First, the difference between logic and science is obvious to me, yet maybe not to you. Logic deals with things we can know for "certain"--that is, a priori information such as mathematics. Science deals with a posteriori stuff like observations. There is no logical reason that a posteriori observations (scientific theories) will be necessarily true tomorrow. There is an inherent problem with induction, and that is, that it never leads to certainty. That's the difference between science and logic.
The idea that there is no reason to believe in God is itself a silly statement because you're once again generalizing the usage of the word "God" to mean a certain thing--that is, what you take it to mean. Like I said, people tend to use the word to mean different things, so to not recognize that fact would be silly. There are actually plenty of reasons to believe in God: existence itself, complexity of the human body, the beauty of nature, etc. Now granted, your scientific story can also give an answer to these questions. However, what you seem to be doing is saying "I can answer that a different way so there's no reason to think your way about it." Well, a theist could easily say "I can answer these questions a different way so the way you're thinking about it is useless." You have to recognize that there are different viewpoints in order to keep the conversation going. Otherwise you become the same dogmatic fundamentalist that doesn't listen to anything the opposing side says as religious fundamentalists.