Let me begin by saying I am surprised at all the things that we agree on:
1. Yes, you were correct as to my definition of truth, that is, "what is 'real'". The question, therefore, which I posed can be restated as, "How do we determine what is real?". The main point of my post, however, was simply that science is not the only way to determine what is real. Science cannot deal with certain things. You rejected the love claim. I am not sure that I agree with your analysis, but for the sake of the argument, another example of what science cannot speak to is ethics. It is always and has always been wrong to commit murder (note that I said murder, not kill). That is an "absolute truth", that is, a truth at all times and in all places. It is a truth, however, about which science has nothing to say.
Science relies entirely on empiricism. According to science, the only things that are real are those that we are able to touch, feel, see, and smell. Empiricism is a valid route to discover truth, at least most of the time (we can always think of times when our senses have failed us). Empiricism is not foolproof, however, and it is not all encompassing. My only point is that it seems to me the atheism relies too heavily on empiricism and does not allow for truth being arrived by any other method.
Will you agree that the scientific method is not the only source of discovering truth?
2. I am thankful that you do not object to my argument that it is false to say that there is no God because He cannot be necessarily proven via the scientific method. I believe, however, that this is a common position among atheists.
3. We also agree that religion does make claims that can be scientifically proven. I do, however, reject your example about proving "energy being release upon dying because I have never seen or heard any such claim by Christianity. Currently I cannot think of an example, but I do think that Christianity probably makes some claims that are provable via the scientific method.
4. You are correct that I am attempting to "have my cake and eat it too" (is that so bad?). Science is an important tool to arrive at the truth, but it is not the only source. I do not completely discount science, however, and I believe that science points toward a Designer. Now, in some of the comments, people have taken issue with that, but I am confused as to why. All I am saying is that based on the intricacy of the design in nature, it makes it more likely that there was a Designer. I choose to believe that Designer is what you would call the Christian God, yet, I am not making that claim in this context. All I am saying is that it is more rational than not to believe that Someone or Something designed the world we live in. Neither you or any of the commentators have provided me with an argument that contradicts my argument that it is more rational to believe in a Designer of the world than to believe we came from a primordial soup.
I would close this first round by simply asking, "Can we agree that science is not the only source of truth?"