One of my favorite quotes and a problem with religion

Richard Feynman once said “Listen, I mean, from my knowledge of the world that I see around me, I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence rather than the unknown rational ethics of extraterrestrial intelligence” (Cornell, 1964)

I recently had a discussion about religion:
Him: "Do you believe in aliens?"
Me: "I think it's possible that there's other life in the universe"
Him: "How can you believe in aliens and not in god?"
Me: "I think it's possible that god exists, but that's not the issue. I'd have an equal problem with people who tried to make policy, teach science, or tell other people what to do based on personal revelations from aliens."

The statement was incomplete, but contained the heart of my problem with religion. The issue is not whether a god could exist. So far, there is no objective evidence of god just as there is no objective evidence of other life in the universe. We have personal opinions, traditions, divine books which bear the marks of human authorship, and "miracles" which have never been beyond the capacity of nature to explain. My issue is that people have ideas of what god wants and does not want. I shouldn't limit it to god, but I will for the moment. When someone says that god doesn't like condoms, I ask, how do they know?

C.E. Joad and Bertrand Russell

C.E. Joad, The Present and Future of Religion, 1930
"To say that there is a God is not to say anything more than that we need to think there is, and the need is in no sense a guarantee of the existence of that which satisfies it. Thus the great religions of the world are not theology, but pyschology; witnesses...to the inventive faculty of man."

Bertrand Russell, Why I am Not a Christian, 1957
"I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and there I found this sentence: 'My father taught me that the question, Who made me? cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question, Who made God?' That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, 'How about the tortoise?' the Indian said, 'Suppose we change the subject.' The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why is should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination."