Never mind all the scientists in the world that believe in a god and still seem to function just fine.

He didn't say anything about them.  You seem to be equating religion to fundamentalist christianity.  Which is wrong.
  So if you were hiring an archaeology team for a dig of hominid fossils, and someone came up to you and said they wanted the job, they knew their history, and another person wanted the job who believed that the world was 6000 years old and insists that there is no evolution, who would you hire?

Yes, there are religious scientists, but they are not fundamentalists.  Remember, Darwin was trying to become a priest.

And did you just argue that science proved there is no god? It sounds like that is what you are getting at.
No, he didn't.  I have no idea where you came up with that.

One thing that I did notice in your post though (and this is not an attack, I'm just pointing out something that you might not have noticed before) is that you anthropomorphized science.  I've done it before too.  We have to remember that science is not a person, it does not have whims, it doesn't make decisions.  It is also not a system of beliefs, which is how some other people seem to think of it.  It is a tool, nothing more.  If used correctly (and there are plenty of people who do not use it correctly) it can be used to learn some truly amazing things.  Because of this I think our human nature is to approach it with some kind of awe.  But we must remember that science (or more specifically the scientific method) was "created" by humans (so was religion!).  It was brought about by people as a way to apply reason and logic to try to come up with rules/concepts/theories to explain phenomena in the natural world.

I believe this is also how religion began.  Some ancient tribe sees some lightning one night strike a tree near their camp.  They didn't have the tools to figure out what that phenomenon represented.  So they invent a deity (individually or by fiat) that must have done it, and pretty soon you have Zeus.  Then along comes other un-explainable phenomena and you get other deities, like Helios, Yaweh, Allah, etc.

Where these two ways of looking at the natural world differ however is their approach to learning the truth.  With religion, generally the truth is just made up.  It works better if it is self-consistent with the other beliefs, but this is not a requirement because of the nature of deities.  If you apply science to learn the truth about a phenomenon, you don't have that luxury and if it isn't consistent with your other scientific beliefs, thats a big red-flag.  You make a theory (a best guess using what you already know about the natural world) and then devise a way to test that theory.  You say to yourself, "I think A is caused by B".  Then apply logic, "If A is caused by B, then I would expect C if I looked here".  Then if you do not find C when doing your experiment, this means your theory was probably flawed (or your experiment) you should consider your findings and come up with a new theory.  If you do find C however, this does not mean that you have come up with the truth, you have just come up with a good way to describe the truth.

A great example of this is Gravity.  Newton's theory on gravity lasted quite a long time, and it does an excellent job of describing most phenomena that have something to do with gravity.  Then along came Einstein and he proposed a theory for how gravity worked that got the same results as Newton's theory in most cases.  So why is Einstein's theory better?  Because his was able to explain the natural world better.  Among other things, his theory said that light's path would be bent by the gravity of a star, Newton's didn't.  They were able to do an experiment, and Einstein's theory was supported (not proved) so his theory is said to better represent reallity.  We have to remember that this is still just a theory, not THE TRUTH.

Well I've done it again, I've put the entire forum to sleep with my long-winded ramblings.  In conclusion, I'll just say that I see religion as something like wisdom teeth in people.  It was useful for what it did in the ancient past, but we have gotten to the point where we don't need it anymore.

We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.

I saw nothing in his response that I would consider an attack. (although this might actually be one)

 Why do religious nuts always seem to assume an attack when you point out facts? I think it's because they know (way down in the depths of there subconscious) that they are trying to defend fairy tails with no evidence to support them, so when an atheist comes at there beliefs with the big stick of logic, and all they have is naked belief, they see it as an attack.

Would you say I was attacking a flat earthier when I give the evidence why I believe the earth is round? Would you say I was attacking someone who believed that the stork brought babies instead of fertilization?

We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.