I have observed atheists state that they reject religion because there is no scientific evidence to support the claims that religions make. Taking this point of view assumes that the scientific view-point is the only valid method to observe, define or otherwise deal with reality. I prefer to look at science and religion as two distinct tools that can be used for this purpose.
Following the scientific method has without question led advances in technology and in understanding the physical properties of the universe. But science only deals with that which can be measured. It seems that many scientists make the assumption that because religious concepts cannot be measured they cannot, therefore, be true.
I think this misses the point of religion. The universe contains that which is known and that which is unknown. For better or worse humanity (or at least a significant segment of humanity) is interested in that which is unknown. Science addresses this interest on the material level. But there is another segment of humanity that is not satisfied with addressing the unknown on the material level alone.
There are many things that cannot be measured that clearly exist; beauty and love for example. True, they can be measured in certain ways such as taking surveys on how many people think something is beautiful or not. But such a measurement is so far removed from the actual experience of beauty and love that it can never truly be informative of the experience.
Religion, it seems to me, is a way of addressing these unmeasurable unknowns and coming into relation with them through the experience of ritual, symbolism and sacred texts.
According to this way of thinking, one must conclude that one religion is as good as any other as long as the practitioner feels a valid emotional, connection to it. Connections of this sort usually occur when a person is brought up practicing a specific religion and their energy has bonded to the symbology and ritual practices. People attached to a particular religion might not want to agree with this point of view. Believing the religion one practices is the one true faith embodies it with a certain power that it would not otherwise have. This belief (I think) is ultimately based on ego and shame. It says my religion is better than your religion.
In the same respect, this point of view often comes forth when atheists argue with religious people. Such discussions often devolve into a battle of shame egos. This is not unique to arguments about religion. Arguments about politics follows this path as well. The argument itself has nothing to do with which appreciation of reality is correct but rather is about who is better at making the other feel foolish. This is clearly revealed when those who argue become, sarcastic, shaming, angry or flustered. Such a reaction displays that a person’s shame has been touched and they either feel shame themselves or are trying to make their opponent feel ashamed.