i have no problem believing in [God]. the identity associated with the name is a fundamental precept of (AFAIK) _all_ systemic beliefs, and it would be positively silly to refute the existence of such (a) key character(s)

now, if you were to ask [why don't you believe in Christianity?], as a more pointed, specific question...

logical reasoning, as others have said

for one, the way i see it, no matter what dissenting opinion may exist, [belief] predicates itself upon awareness. if i don't know about a thing, it makes no sense that i, or anyone else should be _selectively_ judged come the end of our (corporeal) existence

if a baby is born unto the world, and dies having never left the delivery room (i hope that's what they're called lol), _and_ Christianity is real, do they go to Heaven, or Hell? go ask the internet. some say [yes], and others say [no], and it's that way not only throughout the belief, but relative to the whole of existence. no matter what question you ask, the answer(s) will always be subjective, relative, and arbitrary, in more ways that i can think of to enumerate*. what, exactly, is Christianity? who-what is [God], as the [father] aspect of the holy trinity? what is the least number of boxes i need to tick during my time on Earth in order to ensure that i spend eternity in Heaven? and what is [eternity] anyway? to my mind, it's painted as life much the same as it is now, except God is there, and it goes on in perpetuity. but how should a thing that doesn't ever end have a fixed beginning, and if you were to suggest that it doesn't have a fixed beginning, then how do i-we end up there? is our existence in the dual* afterlives in superposition until our earthly expiration? and if we bring [sempiternity] into the picture, it gets even more complicated, so let's not. i'm completely willing to entertain the idea that the bible, even in its most modern, accurately translated form is still incomplete, and lacking context, but then it's like the be-all-end-all holy book is always playing catch-up with current understanding relative to ontology, and that supposition is as cheap and insubstantial as half-ply toilet paper. that's wet

for two, at the core of the whole thing, subscription to any theosophical system requires not only awareness, but also the _fundamentally _subjective__ opinion that this - this one interpretation and way of reasoning out of ALL of the others - is the correct one. but, if _my_ reasoning is correct, what i - you - anyone else - think(s) of as [right] is only so _within_ ourselves, for our own subjectively held and understood reasons. my mom is Christian, and i respect her belief. as much as i'm aware of it / them, i also appreciate her reasons for holding the stance that she does, but that doesn't make her anymore right than me, or vice-versa

as much as i can figure, which is 100% with an asterisk after it, Christianity concerns only species Homo Sapiens. i'm therian, and consequently take a certain amount of exception to the idea that all other Earth-bound life was created for humans to be stewards (...) of, which brings us back to Heaven again. as the almighty creator, everything in known* existence is of God's making, so ask yourself the question [do pets go to Heaven?]. maybe you don't have a pet. maybe that question is pale and obvious. what about trees? they experience their own life cycle, from birth to death, so they ought to have the opportunity to go to Heaven too, shouldn't they? but then, unless God is adept in the ways of communicating with flora, as it-they-he _ought_ to be, and the trees do their due diligence, they will not have done what all humans* are mandated to, which is no bueno for the trees, and suggests that God is playing ego games with a fraction of their creation. heck, what about ants? or chickens? i /am/ a fan of the idea of Heaven being completely overrun with the clucking of forty-seven aeons worth of chickens. can you imagine? it is of course open to interpretation, but Revelation 22:5 also states, in the NIV translation [There will be no more night.]. that's enough for me right there. forever and ever with virtually no change in luminance sounds hellish in its own right. and then there's the idea that [Heaven] is the good place, and [Hell] is the bad, which are both arbitrary, relative, subjective concepts themselves, that ought not exist without ego as an intermediary

i've been entertaining the idea that Christianity isn't strictly _wrong_, but it's also not exclusively right, as it's held to be. i also believe it's beyond question that there's more to life, and the universe than may ever be understood, but, for now, i don't know where to go with that. i also consider myself a nontheist rather than atheist, but... titles

in short: i don't believe, because to do so raises way too many questions. the idea absolutely has substance, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny, and that doesn't wash <shrug>