Micha vaguely tried to capture my position on religion, but to no avail, for I have kept that position so vague as to be unstateable. And if you can't state it, you can't criticize it, which is why I spell my name "Scottdrkt."
Ha, kidding. No, to the contrary, my position on religion is actually quite explicable, and I will explick it shortly. Said position is carefully designed to irritate as many people as humanly possible, and nearly everyone finds something in it to complain about. You will too!
First, there is no God. I have no knockdown argument for that bold assertion, rather simply a lack of personal evidence. I don't feel God in my life--some people do, but I don't, and I trust my own observations more than other peoples'. It's possible some day such evidence will present itself, but nothing I've seen to this point suggests such an event is on the horizon.
Now, that should offend a large number of you. Time to go after the remainder.
Second, it's not clear there is no God. Hell, it's not even clearly probable. All of the simple arguments against God are weak. The whole "there is no evidence for God claim" doesn't work, because there is arguendo lots of evidence for God--personal revelation, intuition. The real argument is over what counts as evidence, and no rule to define evidence, such as "only empirical third-party observeable data counts as evidence" suffices. That would rule out much of what we non-solipsists take to be true, such as axiomatic statements and various aspects of consciousness, without even getting into Hume's induction problem.
Now that's enough for me to doubt any kind of clear divide between what is science and what isn't, or what we have justification to believe and what we don't. I think that divide is there, but it's not enough to simply say, science relies on logical positivism and theology doesn't, ergo, trust in science. Or something of the like. And this whole queasiness, and knowing the majority of the world disagrees with my position on the existence of God, is enough to make me humble holding it.
I think the best I can do is point out that many religions differ quite a bit, but that's only reason to distrust any particular incarnation of God, not the general core religions share.
Now, if I've done my job, that last few paragraph pushed the amount of people annoyed with my position up to 99%. This next part has nothing to do with religion, but I include it just to alienate that last one percent: morality exists objectively, and we can detect it intuitively.
Also, Dane Cook isn't funny.