My family were Church of England but neither of my parents was at all reilgious and they never went to church except socially, that is weddings, funerals and,the occasional christening. Accordingly, there was no serious impediment to my taking any faith or none. I rapidly came to dislike the panoply of religion, the magnificent cathedrals built in the poorest places for example. As a young adult I took to being a Quaker, a simple, unadorned, principled faith with the barest of essentials to its meetings and no one person set up to lecture or address a congregation. But eventually I questioned the whole basis of Christian beliefs. Most of that seemed, in reality, to have been the musings and elaborations of Paul in any case. But it was fundamentally flawed anyway.There was absolutely no reason for a god to send his son to cure lepers and work other miracles, do acts in defiance of all laws of physics and party tricks like turning water into wine, just to sell a philosophy. This god, singularly,did not let his son show the rest of us how to cure the sick, so his sons presence did not physically improve the lot of mankind, however faithful.He also did not contrive to ensure a truly contemporary record of his son's doings or teachings, which was singularly remiss of a god considering that he'd put his son on Earth for a purpose !
What use is a god? Does anyone seriously think that atheists are more criminal or less moral than believers? Or that having no belief in an afterlife or heaven causes a man, who knows he has but one finite life and no 'reward' after death, to be a worse citizen to his fellow men? I see no reason for believing in one, nor do I see any reason for there to be one.