One of the ways I look at religion is this. That it is a model for humans to attempt to understand their world. Each person's model helps them cope, helps explain the unexplainable, and generally makes their lives easier. The problem, as I see it, is that many people think their model isn't a model at all. They believe that their model is actual, factual, un-deniable reality. The problem, for me, isn't that people have a particular model. Its that they insist we all must see the world through their model or else. Or that people become so invested in their particular model that they can't see any other possibility.
Another problem with religion, for me, is language. People use the word "god" in trillions of different ways. From a father figure in the sky who looks like Santa Clause, to an amorphous spirit, to simply nature, and everything in between. It makes it difficult to understand where people are coming from. Some christians I know, perhaps a little like Junebug, don't see god in the traditional christian fashion. When I delve into details with them, it doesn't sound all that different from some of my pagan friends, or other more new age or nature-like philosophical bents.
The word "god" has baggage to it. Junebug, I'll use you as an example if you don't mind. When you use the word "god" to describe your belief, it probably makes it easier to discuss with any other theist, of any other kind. When used around atheists it might be getting in the way of conversation, because it carries with it, at least for us westerners, the image of a christian father figure in the sky, and the really heavy baggage of the extremist christians who seem to have taken over the republican party these days. I know that this is not the god you're discussing. But when I see the word "god," it is still my first thought, and therefore makes it a little harder to figure out where you're coming from.
It reminds me a little of some pagans I know out west. One of them insists on calling herself a witch, regardless of what people she's hanging out with. With other pagans, that word has positive connotations. With extremist christians, it does not. So she invites both inclusion, and exclusion, by her choice of that word. Ditto with atheist, as opposed to using non-believer, or secular humanist, or skeptic, or whatever. Each choice of label carries with it some inherent assumptions, that differ with the various audiences.