I'm a buddhist and I consider myself rather religious. This may surprise some people, but buddhism is an atheistic religion. Anyone who tells you otherwise, either doesn't know the religion, or has a different definition for theism. In buddhism, there is *no need* for a god/gods, and therefore, there isn't one. Refer to wikipedia.
A common debate going on these days, especially in places where religious fundamentalism is rising, is the whole science versus religion debate. This often centres around the theory of evolution versus creationism. These religious fundamentalists are facing a crisis today as their belief system is being systematically taken apart by science. Hence, the quiet battles that are being waged around many parts of the world.
I find the whole idea of a creator god totally illogical and irrational. The argument given by creationists is often that organisms like us are complex and the universe is complex and these complex things couldn't have existed without a creator and that the creator is this deity called a god/gods. Now, if we ponder this argument for a moment, we will find that it contains in itself, a fatal flaw: who created the god/gods? [in medieval times, this is the point at which i get stoned to death for blasphemy].
If it is impossible for anything to exist without being created, then it is impossible for the god/gods to exist without being created either. If it is possible for the god/gods to exist without a creator, then, it is certainly possible for other things to exist without being created either. Hence, the self contradictory logic that exists within that argument.
If the claim is that, there is possibly a super god/gods that created the god/gods (like what the Greeks believed), then the next question would be: who created the super god/gods? If the claim is a whole hierarchy of god/gods, then, the question is: where does it stop? If the chain continues 'ad-infinitum', then, it merely supports the notion that there is *no* creator as there is no beginning.
The engineer in me will use a simple engineering analogy to illustrate this. Let's take a look at an engine. Did we as human beings 'create' an engine? If you said 'yes', you probably believe in a god/gods and weren't thinking hard enough. Someone had 'invented' the engine, not 'created' it. There is a difference. As scientists/engineers, we merely discovered the rules of physics that govern the workings and learnt to harness it through the use of a machine. We most certainly did not 'create' it. So, things *can* exist without being created and I've just shown you an example of one.
Then, some people may say that art is 'creative' and that there is 'creation' in art. All I can say is that these people are delusional. There certainly is a lot of creativity involved in art. However, it's no more created than the engine was. The artist had merely used a very good and possibly unique way of putting the constituent parts together (whether it's words, notes or colours) in order to evoke an emotional response from people. Fundamentally, it's no different from putting together the gears and cogs to get the engine running.
Personally, I have nothing against people who believe in a god/gods. Many (I'd even dare say most) of my friends are Christians and Muslims. Just don't bother trying to convince me of the existence of a god/gods. I'm a religious person and I'm an atheist. There is no conflict in that statement. Hundreds of millions of people around the world are like me. I will leave you with a short clip by Richard Dawkins, international atheist #1.