Irreligion

Or, ramblings on God.
I recently changed my facebook religious listing from atheist to ignostic (the exact entry is "ignostic, but atheist has more accurate connotations"). I did this mainly because, while I staunchly believe that the idea of the Christian God (and most, if not all, other deities) goes firmly against most precepts of logic, I don't believe that any sort of quasi-sentient quasi-entity that created the universe can't exist.
To summarize and hopefully make coherent my ideas on quasi-theology (a name I just made up now):
Taking a look at the universe, and the way atoms and molecules are structured, we seem extraordinarily lucky to have a universe that exists in such a way to even have the possibility of supporting life. More accurately, it seems like a massive coincidence that subatomic particles so easily line up in such a way as to make atoms, which can then make molecules, et cetera. With the universe beginning the way it did, i.e., from a singularity (not a single atom, naysayers), and bringing time and space with it, I believe that it is either necessarily true or necessarily impossible for other, "separate" universes to exist, and (at the moment) necessarily impossible seems more reasonable. Since the big bang initiated time and space, and since our lack of knowledge of quantum gravity means that we can't possibly understand the conditions at the big bang (yet), it seems possible that the laws of physics could have "turned out differently". With that in mind, there may be some sentience that influenced the laws of physics to turn out as they did.
This idea probably sounds ridiculous, and it probably is - but the point I'm making here is that we don't actually know. However, for an encore I will hereby explain my denouncement of the Christian God.
A casual scan of historical information reveals that mystical ideas were heavily entwined with "science" in past times. As science developed, however, many things held to be facts were denounced, from witchcraft to alchemy. I'll specifically be focusing on two main concepts here: morals and the human soul.
First, the soul. The soul was once thought to be a physical part of a person (the exact source that I got this from escapes me), and carry out several physical functions. As medical science advanced, however, physical and eventually behavioral aspects of the soul were determined to have purely physical sources - which brings me to my second subject, morals. Morality has long been thought to come from God, but there are plenty of articles out there about neuroscientific sources (just take a look at the external links section of Wikipedia's article on morality to get started). And, hand in hand with evolution, it seems perfectly reasonable to assume that the brain evolved a moral center to stop our species - indeed, every species - from killing itself off. If we have an instinct that tells us it's wrong to kill our own kind, than squabbles over food and territory (common before we evolved sentience and developed civilization) would have been fatal much more rarely, and thus be more beneficial for the species's survival overall. Obviously, these statements don't disprove the existence of God, but it's not a big logical leap to go from "the Christian church has to keep revising scripture to keep up with science" to "hey, maybe the Christian church was wrong all along."