Exposing the flaws in how the scientific community works doesn't prove anything. The scientific method is still sound. The fact that some scientist refuse to admit the falsehoods in their own theories in light of new evidence, doesn't detract from what scientific community achieves as a whole, nor does it improve your position. Furthermore, organized religion would be hard pressed to provide a better system of uncovering facts. You offer criticism with no solutions. Very helpful indeed.

Understand this. People are very critical of new ideas unless adequate evidence is provided. Like a court case for example. The theist believes in one more thing than the atheist. The atheist believes in the physical universe (everything that exists anywhere), while the theist also believes in this physical universe plus God. Therefore, it the theist that must justify his viewpoint, not the responsibility of the atheist to explain why he doesn't believe. Imagine a court case where one side was asked to produce evidence of why he didn't think that the accused commited the crime (ie. prove yourself innocent). Such would be a circular farce without end (which I fear is what this debate has come to).