'Knowledge', you mention that as far as Jesus's resurrection is concerned, "the proofs of it are well written by witnesses". This doesn't constitute 'proof', it's evidence all right, of a kind, but most definitely not proof, unless you have a head full of wool for brains. People, even groups of people, say things everyday that are completely untrue because they have an agenda which justifies lying. Sometimes people misrepresent the truth out of ignorance or because they are temporarily deluded. After 2,000 years we have no idea whatsoever the conditions under which those original testimonies were taken, or how long afterwards they were written down. It's no more proof of resurrection than if I told you I saw a ghost today is proof of ghosts, unless you are particularly gullible.

When I read posts like Bestway's I wonder if I am am living in the 21st century or the 17th. In attempting to apply logic (although in an absurdly subjective bastardised form) to largely symbolic writing from past millennia it almost always ends up sounding like a comedy sketch. It's like taking lyrics from 1960's pop songs and attempting to interpret them as a dissertation on the human condition . It dissolves into absurdity because they are a product of their times, a mirror of their contemporary society, as are religious texts.

Perhaps you are 'happy' because of your faith and that's great, for you. Humanity has been burdened with the facility to endlessly ask 'why' and thereby gradually chip away at superstition and ignorance. The type of 'thinking' you favour is the same misguided 'logic' that allowed men in 17th century England to 'know' that throwing an elderly woman into a river to observe whether she sank or swam would prove, with God's help, whether she was a witch or not.

You are on your own in the cosmos. It's painful to accept, but the voices in your head telling you you're special are not divine. Best of luck.

I am sorry to disappoint you believers, who so want it to be true, but we are on our own, plain and simple. No one to watch over us, no one to save us when we fall, no one to grant our wishes. But in exchange for that lack of a divine safety net we have the most precious gift of all; free will. What's more we each have the opportunity to play an infinitesimal role in the 15 billion year drama of the cosmos.

Before Galileo most of the world believed irrefutably that the Sun orbited the Earth. The fact it was the majority view didn't make it any righter than if only one person had thought it. You have the right to believe what ever you want to, if it gives you comfort in a harsh unyielding world, but it doesn't make it true. You can't trust your feelings, or your perceptions, no matter how transcendental your personal religious experience, so if your God makes you less frightened and feel less inconsequential then carry on. Nobody can prove you wrong, or right. The ideal default position for religious belief.

There are some very interesting responses to my original question. Some have made me think again because they clearly represent an alternative view, such as the contention that those with English as a second language are being quite brave even to attempt it. Perhaps for the latter, and those with dyslexia, if one is being charitable there is some excuse for poorly written English. But for those individuals who seem to glory in illiteracy, perhaps even seeing it as part of their identity, they are marking themselves down as a willing member of an under-class.

A projectile vomit of capital-lettered, incoherent, badly spelt and aggressively worded illiterate remarks will not persuade anyone of your argument, just convince them you are not worth listening to or reading. I suspect that this is the desired result as we aren't talking about communication here but the violent imposition of ideas that attempts to crush debate with its sheer witless vandalism of the language.