I must preface my response by saying that, while I've linked to the bible several times, I push or proselytize nothing. Reiterating large parts of a rationale well stated elsewhere is simply counterproductive. I concede that another goal is ensuring, if you must categorically reject Christianity, that you reject what it is rather than misrepresentations by its zealously ignorant and too often vindictive advocates. Basically, to guarantee an informed decision, keenly aware the warped docrine of many self proclaimed Christians makes that more rather than less difficult. Please bear in mind that while I obviously believe my statements reflect reality to the best understanding I've received, I insist only that they reflect CHRISTIANITY to the best understanding I've received, with no more love than you for orthodoxy.

Coming from a fairly strong atheist background, "I think I should show the gods somehow that I care and believe" is a big step, and a positive one, IMHO. It bespeaks a humble respect that intelligent educated people can find difficult. I would caution against certainty the Christian God has nothing to do with you; it's not my call, of course, but I'd expect everything to be on the table at this point (back in HS when I wanted to be a Druid, not letting Christian zealots warped version ruin it for me would've saved a lot of time). As to rules and caring about human choices, it's less about looking over shoulders than "I should show the gods somehow that I care and believe". If you recognize the justice and morality of that, don't you think any deity would, too?

Christianity is ultimately centered on God; even the Golden Rule is ultimately just the best human expression of that. It was given to humans, and considers us the chief means of glorifying God because most of creation is restricted to doing so passively. That's because of choice; it's hard to imagine rocks or birds choosing between loving or rejecting God, which gives humans a somewhat larger role, yes, but it's important not to put the cart before the horse. The doctrinal Christian view is that all creation exists for Gods glory, and even during the half of my life very hostile to Christianity I subscribed to that sort of monotheistic deism. A supernatural First Cause is indispensable, but any we posit is an unprovable axiom, and the only thing harder than validating one such axiom is validating many. Occams Razor implies without proving monotheism, and it's easy to imagine individuals mistaking their unique relationship with a single God for evidence of many. Because people and their relationships with God are unique, I think He interacts with them accordingly, further encouraging one God with many faces to be seen as many gods. Just my two cents, but I think you would find this analysis interesting.

Why not? Prove one and only one straight line can be drawn through any two points; it's a fundamental axiom of Euclidean geometry, but no one (even Euclid) has even tried to prove it, because axioms, by definition, admit no proof. That's just as well for Riemann geometry and its applications to Relativity. Speaking of science, prove that the same experiment under the same conditions will always produce the same results. It's logical, expected, and has always been our experience, but proof is impossible. Fact is, as any lawyer or other philosopher can tell you, it's nigh impossible to definitively prove anything. What we treat as certain is merely extremely probable, and we demand Douglas Adams' "rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty". That's why epistemology and ontology exist. You've got belief; I submit that what you want now is something to eliminate the doubts preventing the certain belief of faith, but also that your very desire for it in this case but not in the many more familiar ones is evidence that it's not so unobtainable or strange.

Understandable, but that frame of mind prompts the right questions, fosters the humility needed to be receptive to the answer. The Christian view is that God doesn't force Himself on anyone, which makes the whole discussion academic until/unless we're willing to freely submit to Him. From what I've seen that's largely the view of most surviving pagan religions, too.

Nor should you, or at least, if they are, you should receive them voluntarily from God, not by some human intermediary with no more inherent righteousness nor accuracy than you. The only use I see for a religious group is to share fellowship with those who share your beliefs, and thereby reinforce, explore and develop a shared understanding of what those beliefs mean and where they lead. I DO think that value real, but the tendency to dictate is why I've always had a strong aversion to organized religion. There are many awful churches out there (I frequently think they vastly outnumber the good ones) but that's all the more reason not to condemn the good with the bad. Happily, Christs statement that whereever two or three are gathered in His name He is in their midst means I don't have to show up in a throng at a building with a cross above the door.

I happen to like mixing religion with science, so long as we remember that science ceases to be science when we do. Very devout and spiritual people can be and have been exceptional scientists; just yesterday I was reading up on Millenialism and noted that Sir Isaac Newton himself estimated a minimum date for it (2060, if anyone cares). It's even possible to lead the way in mapping the human genome and be devoutly passionately religious. It's regrettable that so many antagonists on both sides demand a conflict where none is warranted or even advisable. Regardless, with respect to both science and religion I support asking questions with a humble and open mind, so more power to you. I appreciate and respect agnosticism, can't really help since I was agnostic for more of my life than I've been anything else. It's probably the default religious view for most, if not all, of the species; Gods existence may not admit proof, but His NON-existence actively denies it: Negatives can't be proven.