Somebody bumped this thread so I decided to reply to it since it's already been drug up...

From what I've read here, it seems like you could call Athiesm and Evolutionism religions too. Both try and answer the same questions, it's just they try to answer them without the use of a god. Does a religion necessarily have to focus on a god? I think it comes down to what you find easier to believe: a belief in eternal matter or a belief in an eternal god. Either all matter that exists has *always* existed or there is a god that has always existed that created all matter that exists.
In the end, the root question always comes down to "if there is no God, how did we get here?" to which I respond "how did God get there?"
I suppose that's the same principle, except perhaps *slightly* more basic just b/c it goes back to the existence of matter and not our existence. There's a lot more to it of course, but I think that's what it boils down to.

I personally choose to believe that God (I'm aware that "God" is a step beyond "a god") has always existed just because I find it difficult to believe that so many incredibly complex things could come about on their own without intelligent design. There are many who find no traces of intelligent design. I look at stuff like how we have so many different systems in our bodies running in tandem to keep us alive. Our ability to think marvels me. Heh, I marvel that I am able to marvel . The convenient fact that water is the only chemical that won't freeze solid first (it's the only chemical that is lighter when solid which makes ice float and strangely act as an insulator allowing animals to live underneath) or how a solar eclipse can be so perfect....I see stuff like that as intelligent design while many others choose to see it as chance.

I suppose this is what the most basic decision comes down to, but no matter which one you choose, you still probably have "religion" if you count athiesm and evolutionism. Anybody agree/disagree?

*edit*
Hah, RoadClosed noticed that it was old too ^.