If there is no evidence that god exists you have to examine the claims of persons who say that god exists and locate exactly what they are perceiving.
If someone is going to make a claim, they need to show the basis for that claim - what validity that claim has. If someone keeps shouting "snake" when there isn't a snake, (or a rope), or anything even remotely snake-like around, then there's nothing for me to examine - other than that persons state of mind.
the point about illustrating how there are many religions everywhere was meant to indicate that it suggests a response to an objective phenomena as opposed to a concocted idea
Not really, no. What it indicates is ignorance of early man - that created stories to provide, (albeit false), answers for their existence, the universe and everything in it. It is no surprise that if you look back to ancient beliefs you will see that they have merely adapted what is there and elevated it to supreme status.
Indian gods look like elephants, (yes, India has elephants)
South American gods were snake-like, (yes, South America has some serious snakes)
Red Indians had eagle and buffalo spirits, (yes, they lived in a place with eagles and buffalo)
England doesn't really have anything in the way of gods because there's nothing here except rats, hedgehogs and badgers.
The more destructive gods are found in places where there's a lot of natural disaster - earthquakes, volcanoes etc. Again, England lacks such gods, and indeed destructive gods because nothing happens here - apart from a spot of rain and only three days of summer.
Then you have fertility godesses, (usually represented by rabbits and the like - the basis of easter), because.. believe it or not, rabbits bonk like rabbits.
These are early answers for early man - they see a rabbit bonking like a rabbit and it becomes a symbol of fertility. They see a huge burning ball in the sky and it gets elevated to godly status because there's no way of knowing what it actually is. And then because they associate fire with being dangerous, that god too becomes quite dangerous - and they must appease it by sacrifice.
It's no wonder really that the OT gods general way of killing people was by plagues - because plagues were prevalent and there's no other explanation for plagues. Take for instance when the nile 'turned red with blood'. Could any of those people alive then have diagnosed pfisteria? Of course not.
As time progresses, the 'god excuse' becomes all the more meaningless. By the time of the bubonic plague nobody blamed gods anymore, but rats - because knowledge had increased a little. What was once god's doing, is now given it's rightful explanation. god's don't cause earthquakes, tectonic plate movement does. god's don't cause plagues, disease does etc.
Apart from the serious fundamentalists, nobody says the recent tsunami and Katrina were caused by gods but by natural causes.
The only use left for gods now are for those that can't accept the fact that they're going to die and never see their family again.
if the source of religion is imagination you wouldn't expect to see our culture and history so highly saturated with religious imagery
Yes you would. If mankind all started off with phd's then you wouldn't expect to see our culture and history so saturated with religious imagery, but as it stands you wouldn't expect anything else - given that their lack of knowledge meant they really had nothing
but imagination to work by.