I Am Not Religious

@AshStone23 For me, I can say for absolute certainty the god of Abrahmic religion isn't real. (Actually he's most likely a conglomerate of a few different gods base on his different names/forms in the Bible and gods of other surrounding/older cultures)

Science can't say there isn't a "god" (so to speak) but there isn't any evidence for one either, So why focus on something there's no evidence for? If you do have evidence for it, you, you don't need evidence to dismiss it. And that's pretty much applicable to all religions or pseudoscience.

Just be happy.

I am sorry that you didn't receive anything for your life in church.
Jesus said ask and you will receive; knock and the door will be opened; seek and you shall find. It is something conducted in Faith and knowing him.
I still didn't see any alternative history presented for something recorded so recent. The Talmud does have incredible stories that were put under the highest scrutiny as they were replicated. No other text in history took the same measures as the Scribes for accuracy.
I really don't buy evolution. Just because there is difficulty with "Creationism" as a science in schools doesn't mean that God is not real.
I do thank you for making your response very considerate and engaging. I am not trying to "prove" you wrong. I do find the Christian perspective to be very valid and I just don't accept that all Science is true to its definition as being observable
evidence. There are too many men lacking pure motives for me to trust it.

@Pfuzylogic It's not their fault. It's just not compelling. I had questions that science could answer with evidence that the Bible could not. And everyone I meet who believes in the Bible cherry pick it. And I doubt they've read the whole thing it themselves and only know what they know through sermons or whatever. They take it literal where it's impossible and say it's metaphorical where it's inconvenient for the narrative. Who is to say what is supposed to be taken literally and metaphorically and symbolically.

The words have passed through many mouth and hand. Doesn't it bother you how many times it's been translated, knowing the way stories and myth shift overtime with big fish stories, Chinese whispers and cultural assimilation. The repeating stories and contradictions even in the Gospels . And before the was Bible was conglomerated, there were 100s of different accounts telling of Jesus. How did they pick the right accounts out of 100s and how can they have picked the right accounts when the Bible still has internal contradictions? As recently as Martin Luther, the Bible was being altered. And if it was "the truth" how has is divided people into so many different factions that fought/persecuted/killed each other over it's meaning? Why woul a loving God allowed that. (Though the text shows he's not really loving) There are texts older than the Talmud in India.(The stories of Krishna are very similar to Jesus) With that and any of what I said before? Does that not bother you or hint that the Bible might be wrong?

And just because evolution and science can't anwser everything every in the world in an easy way doesn't mean you should believe in the God of the Gaps. For evolution: just because something isn't directly observable doesn't mean it's not verifiable. If you could only convicted a murder based on eyewitness account, then there'd be a lot murders about. And just because that murder wasn't directly observed doesn't mean all explanations for it are equally plausible. Evidence will weed out bad explanations.

I don't think men with preconceived biblical notions, beholden to believe something without evidence and are threatened with eternal damnation for not believing/doing anything otherwise, are "pure" but biased and with a warp way of looking at things. Their word is as trustworthy as a witness threatened by the mob. And it warps their thinking into a top-down mentality, like thinking like 'how perfectly made these are river-rocks for river' as if they were made for perfectly for the environment when in actuality the environment around rocks shaped them.

But thanks for being civil

@Cease
The Gospel is not a "top down" message but personally received for me.
You have to choose the stories you believe and I personally receive Jonah as literally true as do the Jewish on his book. I take the Bible literally for the most part. It is easier to swallow than some of the "fish stories" inScience for me. It comes down to a matter of Faith and who you believe.
I trust the Word of God.

The "Spirit"??? The Spirit to not question claims, contradictions, hypocrisy and improbabilities? Fine. I lack the "Spirit" as much as I lack the Force.

But say for a minute I believed in God, and lack the "Spirit", maybe God never wanted me to be saved. Just another pawn. If that's the case why would waste your time insulting me (because you're obviously not trying to change my mind). I already know what's going to happen to me if there's a God. (You probably see it as me being stupid, brain washed, an excuse to be immoral, and taking the wrong side of Pascal's Wager, but don't) Wouldn't it be better for you to silently watch me blaspheme my way into hell?

Also you didn't answer: have you ever questioned your faith, or have you always been a believer?

@Cease A person born blind isn't very good at determining the existence of rainbows.

@hippyjoe1955 Seriously?? You started off by sarcastically "Yawning" and assumed that I thought I was smarter than everyone else. How is that helping me "determine the rainbow me"?? And if I was "blind" why would I trust your word that there are colors after your initial statement? I hope you're lying and really we're just trying to insult me because if that is that's how you help others the show anyone you're compelling to "blind" and not doing your God, messiah, or religion any favors. And just telling people they are wrong and blind is anymore compelling.

But I see you colloquialism and raise you this scenario: If there were a one blind person that had the instruments to measure the wavelength that read in Braille, they could tell that the light that bounced of certain objects have a different wavelength in the form of a number and that the "color" described to them by people have their own unique set; they would measure many different numbers when shining a light on something clear or crystal. And knowing how rain and the atmosphere work it becomes plausible and fair for them to say that a "rainbow" in the sky as described to them can happen even though they can't see it. (Plus If they were in one of those cultures where the word for "blue" and "green" are the same, they could then tell they are different as opposed to everyone's word. And that there are "colors" (like infared and ultraviolet) that people can see because they never mentioned them) So then, if there were a 3rd blind person, and I told them leaves are green because everyone tells me, and the other man said leaves are green because of its wavelength and everything people describe as green has a similar wavelength and you can "see for yourself. Only one of use has real demonstrable evidence. But I get the point your trying to make. But mine is if not relying on faith impossible the past, it certainly is possible to not rely on it today. And as time goes on, the more we know and the less anyone has to rely on faith.

I asked you have you ever questioned your faith or have you always been a believer because if you never questioned it then how would know how to research it? And in turn how would you know whether or not it is possible to come to a different conclusion that is not God?

And were my questions not valid of a child or any thinking person? If reading with the "Spirit" is looking past contradictions and impossibilities, then it's basically just reading with ignorance or without critical thinking.

@Ferric67Considering the way religion is so often ministered, I would say it's necessary to not have religion guide spiritual growth. Religion is a hijacking of spirituality.

@Ferric67 I don't believe so. Just keep learning about the universe and I guess one can get a "spiritual feeling"; something of awe and insignificane but with a higher value for ones mortal life.

It scares me but just 'cause it's scary and not ideal doesn't mean I should go believe in things that make me feel better and aren't true.