The scientific conspiracy

When I was a believer, I had a strong tendency to shrug off new scientific data contrary to my beliefs. I honestly thought there was a conspiracy to disprove God through their findings because they were mad at God, didnt want to believe, or so they could do whatever they wanted without consequence.
When I started to study the science of evolution, it was really an attempt to pick it apart and find the fingerprints of God in creation. I would often see the unexplained as "God" and so it didnt need to be explained for me. My faith overcame evidence consistently with the biblical stories of creation and the flood.
There are a lot of convincing arguments on christian sites such as answersingenesis.org, and all you need is a little faith to make them feel true.
There are a lot of terms specific to christian scientists that help distinguish false secular science from science based on truth, terms like microevolution and macroevolution, historical and observational science.
These terms werent exactly helpful in my search for God, because they truly cloud up matters which are relatively simple.
For example, what they label as macroevolution is actually a whole lot of "microevolution," and all of it is just evolution. Of course there was a time when all evolution was considered false, but they changed theories with mounting evidence and invented terms.
As for historical and observational science? These are ridiculous terms.
But they sounded so good when I had faith to make them true, but when you get the rest of the story, its all baseless assertions and accusations.
I really missed quite a big observation though in my effort to deny reality in favor of the fantastical. The group of people I thought was conspiring against my faith is made up of geologists, paleontologists, astronomers, and many other scientific disciplines. Interestingly enough, the people who should have the most access to the "fingerprints of God" as I imagined they would be in nature, are made up primarily of people who do not believe the biblical story. I always thought that being in the presence of God always changed people, why did I not stop to wonder why I thought this group of people would deny God if they had physical emperical proof of everlasting life?
Interestingly enough there's quite a different group who conversely have much more collective faith than the educated.
In July of 2013, of prison inmates who chose to disclose their religious preference,  only 0.07% were atheist.
What does that say about those who believe and do not? Why is it that the people who should know for certain God's existence, if there is evidence for it,  do not believe? Is it possible that some people believe the Bible so they can do what they want without consequence?
Im careful not to read too far into this because if everyone in the world believed, it would still be false, even if I was the only one that realized it. I dont base my rejection of faith on what's popular or not it is based solely on the evidence which speaks directly to religion being the flawed creation of man, and not the perfect story of God. I also know the Christian answer to this: It's not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.  The Bible is so clever in some of it's writings.
Im glad I am able to see the information with some objectivity and realize it is not scientists who have the agenda, but scientists who have to specify the religion they support who have a plan to deny reality, whether in ignorance or not.
There is an epidemic of invisible, undetectable, miniature, three-legged donkeys, which pop into existence with the birth of each child. They live off socks but are concerned with their weight so only eat them one at a time and they think live in washing machines. The evidence is overwhelming that they exist because there always seems to be one sock missing. Can you prove these creatures dont exist? You can prove my evidence is false, but you cant prove the creatures dont exist.
This is how "christian science" works. There is already a presuposition of God and so only the evidence which supports that is accepted, the rest is considered untrue, ficticious,  or tainted, and furthermore cannot be refuted because you can not disprove God exists.
With faith, God did it, is an acceptable answer, but what does the evidence really say?
There is a conspiracy, but the truth is out there.

Creating religion

"If I wrote a book and ran around and called it the truth, I'm sure I could get a few followers. Especially if I had a sword."
This is something a Christian told me in a conversation about religions. In my mind I thought "Exactly."
There are a lot of religions in this world and I'm sure there will be many more to come.
One reason I bring this up is because it was a little confusing to me how Christianity was started in the first place. Why would so many people follow it if it wasn't true to start with?
If the disciples weren't certain of Jesus' resurrection why would they continue to preach it until death?
If I had literally seen the events purported in the Easter story, I would have done the same thing, but there are some clues that the disciples might not have ever seen such events.
Mark, which is widely held to be the gospel written first, contains something in the Easter story which is curious to me. The women left the tomb and "told no one" of the empty tomb.
This phrase seems out of place to me. Why would they be afraid at the most triumphant moment of the man they had been following for so long?
I have a hunch this phrase is here for another reason: to explain why no one heard about this event at least until Pentecost.
Even if I'm wrong, it still doesn't address the differences in the Easter stories between gospels or why the tomb wasn't preserved by early Christians. Why tell people that Jesus has been raised when you could just show them an empty tomb? It wouldn't prove the resurrection, but it sures seems suspect that it wasn't preserved.
Could the story be a later fabrication to continue in a radicals teachings? Would the disciples continue to preach the gospel until death if it was false? The short answer is YES!
Enter Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon church.
Joseph Smith met with an angel, got some new texts written on golden plates which were omitted from the Bible by generations past. He gave a lot of details about these plates and wasn't the only one who claimed to have seen them. His mom even vouched for him and there's no way I could get my mom to do that for me if she knew I was lying!
Joseph Smith is said to be a martyr be his church and despite having a mob which would have seemingly delighted in his recanting of his faith, that is not the story which has been passed down to us, especially through the Mormon church.
Does that mean the faith Mormon church is also "true?"
We have the same evidences as the disciples, only much more recent. We have a few people who claimed to witness something miraculous and even died continuing to preach it.
I, as a christian, would have rejected it immediately because it isn't the truth that Jesus taught, or archaeologically verifiable.
That isn't even the only modern sect which has similar claims. The motivation to present these lies as truth must be admittedly elsewhere then. I cant claim to know what it was for the apostles, but there may be a very heinous answer to that in Acts 5:1-11.
In this story a husband and wife sell land they owned and brought money to the apostles, but kept "some", no amount or percentage is specified, for themselves. The both fall dead for "lying to God." It says that the rest of the church was afraid when they heard what happened.
The context of this story is about the early church sharing everything so no one was in need. Interpretations here vary quite a bit as to what actually occurred, but I think that it's glaringly obvious that the goal was that believers should give their all to the church without holding back even "some."
It's a motivation well mirrored in the creation of the modern religion of Scientology.
L. Ron Hubbard has been quoted by several people as saying religion is where the real money is. Unfortunately we don't have a recording of his actual words and accounts as to the actual phrase vary so maybe he didn't say it at all, but the religion he started seems to fully support this mind set.
Everything costs money to be a higher "level." There are a lot of things in Christian churches that costs money, but at least the forgiveness of sins is free and what does cost money is optional (other than the tithe which I would argue those of faith give freely rather being required to pay.)
There are many devout Scientologist even though the religion's founder was a science fiction writer prior to his founding of Scientology.
Shedding the shackles of faith has not been easy for me. Even though I can prove portions of the Bible false, still many questions have lingered at the back of my mind that must be answered carefully in order to be sure of the truth. I have to be sure that I have not been mislead in some way by ignoring an imperfect story that truly is from God. Having modern instances of the creation of religion and how quickly they can grow with only a few devout believers definitely helps to provide some possibilities as well as discounting the evidence which once seemed so sure.
The Biblical continues to fall apart piece by piece under scrutiny. It fits the entire biblical story better for each portion to be legend sprinkled with some truth, than the most crucial story being the ultimate truth.