There is too much simplistic argumentation about religion by self professed atheists in this thread. It is like hearing Mullah Jamaluddin at the local Madarssa speaking his mind on the virtues of idolatorous hinduism.
You can't judge something properly unless you have lived it, according to its own methods. It is easy to pass judgements on something alien by one's own set of rules of judgement. Even amongst the religious, definitive comments are made by people of one religion about another without actually having spent enough effort in understanding the other religion from its own viewpoint. Such "polarised" views are utterly uselss if the goal is to evolve an integral understanding. Unless of course, the Ayatollahs of a certain polarised nook, "believe" that there is nothing to adhere to but their own pet version.
As Sri Aurobindo said, there are two kinds of denials, the denial of the materialist that denies anything spiritual, and the denial of ascetic that denies anything material, and both hardly ever meet. He also said that there is a middle ground between these two denials.
If this continues, then this thread will stay at one extreme of atheism/rationalism/science judging religion from outside and not from inside. Incidentally the dynamics of religion is about how the insiders of the religion view themselves and their religion. The view of the outsiders is only peripheral to this dynamics.
Also lets not be lose with terms like "faith", "religion" etc. Faith is the core of only the faith based religions. Hinduism is not primarily faith based. It is primarily "jnana" (gnosis) based. To give an example, a statement by Jesus Christ in the Bible "I and my father are one", arose from a personal experience and has several counterparts in Hindu Upanishads too. But in Christianity that claim is made exclusive to the point that Jesus Christ becomes the ONLY son of god capable of having that experience, and faith is needed to accept that. In contrast an identical experience by some Hindu sages, is immediately generalized to say that any one can have that experience, (and have the jnana (gnosis), no need for faith), therefore a general statement is made that "Self is God". Same experience by a sage or avatar can lead to different religious doctrines depending upon whether the religion emphasizes faith or gnosis.
I have also seen a few comments about "scientific proof". Lets be clear that science doesn't prove, it only disproves (Carl Popper's falsifiability criterion.) Similarly science can't claim that God doesn't exist because then science would have to actually "prove" that God doesn't exist. I am all ears to hear the wise men here who can tell me whether such a proof exists.
The simplistic nature of this attitude can be easily seen in the example of electromagnetic waves. Before Maxwell science had no clue one way or other that such a beast existed. If some typical high-brow scientist then actually made a claim that electromagnetic waves don't exist because science hasn't seen them then that would be absurd In fact there are many example of such absurd claims made by scientists. One example that comes to mind is of Lord Kelvin, who had "proved" that an object heavier than air can't fly through air.
So lets get this clear :
(i)Science is in the business of "disporoving". It takes its statements only as provisional truths and tries desperately to disprove those provisional truths through continuous experimentation. It cannot prove, it can only disprove.
(ii) Science can't claim that it is the sole depository of all truths. It can only claim that it is a depository of some falsifiable claims.
(iii) Religions may have some handle on those truths which are currently outside the scope of science. In hinduism the handle is provided by the practice of Yoga. You follow the way, you will see, is the claim.
The real thing we should be concentrated on is the "truth", not whether something is scientific or not . It is great if both can be matched all the time, but lets remember that they are two different beasts and can have their own pasteurs. For example if tomorrow a "truth" is dicovered which pokes a gaping hole in the principle of causality, then the science as we know will collapse, but truth won't.
On the topic of "proofs" it is well known that "scientific proofs" for religious claims are not available. But the "worth" of a claim are not exhausted by showing it to be outside science (irrespective of how some narcissistic scientists may claim
). Honesty demands that one tries a method according to its rules before dismissing it as worthless. In this vein I am going to mention the examples of two rather well known Hindu gurus. May be that will help in goading people to do their own bit of experimentation rather than sitting on their muladharas and passing judgements.
If people want to study "experiential" side of hinduism through an intellectal perspective, I would ask them to devote some time to study a fellow Jingo, Sri Aurobindo
He had demanded total independence, suggested passive resistance as a means to fight the British long before Gandhi came on the scene, and was wrongfully jailed in a bombing case, although he was involved with the revolutionaries. But he was also a yogi (besides a scholar of sanskrit, latin, greek, french, english...), and during his solitary confinement he had a Krishna-experience" lasting several days, which turned him completely towards yoga, and rest of his life he spent on that. His writing is the most "intellectually compelling" I have seen on the topic and all based on his first hand experiences.
If you want to see a real live example, then spend some time around Mata Amritanandamayi. I used to be hard-boiled atheist too. Then I slowly turned into a vedantist of a theoretical bend and read and theorized one and everything from original sanskrit to latest physics. It all went "observational cum experimental" when I spent some time around Mata Amritanandamayi. In her I have seen all the things that Hindu scriptures have talked about regarding a global reach of consciousness, wisdom and will. Every time I am around her, it seems like I am near a huge source of a field of concentrated wisdom (physicist types, please try to imagine a field of negentropy, where highly improbable events can easily happen). Coincidences abound, flouting all rules of random chance. I couldn't be convinced, given that I am a doubting physicist myself, unless I had actually seen it for myself, and more. She typically spends more than 15 hours a day, in full public view sitting on a single chair, never getting up or taking a moment's break, receiving people who come for her darshan, blessing them, listening to them, advising them. I haven't seen any figure who spends as public a life as her. I have seen her get up after such an 18 hour long ordeal, and looking as fresh as ever! And this is her daily routine. In India during some busy sessions, she has gone full 24 hours. Even her official business regarding her charities gets conducted right there, while someone is getting a darshan, you can see somone going over details of hospital equipments on the side, Amazing capacity for endurance and multitasking, for a human body!! And all done in an atmosphere of childlike happiness.