Faith brings hope.
So you admit that your reason for believing in god is only for emotional comfort, and not rational investigation?
I don't know if I have a "why". Rational investigation of what? And how do you investigate something that happened 4.5 BILLION years ago?
1. There is always a why buried somewhere. I'd start looking in the subconscious for a comfort mechanism.
It should occur to you that not having a reason for a belief in something, is a good reason to not to belief in that something.
2. Rational investigation of god. (Faith is not a rational investigation for anything, let alone something that cannot be investigated)
3. Who's talking about something that happened 4.5 billion years ago? We are talking about having faith in the here and now.
1. So you don't question the same things things now, that you are acknowledging you were once brainwashed to believe?
I acknowledge that i was taught to believe in something and I have no evidence to reject that teaching now.
Do you consider it to be unbiased to favor a teaching that could only be revoked on a universal negative? Why accept it in the first place?
The teapot example was a straight forward question. If that was what you were taught, and you had no evidence to reject the teaching now, would you still cling to that belief?
At what age is my point. And for what reasons. Were you mad at mommy and daddy? 
Hell I still don't go to church. Haven't since I was probably 14. But the belief is still there.
I can't know your point or your reasons.
I wasn't upset at anyone at the time. Emotions actually clouded my thoughts. But when I came to these conclusions, I became terribly upset. I cried and ran to my parents disturbed that my foundations for life weren't as solid as I once believed. It took me awhile to cope with the new dismal perspective, before I began to appreciate the new one for what it really was. If anything, I'm happy that it happened, and that it happened when I was young. The longer it becomes a part of your life, the harder it is to accept. For all I know, it could be 5 times harder for you than it was for me.
3. I only give credit to things that are written, peer reviewed, reproduced by the scientific community, and make logical sense.
So propaganda in a different form then, got it, thanx.
You know that's not fair assessment. You are discrediting an entire process and all of its benefits without examining a single example. Propaganda also has motivation behind it. Scientists make money and progress by tearing each others' theories apart, where ever they can find problems
and then improving upon them as best they can making their own contribution. They all question each other and test each other. When they can narrow down a theory to the point that they can't disagree with rational arguments, the move on the the theories build upon them. The scientific community agrees only on what they cannot disagree on. I witness this remarkable system rather often.
Dismissing it as propaganda to change my beliefs is an unverified claim, and I suspect that you are reciting your own prejudices rather than coming to the conclusion that it (whatever 'it' is) is propaganda as you typed.
A vague story passed down orally for generations, before being written by men, edited by men, and rewritten by men, with no actual factual verification, filled with obvious contradictions and absurdities has little sway over me. I filter my sources only to ensure that the messages I would be relying on are factual.
Yeah like ancient Egypt. Good to know those fuckers never existed either.
I'm not sure I follow. I have every reason to believe Egyptians existed. It seems you are replacing my argument with a flawed analogy to suit your own purpose in convincing yourself that my argument is also flawed. It seems to carry the essence of any strawman, but I don't think it's intentional.
If something is not peer reviewed, I am skeptical. Even if the message makes sense to me.
If something has not been reproduced in a controlled environment, I am still skeptical.
If something doesn't make logical sense to me, I question it and pursue it further in case I have a conflicting misconception about it, or something that it fits with.
Yet you perform none of the experiments or do any investigating yourself. Only taking the word of 5 scientists that told you they did, and agreed on a conclusion. Interesting.
What experiments do you expect me to conduct myself?
And 5? Seriously? The scientific community includes all voices from all scientists from all countries. Once again, you are altering your perspective of what I am suggesting in order to make it appear nonsensical. When they are all in agreement to a vast majority after rigorous testing, it is much harder to deny. Once again, there is no ultimate motivation for all of them to just simply agree. A career is made new findings, not in replicating someone else's findings. The motivation actually only exists when you are trying to convert people. See any religion.
I have already mentioned that proof of almost anything is impossible. All I have is evidence.
The difference between us that you are overlooking, is our scrutinization of the source. If you don't consider the validity of what you read, you might start believing Harry Potter is a real person, who uses magic wands to fight evil wizards at Hogwarts.
There very well may be people that think Harry exists. And who are we to tell them otherwise?
They are entitled to hold there beliefs, though I feel as though I wouldn't be doing my part if I didn't point out the flaws behind the reasons for their beliefs. If I can demonstrate that believing in Harry is an irrational emotional defense mechanism and they agree, I would have no problem if they still choose to continue to believe in Harry Potter.
The point being just because you can't see it or measure it doesn't always mean it doesn't exist.
You're right here. I am not telling you god doesn't exist, because I cannot know.
IE Aliens, most people think they exist. I am one of them. That kind of goes against the bible doesn't it? But we can't prove it, there is no evidence for it. That's what a belief is. Faith.
I do not know what goes against your interpretation of the bible, but we cannot "see or measure" them simply because they are far away, not because they don't adhere to basic laws of reality. I too believe in aliens, but not because of faith. I believe in aliens because of basic probability. The size of the visible universe and the amount of planets that would likely fit the requirements of supporting life comes out very favorably.
Why is it that religion is exempt from the scientific method in your mind?
Its not. Hence all the links I posted. All evidence for the earth being created by something other than an accident.
The scientific method requires skeptics to review the work and attempt to find problems with it. I skimmed a few of your sources, and they don't even include references to how they reached there conclusions, so I can't reproduce the math, nor can anyone else. However, people can make their own experiments do their own math, and come to their own conclusions. They can then be peer reviewed, tested, retested, and altered and tested again. Carbon dating testing by the scientific community has already done that independently from your biblical sources, so I favor them over yours. I think you have this impression that the scientific community is a group of close friends that all want to guide people's beliefs, rather than a competitive global free-for-all.
And even the conclusions that your sources spell out are only conclusions for that issue. If you believe that the moon was really behaving that way over that course of time, how can you expand that as evidence of an all powerful entity?