Our theists of all labels please answer....

[RoadRunner79]

---

I think I answered this before.  You seem to be attempting to make a distinction between the why and force it into a feelings thing.  Cannot I feel a need for, and the why be the same thing?

In the beginning for me, however; it was the history behind Christianity, that convinced me, that it was true.   The Bible is primarily a historical book, which contains theological teachings, rather than a Theology book or instruction manual. Also when comparing to other religious beliefs, it is going to be the historical aspect, that I look to.  Since then, I would also point to scientific or philosophical evidence and arguments, which point to something like God. This doesn't get to specifics, but every argument doesn't need to.

When I was a non-believer, I didn't feel a need to search for God, and I wasn't looking to change my life.  I was fairly content.  It wasn't that I felt a need to do anything.  Also, I'm not a Christian, because it particularly suites me or because that system sounded the best to me.  In that regard, Buddhism actually seems to be fairly appealing, or why not just make up my own for that matter.  We could go new age, and have a subjective god, made in your own image.
With that being said, I do understand some believers talking about the completeness and wholeness, that comes with belief.   It's not entirely intellectual; but, for me, this came after (and I wouldn't have understood it before).

Now, if this doesn't answer your question, then I think that the questions can be applied to your own beliefs as well.  Why should I buy what you are selling?

---

It is about mere feelings otherwise you could answer without trying to point to your particular club and writings.

It is about mere feelings otherwise you would not be afraid of a neutral lab where it isn't trying to point to anything. 

"When you were a non-believer" yep, you were still not armed with enough. I could not care less what you were prior, once you start trying to point to a particular club/writing your are back in the same position as if you were raised with a club. 

Humans move from one position to another, that is not an argument. 

You, "It's not entirely intellectual" ........I wouldn't put it quite like that. I have seen very elaborate apologies from followers of every label worldwide. Don't falsely equate the human ability to make up or swallow elaborate false claims as the claim being true itself. Shakespeare''s plays are also complex but that does not make the characters real.

Men popping out of dirt is not intellectual, Muslims pointing out claims of rivers of milk and wine, also not intellectual, spinning prayer wheels in front of a Buddhist temple, also not intellectual, on top of the fact that the first depictions of the Buddha mythology has him being born of royalty and also avoiding the birth canal.

You certainly can be intelligent AND WRONG. Bernie Madoff scammed rich people and college educated people out of lots of money. Every religion has followers who either fall for or create and sell elaborate apologies. 

Neutrality is the only thing in scientific method that works. If you want neutral intellect and not personal bias, that is the only thing that works. I am sure you might think you are being "intellectual" but complexity of a naked assertion and trying to call it philosophy and or trying to reach back in time after the fact to try to square it to modern science is not being intellectual, it is merely falling for someone's vivid imagination.

Christians have left to become Muslims, Muslims have left to become Christians, Christians have left to become Buddhist, and some leave all of them. The fact you fell back into one of them only means you fell back into one.

Your first sentence here, is ridiculous. Basically, if I am understanding correctly, you ask for an answer about one belief over another, but then reject anything trying to point to that belief. Second, a science lab is not appropriate, for all claims of truth. I'm not afraid of a neutral lab, where it is applicable.

I would also be curious as to how you are defining neutrality here. It appear to me, that you are just rejecting anything from anyone who believes what they are proclaiming (however I assume you wouldn't do the same when what is proclaimed aligns with what you are selling). The only question is what is the belief based on. From whom the information comes from, doesn't matter. What you feel are their motives... doesn't matter. Once again, I would encourage you to lay out, what these principles you are putting forth are, and we will examine them neutrally, and see where they go (although note, not in a science lab, as that would be a category error and inappropriate to test this type of assertion).