I was looking at my post on why I don't consider myself an atheist and I don't think I was careful enough at all over there; moreover, reading some books and listening to some speeches on this topic, I have refined my position. Maybe I am an atheist, I dunno. The point I was trying to make is that I could hear some sort of plan stemming from an initial creation, but even if there was a plan, I don't believe in theism; I don't think we could know anything about that plan. If I'm forced to answer whether or not there is a plan, I 100% do not.
As for god: I would set myself as a 5.99 on Dawkins' scale of belief, 5 being somebody who is highly skeptical of the existence of a god and 6 being a "de facto" atheist who sees the divine as akin to fairies. I don't believe in anything beyond nature, but I don't see the idea of something beyond our minds which caused everything as being akin to fairies and in fact could see such a hypothesis as perhaps plausible* -- although if it is something we actually know something about, yes, then we're coming to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle territory.
But I suppose at the end of the day, that's all somewhat irrelevant. I see it like this: It doesn't matter if one is an atheist, a strong agnostic, or a deist (Martin Gardner, it should be recalled, did believe in some sort of religion); the point is that god or gods or aliens don't interact with us and our purpose in life has to be based off other criteria.** Yes, I disagree with Dawkins that SETI is a worthwhile pursuit. I also think theism is narishkeit.
*although now the big craze is that Stephen Hawking has recently made god unnecessary in his new book, but I had a horrific science education and I am not good at the subject anyhow, so I don't know the details of what he said.