It would be pointless to try to offer evidential proof to support the core propositions of religion. The whole point of religion is faith: the commitment of an individual to beliefs that are inherently unprovable, but which provide a guide to social practice in day to day life. This, in essence, is the opposite side of the coin to the proposition: science can tell you everything there is to know about the universe, except how one should live in it.
By saying this, I am not stating that we all must have religious beliefs in order to fill the existential gap in our lives. That, I think, would be unauthentic. However, I would suggest that religious faith is one answer to basic moral and social questions that people sometimes turn to, and as such provides great value. This route does not assert rational answers; just internally coherent ones. There are other routes, ethics being one.
Atheism, in the form of sets of negative beliefs about religion, can be equally irrational at times, since it spends most of its energy mixing scientific thinking into the non-scientific religious domain, and in the process missing the whole point: faith needs no proof, and is therefore outside of science’s reach. Atheism punches at clouds.
It therefore seems to me that those who are not adherents of a faith, rationally have only one option: to understand the nature of religion as cultural practice, wherein its propositions are purely symbolic. Treated in any other manner, religious propositions become incomprehensible (hence my long-established ignosticism… sic).