some ideas about the basics about god

Listening to Michael Medved this afternoon, he had two notable guests talking about Religion vs Science.
Several of the points were, in summary, that science is coming to the conclusion that there must be some form of god, meaning that there is some organizing something that made the universe and set up the place to be favorable for life as we know it.

As I listened I was impressed by and reminded of a few points:
1) It takes as much and more faith to believe in the stances of not having some kind of god, than it does to believe in some kind of god.

2) 'Religion' is to 'realign' one's self in relationship to deity. The deity's given priesthood are to dispense the method of realignment in instruction and performances; the worshiper receives the instruction and participates in the performances. 'To get religion' was for a worshiper to feel a connection to 'god'

3) Through this connection, 'god' will define itself to the worshiper.

4) Many of the arguments against religion argue against a given 'church' (christian in particular, but others in general) as a historic organization, rather than against the teachings that organization.

5) Many of those who claim atheism appear to fall into one of two camps: those who do not want to have/exercise/believe in 'faith', however the given individual may define it; those who have not had or discount having the experience of the existence of god. In short they want 'God' to appear before them before they will believe and have faith in said deity.

-
Other points that occur:
Many reject organized religions because of the history, or present, of the given organization, and is so doing reject the teachings of that organization, without considering the teachings.

Many reject the teachings of the organizations, as corrupt, because they are not the teachings of the original organization, as the individual determines in his own research.

Many reject 'god' because they do not agree with the definition of 'god' given to them by others, and miss the better point that they can and should allow god to define itself to them, by getting religion individually.

There are many who might do better to wipe all the competing definitions of 'god' off the proverbial table and seek got for themselves and allow god to define itself to them.

The more biology examines the processed of cells, the more the principle of 'irreducible complexity' becomes apparent, and that the DNA molecule in its digital functioning cannot be the result of change in whatever guise it is presented: there must be some kind of designer.


Then there is the eagerness of adherents to witness and evangelize/proselytize their beliefs: on one hand presented wrong, this is annoying at the least; presented correctly, this leads a person to further seek for truth.
The next question is 'what is truth?'