Editing my last post, I see that I actually disagree with both the camp and with the previous poster. I do believe the question is relevant.

I agree. I think the question is completely relevant especially in a society that is dominated by the "idea" of a God. To say that because modern science tells us that God may not exist or that God has little or no effect on the universe, does not make the question irrelevant. In fact I believe it makes the question more relevant. For a humanist seeing lives wasted on a non-existent god, the question itself becomes a catalyst for change, to pose on the ones wasting their lives. While science may suggest that no god has an effect on the universe, it does not suggest that the IDEA of God, has no effect, making the question worthy.

The question "Does God exist?" is misconstructed, but God is not therefore meaningless or irrelevant. That the question is irrelevant is a separate issue. The anthropomorphic God is metaphorical, but understanding God in personal terms is nonetheless useful. For example, "God visits the sins of the father upon the son" seems a cruel dictate of the anthropomorphic ruler, but understood as a pantheistic metaphor, it only says that bad fathers harm their children, and we want to believe so, don't we? We want to define "bad" father this way. A "bad" father is a father harming his children. Right? Constructing a system of paternal ethics this way is not fundamentally nonsensical. "God as paternalistic ruler" works because it fits within an existing conceptual framework. This tradition shaped civilization for millenia, so it is hardly irrelevant. I've therefore created a new category accepting the assumption of your first assertion but rejecting the conclusion that God is irrelevant.