Originally Posted by Quentin

I think what some people here are trying to say is that your point, as you first stated it, isn't logically supportable, simply because you have assigned a set of descriptors ("religious," "religion" etc.) that bear no real relationship to your central point.

In other words, believing that something (including, possibly a process that has no sentient or conscious aspect?) that we do not yet understand created us is not an inherently religious notion.

I agree with your point, stated the way you stated it the second time at least, I simply don't see how it really argues for subscribing to some form of religion or another. I suspect there are others here that feel the same way, they are simply so distracted by their desire to insult you effectively in the process of saying it that they have been thrown off their rhetorical game.