Picture Perfect

That's right, folks! I am now connecting to the internet via a stable, good, internet connection! YEAHHH!!

Orange broadband finally sorted themselves out, after TWO MONTHS.

In other news (that gap was just for Helen) I got a phone call from a friend who I've tried keeping in touch with, but was always unavailable - a really nice guy - who is currently thousands of miles away from me. The point is, he was wishing me a happy New Year - the Jewish New Year starts this eve and effectively ends Saturday night, so I won't really be around much. It is said that the New Year is the time of judgment, where God decides whether or not the next year will be a good one for us, based on our past (mis)deeds. I'd place it as the second biggest event in the Jewish calendar, second only to next week, the Day of Repentance.

What a miserable day the latter is! I dread that day every single year and when I rejoice at the end of it, it's never because I feel repented, but because I know there are now 364 days until I have to do it over again. What happens on this day is, we spend an entire day praying and fasting, from sunrise to sunset. Many people are of the opinion that it is a happy day, as it is when sins are forgiven. I, however, am not. The bible calls this a "day of affliction" and I enjoy reminding everyone of that fact.

The old, famous, question goes - if this is the day of repentance, why on earth don’t we have it before the Day of Judgment? Why do we repent after we've already been judged? Good question. Unfortunately, I never remember the old, famous answer, but this year asked my dad why it was. He said, essentially, it was because we're, uhh, storing credit for the next year. Well, guess what? I don't want to store credit, the price is far too high.

There is another answer, and I believe this one to be the old one; it just came to me. Though judgment is decided on the New Year, it's not until the end of the day of repentance (some say later) that it is actually "sealed" - i.e. unchangeably decided.

Why then do people pray the rest of the year and what hope do they have of changing anything, if it's all been decided?
I suppose because though the judgment mayn't change, the way in which it is carried out is...as the parable goes, a king who threatened, in his anger, to have a large rock thrown at his son if he crossed him one more time, cannot simply back down (why not?) from his promise if the son was naughty again. So the King keeps his promise, but has the stone chipped into little, tiny bits and throws those harmless bits at him instead.

I don't know where all this leaves me. As most of you know, I have a little trouble with the ol' faith these days (actually, I’ve had trouble with it since I was 17, but didn't want to say anything until I was in an absolute position of knowledge to do so - basically, until someone couldn't accuse me of being ignorant about Judaism, the scriptures, spirituality, or anything else. "If only you'd read the bible, you'd believe" - "If only you'd have studied xyz in depth, you'd believe" - "if only you'd accept Jesus, you'd believe" - "if only you'd..." it doesn't apply to me. Been there, done that, looked at it all in depth, dedicated an entire year of my life to the study of various things [very interesting and a great intellectual challenge; ironically, disbelieving me was one of the few to actually finish the book we were reading. Ok, so, the book we were reading was in an ancient dialect of Aramaic, completely incomprehensible without the myriads of commentaries and is probably the equivalent to a fair few thousand pages of a modern law textbook, factoring in said commentaries... but we all had the same start, didn't we?], and rejected (most of) it.

But there's a little tiny niggle. What if I’m wrong? What if, despite all this, there is a God who shall smite me down (I can't help but think of Jim Carrey in Bruce Almighty raising his arms to the heavens and yelling "Smite me, oh Mighty Smiter!" and then Morgan Freeman, playing God, reading his file saying "recently though, a few things you've said do have me concerned....'smite me, oh mighty smiter'...?")?

What of the evidence I do have? It's a tiny thread, and faith shouldn't depend on it, but can I just disregard that? Evidence is evidence, and it does suggest there is much truth in the bible. "Inconclusive evidence" doesn't strike me as a good defense when standing in front of God. But then, if there's no God to stand in front of, I've nothing to worry about, do I? And so the circle of doubt goes, around and around.

As I told someone recently (yes, it was you. Yes, I mean you. Stop thinking "he doesn't mean me" because I do. Think about it! Ok, ok. I don't mean you. Sorry. I was being mean...but anyway....you know who you are!)  stepping out in a moment of uncertainness is a bad, bad idea...disbelief is not, contrary to what people seem to think, a wishy-washy idea of closing your eyes and deciding you don't believe anymore, it's a definite, educated choice. People tell me "it's easy to not believe, people who don't believe just want an easier life" and I go mad with them. I challenge them if there is not one honest person out there who doesn't believe in God because they honestly, intellectually, don't believe there could possibly be a God?

No, it isn't easy. It's full of uncertainty. Ok, it so happens once you've made your certain choice to not believe, it gets very easy from there...but it's a major life style change, at least for me. It's like I’m falling and there's no one to catch me at the bottom... if there was someone to catch me, to run away from my life here with, it wouldn't be so bad. But that person doesn't exist for me and it's therefore an impossible choice for me to make.

Just to pre-empt people, faith is subjective. And yes ant, I still say you have faith based on faith - though you say you know you have your God given faith from God because it led you to Him, from a Muslim's perspective, that faith is misplaced and therefore couldn't possibly be from God. But you have faith it is from God, and so you believe it is - just as he would have faith your belief isn't from God. And you're not allowed to say "you've twisted my statement" or any derivative thereof, for that's how I honestly believe you explained it to me the last time. At 1:30am. On MSN. You may, however, explain it again, or argue with my idea here.

I'm taken with the passion religion inspires, especially in debate.

I once had such a passion myself, but it died when I realised that no one who was willing to debate would never change their mind about the things they debated. For those ccuk'ers, I used to be one of those theo hacks, arguing with 7 people at once and lashing out with bible verses left right and centre in response to various arguments. Many times in those early days I saw fit to "have some fun" - obviously, at everyone else's expense - and often placed people in a theological conundrum, which saw me thrown out the site many times. For those interested, one of my tricks was to challenge those around if they believed in the NT 100%. The inevitable answer was "of course." Thus, my victim was pretty much hooked. I then informed them they'd have to comply with Luke 6:30 which states "Give to all who ask of you, and do not ask for anything in return of the one who takes from you" and demanded bank account numbers, car keys, cheques, cash and other such things, the implication - often voiced by yours truly - was that if they didn't do as I said, they'd be forsaking their own beliefs...So why should someone like me believe in the NT if Christians themselves didn't?

But this isn't what I wanted to discuss.

Christianity and Islam are interesting religions, but I must admit I don't think much of their attempts to explain why they think they're the only true religion, or why members believe in what they do. For Islam, it goes something like this:

Me> So, why do you think Mohummed was true and not a false prophet, as Christians and Jews have said for over a thousands years?
Puzzling response> He was sincere, as one can tell from his actions and words.

Of course, this is a laughable proof and it actually pains me that there are people who believe this is an acceptable proof of the Ultimate Truth: one man's alleged sincerity. If sincerity equals truth, which is what was being peddled over here, then every politician worth his salt must be straight as the M1 and honest as God Himself. I have no doubt in my mind that when Tony Blair was making the "let's go to war" speech in the House of Commons, he appeared absolutely sincere. I have little doubt that Blair believed everything he said as the absolute truth at the time he said it. "They have weapons which can hurt us. I think" just wouldn't cut it and as politicians will tell you, no wishy-washyness is acceptible, especially not in the big league (ironically, in the rest of the world, someone who changes their views and opinions with the latest facts and information is considered intellectual, open minded, honest and generally clever. In politics, someone who does that is considered "wishy washy" or a flip-flopper, not strong and a silly centrist). But have you read what he actually said?

"I beg to move the motion standing on the order paper in my name and those of my right honourable friends.

At the outset I say: it is right that this house debate this issue and pass judgment. That is the democracy that is our right but that others struggle for in vain.

And again I say: I do not disrespect the views of those in opposition to mine.

This is a tough choice. But it is also a stark one: to stand British troops down and turn back; or to hold firm to the course we have set.

I believe we must hold firm.

The question most often posed is not why does it matter? But why does it matter so much? Here we are, the government with its most serious test, its majority at risk, the first cabinet resignation over an issue of policy. The main parties divided.

So: why does it matter so much? Because the outcome of this issue will now determine more than the fate of the Iraqi regime and more than the future of the Iraqi people, for so long brutalised by Saddam. It will determine the way Britain and the world confront the central security threat of the 21st century; the development of the UN; the relationship between Europe and the US; the relations within the EU and the way the US engages with the rest of the world. It will determine the pattern of international politics for the next generation...."
(to read more, go to "http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,916790,00.html")

Compelling stuff! Not only does he have a personal stake in this entire thing, but he begs to move the motion! Not only will the decision made that day affect the UK and Iraq, it'll effect the entire globe! This was no small matter. 

But was one man's sincerity enough to conjure the WMDs in Iraq? No. Was it enough to move nations to war? Yes.
The same can be said of Bush.

The point here is, just because someone believes something is the truth, no matter how much they appear to be sincere about it, no matter what they do in acting on that belief (such as declaring war and sending thousands to an uncertain fate) it doesn't mean it is true. If I was in Blair's shoes, I would also wish to appear as sincere as possible. If I was in Mohummed's shoes, I would want people to believe what I was saying, so would be as sincere as ever I could be...otherwise who would follow me? If no one believed me, I wouldn't be much of a prophet and if God didn't speak to me, I'd be entirely deficient as a seer. That would certainly put a crimp in my plans for domination of lands - if I have no believers in my cause, I have none to fight in my name.

Another typical response is "Mohummed could't read or write, so how else did he get the Koran if not directly from God's hand coming out of a burning bush?"

But let me move on to Christianity.
All but one of my readers are Christian, I'm pretty sure you were all waiting patiently to know what I was going to say about Christianity and either read what I had to say on Islam in agreement, or skipped to this bit anxious to get on with it.

The Christian arguments are somewht similar in their nature.

Me> So, why do you believe in Jesus?
Puzzling response>  "I have faith..."

what follows after those three words varies, perhaps an anecdote of how they came to have their faith (God himself spoke to me. I'm a prohpet) or a pseudo-theological answer (he died for me on the cross to attone for my sins), but it isn't relevant. The fact is, they believe as they do because they just believe. They just have faith.

So, what did they do before they had faith?
They took a step into an intellectual void and simply had faith, thus starting the vicious circle of "how do you know you're right?" - "I just have faith" - "but how do you know?" - "faith" which I so love. 

Whilst there are those who maintain that this is indeed a circular argument, I don't agree. The argument can be attacked thusly:

1) What prompted them to take that first step of faith? If the answer is "faith" then they'd be justly accused of having blind faith - making a move based on motives completely devoid of intellect. "But that's what faith is!" No, it isn't. That's what blind faith is. Faith is when you see X, know X is true and lovely and good and well, then have faith it leads to Y. That applies to anything. For example, you have faith signposts on a new road are correct. You don't KNOW absolutely that they are, you just have faith (others may prefer "presume" but it amounts to the same thing) that they are. But it's not blind faith, because it's based on the fact that signposts are usually correct and have been usually useful to you. Of course, you're aware that people may have tampered with it, such as rotating the sign to point in a different direction from the true destination. But still, you have faith.

In such a context, blind faith would be, perhaps, not to have faith in the signs, because you presume/believe/think/have blind faith that all signs are wrong. Why? Faith. But how do you know they're wrong? You just have faith. Maybe they're not wrong? Maybe not - but you have faith they are. But the signs serve millions of other people without harm! That may also be true, but you have faith they're all wrong and you're right, and the sooner they believe as you do, they'll be better off too. And what are the benefits of believing as you do? You never have to worry about wondering whether or not a sign has been tampered with. You never have to think about it in a real life context...you never have to think. Because you have faith! Who needs intellect anyway? That's useful for things like forwarding the Message of the Road Map over that of the devilish Signposts to others, or gaining a deeper understanding of Road Maps over signposts. But to use it to question and, RoadMap forbid, undermine your faith? No no. Also, not knowing anything about the opposing arguments are virtuous. The less you know and the more you have (blind) faith, the better.

So far, this is an attack on the first step of blind faith they took, devoid of intellect. Second attack would be on the continuation of blocking out intellect and rationalisation (you may have heard a religious leader speak of "rationalisation" in negative tones). Third, the lack of change in their stance in a system which they now know for sure to have compelled them to make those two moves in the first place.

If a personal anecdote was inserted, it too is easily dismissed, not just because personal experience hardly mounts to proof of truth (interestingly, Jesus/few followers and Mohummed both had entirely personal experiences, away from the prying eyes of multitudes of witnesses...apparantly God didn't want to cause a fuss), but because the supernatural in a natural world was assumed, whilst the natural explanation was completely ruled out and perhaps not even entertained.

Notice also, just because you have blind faith - or even faith- it doesn't make what you believe in true, no matter how hard one shuts their eyes and wishes it to be so. 

So, what do I believe?

I believe in knowledge and understanding as the springboard for faith, as Deuteronomy says "you shall know today that the Lord is your God."

That should really apply to anything - customer/employee x has proven his reliability in the past, so based on that, you may have faith they'll continue as they have done if something changes (e.g. the boss doesnt come in to work for a day, or you have faith a regular, reliable customer won't break a credit agreement and not pay when the time comes). It may even work in relationships.

So, what's the springboard in Judaism? What's the solid platform of fact? What better evidence than eyewitness report...? It is estimated that between 4-6 million people (fairly conservative figures) witnessed the revelation on mount Sinai. They were then instructed, as the bible says, to relate the events to their children and so and so forth, forever. 

Indeed, I have, somewhere, photos of evidence of the Exodus (availible upon demand) - archaeology unearthed (haha) gold chariot wheels in the likeness as described in the bible, broken in the same fashion. They matched chariot wheels found in a tomb back on mainland Egypt, giving estimated dates. This is in addition to inscriptions found on either side of the Red Sea, placed there (so the inscription reads) by Solomon to mark the place of the point of crossing of the CoI - thus confirming too (if there was ever a doubt), the existence of Solomon. The wheels and inscriptions were found along the same route plotted by some famous bloke in the 1970's that he thought the CoI were most likely to take. Oh, also, the part of the sea they were crossing? Sonar revealed the entire sea had massive "cliffs" hundreds and in places, thousands of feet deep, except between the place the plaques were found, which was actually elevated (so it looked to me) above all the rest.

Whilst this latter evidence just confirms those eyewitness reports, all this is nontheless actual, factual hard evidence. It's independent of the argument that "it says so in my holy book" which is entirely unconvincing and doesn't have an iota of "revelation of God was a personal experience. have faith and if youre worthy, youll realise its true."

Now, time for bed, for it is late.

Thanks to all those who read and replied. Interesting stuff. Everything which follows is in reply to Nossie and Ant, in that order. 

Nossie, I did go away and now I came back. I still don't have internet, but am using (with permission!) a neighbour's wireless internet connection.

Basically, look at humans. How did they come to be? No, this isn't a Creation/Evolution debate I'm going to give you. We will assume that they began to come into being many many years ago, in a pool. And that they started as a tiny bacterium. Well. How did that bacterium come into being? How can you explain it, other than that there is indeed a God somewhere who started it all off. There is no other reasonable rational way of explaining it (quoted from Nossie).

I believe the ideas you propound are termed "creationist evolution" or "intelligent design." I used to believe that sort of thing when I was your age, and enjoyed debating it in (a faith) school where the majority believed in the literal 6 days of creation in Genesis. It got quite lively at times...But anyway. I have read and studied both Jewish and Christian creationist ideas. I believe the latter to include intentionally misleading statements and the former to be incomplete - the science is correct (unlike the latter), but it isn't all there...so I suppose that's misleading too, but I suspect it isn't intentional (that's more an inference from writing style - you can see the thought process of the author as he expounds the ideas and sometimes he gets it wrong and says the equivalent of "actually, that's wrong, BUT...").

Alternately, you're endorsing evolution as a scientific theory, but are saying it all started with God placing the first pool of water, or first bacteria there. Whilst I could give several examples of how that could be untrue, I understand what you mean and shall thus strengthen your question and bring about the first and foremost thing which is troubling me from a scientific viewpoint and which is a large obstacle which impedes my switch into complete disbelief in God - the Big Bang. It happened, that much we know. There's all sorts of evidence for it (such as radiology evidence...the waves of the Big Bang are still "visible" to us today). Science says the origin of life was a single atom, which exploded and eventually became what we know and love as the universe. How did that one atom get there? Science doesn't know. That doesn't mean to say religious people do know, but God is one possibility.

Also, humans have a spiritual side. It can't be denied. And why would they have a spiritual side if there is no God? Can't it be denied? I'm very wary of statements and ideas when people follow it up with something like "it can't be denied" or "it's obvious" - in my experience, those statements and ideas usually can be denied, or are't at all obvious.

However. Let's move on. 

A cursory lesson in Anthropology would answer this suitably (that subject is, of course, one of my university courses). Just read M. Bloch's essay "symbol, song and dance" or any of M. Weber's works on religion, or perhaps Durkheim's views. Because I've already read them all, I'll explain what each one says so you don't have to.

M . Bloch - Jewish bloke, I think, teaches in my uni. A student of the famed anthropologist Shapiro (another Jewish bloke) who was taught himself by another famed anthropologist (who was also Jewish, I think) called Malinowski (I think the reason for the very great number of Jewish Anthropologists is because Jewish people tend to move about a lot - especially in the first and middle part of the century - and are also brought up with at least two languages, making it easier for them to grasp new ones. But anyway....

Bloch says religion exists merely because people seek to dominate others. And sure enough, one readily example is Christianity. Over the years, the Church was a terrible dominator of persons for nigh on two thousand years.

Durkheim is less cynical and says it's more to do with social (moral) cohesion - i.e. making sure everyone of one particular group stays in one particular group. Darwinians would say that this statistically improves the chances of that group in surviving. Cynical Durkheimians and perhaps traditional - perhaps even neo - Marxists would say it's to do with the ruling class imposing its own values upon everyone else, the better to control them with. That is its effect, essentially, whether we as religious people like it or not, but feel free to be wary of that.

Weber says pretty much the same thing as the above, and goes into antagoinsing detail of groups, sub groups, part groups, culture groups, religious groups, etc. etc. etc. to prove his point. There is almost literally not a group he doesn't discuss. Not content with the modern world, he even talks about the ancient Israelites.

So there we have it. Many views as to why there is religion in the world and not one of them has to do with God or spirituality.

Moving onto Ant's ideas...

Interesting.... to be honest, I don't think you can prove the unprovable, and God's made it that way. Its a faith thing! And I know many people out there will despise this way of thinking ;)

The reason why people despise it is because you believe in an invisible, untouchable, unseeable, unhearable being you credit with creating everything and just believe it. A typical discussion with someone who does not believe in God and someone who does, replacing "God" with "fairies" would to you sound proposterous and rightly so...

Person A: I believe fairies exist.
Person B: They don't, they're not here. They're fake.
Person A: How do you know?
Person B: Have you ever seen one?
Person A: No.
Person B: So how do you know they exist?
Person A: I have faith. I just know. It's what my gut tells me.
Person B: Having faith doesn't make it so.
Person A: I also have evidence...I haven't watered my garden for years and everything grows amazingly in it. Must be fairies! Also, I have personal experience. They talk to me. Tell me things. Not with voices in my head, but through signs.

Understandably, anyone seeing signs from fairies is either really young, really old, or really mad.
So why is it any different when you replace "fairies" with "God" and "faith" suddenly becomes an admirable and respectable thing to have, when based on similar things to the above?

You cannot reasonably expect mature adults to simply have (blind) faith in something which they have never seen or heard.

I grew up agnostic, then was converted to Christianity in my teens. So flitted between belief and agnosticism. I am now, however, a firm believer.

I grew up indifferent. I reached the pinnacle of Jewish education, found Christianity, Islam, Wicca, Buddhism, Druidism and Hinduism to be false - fascinating, but false nevertheless. So why not Judaism? There are fundamental differences, which I shall come to later, which also serve to propel me towards Judaism and away from agnosticism, atheism, or any other religion.

I had serious doubts about God per se about 3 years ago, but decided to reach the top of Judaic religious education first, before making ny conclusions on the matter. I also did it so no one could say "you're ignorant of scripture/rabbinic writings," and so that when I made the choice, I was standing on a solid tower of knowledge, rather than one of assumptions and ignorance. I never realised how far I actually came, until I recently debated (about Jewish matters) some students in a world class Jewish acadamy of higher learning, and outshone them both. The time, I feel, is ripe to make a choice and stand firm. But let's take a look at your evidence...

Creation - this was proposed by Maimonides (1134-1205). I used to agree, but now do not see how the logical conclusion should be God. Yes, there are amazing things in the world, but each has a perfectly sound scientific explanation, none of which has to do with God. As Douglas Adams (one of my favourite authors) once said, is it not enough to see that a garden is beautiful, without having to believe there are fairies at the end of it?

Conscience - If we are merely biological machines, why do we have these? (1) And if conscience, morality and ethics are a social construct, (2) why don't we all rebel and kill each other? (3) After all, its survival of the fittest right? (4) Oh, but thats wrong. Says who? (5) And why is there opinion more weighty than mine or yours? (6) Conscience is evidence of a moral God.

1) First off, you'll have to note that "morality" has different definitions in different societies. For example, it's immoral for men and woman to walk in the same street according to Bedouins of Egypt. But it isn't regarded immoral by the inhabitants of the cities of Egypt, who practise this. Another example - it's immoral to notchop off the hands of thiefs in Saudi Arabia. Yet it would cause outrage if done - and is regarded to be immoral - in the west. There are millions of examples, literally. So yes, they are social constructs in that there is no universal path of "morals" or "ethics," but is peculiar to each society.

2) Maybe many would. If there was no government, no enforcers of the law, it is reasonable to assume that there would be no order. The proof of this is that we have enforcers of the law - if it wasn't needed, they wouldn't be there.

I am very much taken with a news article I read on the tube a few years ago (in the Metro, that bastion of knowledge) which was reporting on the very large fires in california (arty may recall them). The police, fire and ambulance services - in other words, all hte trappings of modern daily law enforcement and emergency services - were all functioning perfectly well, and yet in that moment of unusual chaos, people were reported as looting shops, cars and houses. Chilling pictures of signs with the words "looters shall be shot" were displayed in the paper.

Furthermore, you cannot seriously suggest that it is only because of your belief in God that you do not do all these things? Surely before you were religious, you had no desire to kill, maim, rape and rob? Therefore, I find, on both these counts, your argument to be incorrect.

3) Maybe.
4) Is it wrong? And says who? I don't know, you tell me!
5) Maybe they have more knowledge about the subject?
6) I see no evidence of conscience. In many religions, I see evidence of guilt, fear and the promise of reward. Judaism is not one of them; we are taught "do not serve God out of fear, nor for the desire for reward. Rather, out of love should you serve Him." 

But to bring all those last points into one paragraph, if I've understood what you've said (i'm not convinced I have), I would offer you what someone once said to me: "I'm not doing it because I'm kind, I'm doing it because then they'll be in my debt. It's a totally selfish thing." So here we have our first alternate argument: the promise of payback.

Just today, travelling on the tube, someone moved their bag out the way, to which they were thanked many times by someone else. The person who moved the bag sat next to me and whispered "actually, I did it for me, not them" - another selfish motivation.

Not that every apparantly selfless act is due to selfishness. Others may be to show dominance ("I am the man of the house. I do the work and provide food!") or help given to one's own group, which would therefore ensure the continuation and success of that group - e.g. compatriots, relatives, friends...or in cybernations, the little gift-aid package you get when first joining an alliance.

Other times, because it makes no difference to the person providing help. A few days ago I loaned someone some money. It made no difference to me at the time and I knew the person would repay it, so it wouldn't exactly break the bank. So why not help someone out? As it happens, the thougt running through my mind was "he's laid out cash unquestioningly for me in the past, so I'll do it for him now" - which brings us back to the repayment of favours argument.

Anyway. The point is, there is no reason to conclude that we do nice things because there's a God, just like there's no reason to conclude we don't all kill each other when there's no God (as I've pointed out, we often find we do in fact kill each other when there is no human law, so how cuold that happen if God exists? I'm not suggesting it's a proof that he doesnt exist, but am suggesting everyday morals have more to do with state law enforcement than God). 

I look forward to the responses which shall no doubt crop up (btw, Nossie, I notice you haven't speedily sent back my e-mail RE: the Judao-Christian debate we're having).

Thanks for playing, hope you all come back and do so again some time! Take care. 

With this post I create a new section of my blog. For the first time ever, my blog has officially become a place where I shall post about religion - before, I tried to keep it free from such heavy topics as religion and politics and I have faired well in the religion department. Ok, so you'd have to read a post about religion every 6 months or so, but now I have a whole SECTION dedicated to it. Tremble, my dears, tremble!

The question I put before you today, is - wait for it! - the case of God. 

Is there, in fact, one in existence? Before you all tell me your personal experiences, let me allow you to inform you that a singular personal experience with the lack of any witness doesn't count as evidence of God. Let me disqualify too, "I have a gut feeling." In the words Stephen Colbert, "your gut has more nerve endings than anything else in your body. It's what my gut tells me. For those of you who don't believe me and check it up, only to find this is completely false, this is because you looked it up in a book. Look it up in your gut! Your gut knows the answer." In essence, 'my gut tells me it's true, therefore it is' is not sufficient either. Allow me also, to disqualify proof of the Divine from the NT. It is not possible to prove something from a document whose validity is reasonably and logically contested by a large number of people (the majority living on earth, actually) be brought as a proof of God/Jesus/etc. Also, you just can't prove the thing you're trying to prove, from the thing itself. It's like me telling you all I'm your master and you must serve me, proof of which I am telling you that I am your master and you must serve me (for those of you who see this as a valid proof, e-mail me ;-) I'll get in touch). Byt this same standard, the OT and koran, as well as book of mormon or any other religious text may not be quoted in order to verify itself.

With that out the way,  let the arguments begin!

Ask yourself: why do you believe in God? Without quoting any of the abov. In fact, you must choose from the options below:

1) I was brought up like that
2) I don't know
3) I don't really, deep down
4) It just seems correct
5) I believe that God exists based on all the evidence before me (please state what evidence)
6) I believe He may not exist, but am too afraid to deny His existence lest bad stuff happens to me (pascal's wager)

alternately, choose from this list:

A) I'm an atheist
B) agnostic
C) a believer
D) combination of B and C
E) combination of A and C (wot?? how's you get that?!)
F) combination of A and B (eh?)

choose one, dears!

for the formative years of my life, I was indifferent (more or less). I have been (C) for most of my life, but now I waver between A, B and C.