When I was younger I was a church goer, Church of England to be precise. Confirmed and all that stuff.

In my later years I've moved away from it because religion really holds no bearing on my life, it just didn't affect me, while I had some sort of remaining belief in God in the back of my mind based on my upbringing, I'd say I didn't believe and certainly didn't follow the Bible or it's teachings.

Lately, I've lost all faith though.

My favourite one of those is the eye: the blood vessels are in front of the retina and serve to obscure the image formed. There's no reason why they can't route behind the retina, but the evolution of the eye didn't happen that way. It's also good because the eye is often held up as an example of good design by creationists.

Well I've seen the exact same claims in Zeitgeist (maybe that's where Zeitgeist got it from) and it's rubbish. The Abrahamic religions are not based on the Egyptian sun God.

Because idea of god is pointless to me from any relevant point of view, regardless of it's existence in any shape or form.

Most religions expect us to believe them that if we act in a certain way (worship; morality) then God will reward/punish us after death. Thus people's behaviour is influenced.

To me, even if there is a God, there's no evidence that he would judge such a thing. So the existence or non-existence of God has no effect on my actions and is therefore irrelevant.

I think the main question of religion isn't whether God exists but whether he has any expectations on human behaviour and the consequences for us. If he did, he should have sent a clearer message about that than a holy book which has multiple interpretations and is possible to question whether it has a divine origin or not.

Nope.  No way.  I'm not getting into more threads like this.

But for the rest of you... enjoy the discussion!

Even if such a beign existed and  did have such expectations of us, would it really matter? I mean just because this beign created us does it mean that we must be slaves to its whims?

Yeah, because an magical, invisible man makes much more sense.

If we are to keep the definition of God as an all-powerful, all-knowing universe creator that is worthy of eligious worship, yes.

If a being existed like that where we weren't "slaves to its whims" it wouldn't be God. It would be a universe-creating alien conciousness. Which is interesting but not really implied by the word god.

But if we are slaves to its whims mechanically then we do not have free will, and if we do have free will why should we be slaves to its whims? ALet's be honest, even the religious have never really had any concrete proof that they're deities are really are all-powerfull or all-knowing, other that the words of said deity in the first place (which would not be a reliable source, and of course this goes by the assumption that such a being exists in the first place). We are sentient beigns, why should we listen to any such entity? Nad the concepts of "all-powerfull" and "all-knowing" are themselves ridiculous.