I agree with you that all religions are full of crap, and some are evil. But that in itself does not imply the absence of a personal Creator. Science alone offers no conclusive evidence. A glance at world history would lead any rational person to conclude that if such a Creator exists, he is either indifferent to our suffering, or unable to do anything about it, and is therefore either evil or stupid for creating us in the first place. If this life is all there is, that conclusion is inescapable. But if this life is not all there is, then any quantifiable amount of displeasure can be compensated for with an appropriate amount of pleasure, in which case, a just and righteous Creator may actually exist. Since there is no way to know if an afterlife exists, the question should be changed from "Does he exist?" to "Is his existence worth betting on?"
Is it so unreasonable that a personal Being might have the power to create a universe?
- Or that he might create life just to see what happens to it?
- Or that he might create sentient beings just to see how far he can take them?
- Or that he might give them free will and let them do good and/or evil?
- Or that he might reward good doers and punish evil doers?
- Or that he might set up a just and righteous system in which evil doers end up serving good doers?
- Or that he might let them create religions?
- Or that he might favor some religions over others?
- Or that he might even stick his fingers in the pie occasionally?
But, you would say, "Why speculate on such things for which there is no evidence?" I would reply, "Is there any evidence against it? Is your atheism any less a speculation?" There is evidence against Santa Claus and tooth fairies, and most theists' ideas of "God". For example, there is evidence that ordinary parents do the easy part of what Santa Claus supposedly does. And there is evidence that natural evolution does much of what most theists claim that their God does. Also, the absence of evidence for anything with the magical attributes of Santa Claus is evidence of his non-existence, because if any such entity existed, we would see evidence of it.
Assume (as I'm sure you do) that there is no evidence for any "personhood" of that which created this universe, or life, or sentience. That lack of evidence would not be evidence against such personhood, because such a Person might choose not to offer any such evidence, because he wants to see what people will do without such evidence. Forget that omniscience crap! Knowing everything is impossible. A real personal Creator would create stuff to see what happens when he creates it. How else could he know what works and what doesn't? Moreover, how could we test our various theories of righteousness with a moral dictator over our heads? How could we test our theories of self-government under a divinely enforced theocracy?
The existence of any particular thing is a true or false issue. True/false issues are argued epistemologically. But the "God" issue is not argued for epistemological reasons. It is argued for emotional reasons. People continue to speculate on the existence of a "God" because the only alternative leaves us with nihilism -- the lack of an objective basis for values. And nihilism is so psychologically uncomfortable. Even if you, as an atheist, have learned to live without an objective basis for values, it was not your first choice -- you would have preferred to find objective meaning for your existence. Unfortunately a personal Creator has a monopoly on objective meaning. More unfortunately all the standard Creator sales-pitches require you to believe things which your creator (personal or not) never designed you to believe.
Of course you can make up your own basis for values, but the fact that you made it up means you made it up. If I make up an ethical system in which I have the right to rape, kill, or enslave you, what can you say to me? That I'm wrong? There is no right and wrong. There's only you and me and we just disagree. The nihilists' world is no better than the religionists' world -- possibly even worse for its lack of even the illusion of meaning.
How long will you continue to banter the existence of the candy-ass God of some bullshit set of scriptures with a bunch of frightened children who need to believe such a thing? Is anyone ready to discuss the most reasonable bet? Don't worry; I'm not pushing Pascal. I've already gone way beyond him. See essay: Beyond Pascal