First off let me state that it isn't about a personal gripe with the big One(s). I believe that atheists or agnostics that use the excuse that they are angry with God(s) (for taking a loved one) or for some other oversight they blame on the deity(s) are just waiting for the someone to empathize with them and convince them that God *and for the sake of argument, I'll just go with one as it takes too much time to add the s* has loved them. I think the right person who is emotionally skilled can flip them over; so to speak.

Moreover, I don't reject the possiblity of God. (anything is possible and by default, I think most people start with believing God is possible) I'm not a disbeliever only because God hasn't been more direct. However, I think it is a valid argument that should be elaborated on.

Now then, I believe the onus of belief falls on God. Why? Well, lets start by pointing out that there are at the very minimum 40 discrete religious systems *religious tolerance.org*. (I'm being conservative by not adding the hundreds if not thousands of denominations) Some of the main ones include Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddishm, Judaism, Taosim, Scientology, Unitarian Universalism, Animism (Native Americans) , Confucianism, Sikhism, Satanism.....I can go on and on, but you get the clue. There are many, many very different belief systems. All can not be right. Period. In fact, the level of variability between these systems is so great that it is only logical that some of them must be flat out wrong in almost every way. (I just know someone will point out some of the universal similarities, but if you do, I will discuss with you some underlying human needs that cause this to be true)

Ok, so we all know that not everything these groups believe is true. Can't be. Yet, if you were to ask members of these groups how they came to these conclusions, they would state that God inspired some ancients in one way or the other (or even came down here) to pass on their traditions. However, this clearly can't be true. But, what hooks people into these groups (not your group ofcourse) is that all the religious texts have nuggets of Truth in them about human behavior. I think great sermons work the same way in that they contain real, practical guidelines on how to best live ones life that are then blended with their texts so that the Truth is diluted. I think of it like drinking juice: The better ones have more juice (or real life Truths) and have very little water (or what I think of as religious beliefs) To take it a step further, I believe that people grow accustomed to drinking a certain type of juice, especially if everyone around them says how good it is and how wrong it is to question it. After so long, people come to believe that this juice is indeed only 100% and that others are more filled with water. In fact, if you ever read about other religions from lets just say a Christian church, then they will indeed be able to show you all the dilution that is used in these other religions. (there are entire books on how to convert someone of a specfic belief set) Yet, these people refuse to turn this same level of scrutiny on themselves. Just ask a Muslim what they think the flaws of Christian belief are and I'm sure they will undoubtly come up with some.

The point is that man has came up with all sorts of nonsense trying to make sense of quite a chaotic world. Also, there are certain behaviors and ways of thinking that are optimal for surviving and thriving. Combine these two with geological seperation and you get different religions. How are we to discern from what is real and what is not? I believe the answer is in what we ourselves have experienced. When you drop a pen, you know it falls, therefore we know that and it can be tested and shown to do so. But, I just know some of you are thinking (or screaming for that matter) that you have experienced God and know Him *wow, so confident of God's gender* To that, I offer that many others have experienced God, Goddesses, and other spirits from other regions and have interpreted quite differently. But the bible!

Ahh, the bible. Or, as I was once told, The Holy Truth whether or not you accept it or not. It is repudiatly God's infallible word. It may very well be! However, there are several problems I have with the bible. May I present "THE FIRMAMENT" or as the Hebrews liked to call it, raqia. Let me bring you what creationscience.com itself says about raquia.

"the key Hebrew word in Genesis 1:6–8a is raqia ((ayqirf). It is translated “firmament” in the King James Version and “expanse” in most Hebrew dictionaries and modern translations. While its original meaning is uncertain, its root, raqa ((qarf), means to spread out, beat out, or hammer as one would a malleable metal. It can also mean “plate.” This may explain why the Greek Septuagint translated raqia 16 out of 17 times with the Greek word stereoma (stere&wma), which means “a firm or solid structure.” The Latin Vulgate (A.D. 382) used the Latin term “firmamentum,” which also denotes solidness and firmness. So, the King James translators in A.D. 1611 coined the word “firmament.” Today, “firmament” is usually used poetically to mean sky, atmosphere, or heavens. In modern Hebrew, raqia means sky or heavens. However, originally it probably meant something solid or firm that was spread out."

What is this supposed to do with anything? I'm glad you asked. (ok ok, you probaly didn't ask) Let me ask you then, is there something solid between the ocean and the clouds? Gen 1:6 ¶ And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.

Now that isn't as damning as: Eze 1:22 ¶ And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature [was] as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above.Eze 1:23 And under the firmament [were] their wings straight, the one toward the other: every one had two, which covered on this side, and every one had two, which covered on that side, their bodies.Eze 1:24 And when they went, I heard the noise of their wings, like the noise of great waters, as the voice of the Almighty, the voice of speech, as the noise of an host: when they stood, they let down their wings. Eze 1:25 And there was a voice from the firmament that [was] over their heads, when they stood, [and] had let down their wings.Eze 1:26 ¶ And above the firmament that [was] over their heads [was] the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne [was] the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it. Eze 1:27 And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about.Eze 1:28 As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so [was] the appearance of the brightness round about. This [was] the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw [it], I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake.

So now instead of being an omnipresent God, he is on this firmament. Isa 40:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in. Astronaunts can't reported anything, nor have telescopes seen this.

Which shall I believe: "And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (EXO 33:11) or Jhn 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time"

What about "Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years." Ok, sounds reasonable, except when you look at Gen 7:6 And Noah [was] six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth. (among others who lived even longer!

These are only a few of the reasons I don't believe. Next time, I will discuss how science has won me over. *they are not without flaw, though I can say that they don't believe evil spirits cause maddness and that they can only be removed via the holy spirit. Instead, schizophrenia is treated with Risperdal* Anyhow, I hope any rebuttals actually deal with my evidence. Actually, I really hope kaliko will answer. I am quite interested in how you perceive what I'm saying. You said if I searched the bible, I would find my answers. I searched and I found something quite different. What is your perspective on this all? I hope you guys do really find a way around all of this. I'd like to believe....