Those are rather atheistic/bone-headed parameters, considering that Jesus was killed by his accusers as a young poor man!

Allegedly.

His very "existence" is only alleged.

(June 13, 2010 at 3:59 am)tavarish Wrote: 1. Testable evidence is not a bone-headed parameter, it's a way to distinguish fact from fantasy.

It's bone-headed because you're looking for the wrong evidence. I wouldn't take deep sea samples if I was looking for evidence of a school-yard brawl. Being testable alone does not make it relevant.

Quote:2. What does Jesus have to do with anything?

Jesus is supposidely the closest thing to God that humanity has seen. His circumstances, according to aforementioned bone-headed parameters, would've indicated a lack of God - when they actually do the opposite according to most.

Quote:Yes, he definitely should be looking for things that can be explained simply by differences in psychological profiles, personality, and influential circumstances.

How do psychological profiles, personality, and influential circumstances affect belief in God? I guess I'm talking about how a human can go to its death so differently from a wild animal.

Quote:Seriously, WTF. If a reasonable test of God's existence is the believer's ability to react positively in a bad situation, would a negative reaction mean God doesn't exist?

Please use your brain.

Perhaps, perhaps.
If you determine through testing that belief in God results in positive reactions through hardship and other belief systems fail, then we'll at least know that belief in the "true God" is useful/beneficial for the human race.

(June 13, 2010 at 2:00 pm)ecolox Wrote: Jesus is supposidely the closest thing to God that humanity has seen.

The closest thing? Do you not believe that jesus IS god? I thought you christians don't believe in more than one god.

Quote:If you determine through testing that belief in God results in positive reactions through hardship and other belief systems fail, then we'll at least know that belief in the "true God" is useful/beneficial for the human race.

There are some mild personal comforts that having a god belief can give people, just like any other sort of belief in an imaginary friend. That doesn't make the belief true though. Anyways, there are way too overwhelming a number of negative reactions compared to those mildly positive ones. Those negative reactions, like slaughter, laws against nonharmful things, etc, affect us nonbelievers (and different-believers) as well as you believers. If only you guys would at least keep it to yourselves, we'd all get along so much better, you know. Also, why would a loving god who wants positive reactions do it with a prerequirement of suffering? Creepy personality alert. Danger Will Robinson, danger!

Quote:The closest thing? Do you not believe that jesus IS god? I thought you christians don't believe in more than one god.

I believe the human Jesus lived with the spirit of God - and that there is one God.

Quote:There are some mild personal comforts that having a god belief can give people, just like any other sort of belief in an imaginary friend.

I can see that I would go about life differently if it weren't for God.

This one sounds like a docetist:

Quote:In Christianity, Docetism (from the Greek δοκέω [dokeō], "to seem") is the belief that Jesus' physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion; that is, Jesus only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die. This belief treats the sentence "the Word was made Flesh" (John 1:14) as merely figurative. Docetism has historically been regarded as heretical by most Christian theologians.[1][2] Outside the argument of whether Jesus is God Himself or not,

What's with all the gnostic heretics showing up lately? 'True Christian' was a Marcionite. The church was usually much better at eradicating these pests. How did these two slip through?

(June 13, 2010 at 10:42 pm)Minimalist Wrote: What's with all the gnostic heretics showing up lately? 'True Christian' was a Marcionite. The church was usually much better at eradicating these pests. How did these two slip through?

Kooky religion convention? I hope there is security. This sort of thing could lead to drunken (on jesusblood) fisticuffs and stake-burnings.

There seem to be as many views on what christ was/did as christians.

Quote:This sort of thing could lead to drunken (on jesusblood) fisticuffs and stake-burnings.

A/K/A A win-win!

(May 6, 2010 at 10:08 pm)littlegrimlin1 Wrote: What if there was a secluded society of great scientists that have never heard of gods or religion? If they were working at finding answers to the unknown... how could they ever reach the conclusion that a god created everything? If they've never observed any evidence of this god, how would they generate a concept of what a god is that conforms to their logic and scientific findings?

Isn't attributing an unknown to a god/ghost contradictory? Like saying I don't know... so I know this must've happened due to a god/ghost.

Here's the thing. God is in humanity's collective consciousness as the creator of life. Not aliens from outer space, not Harry Potter, and not the tooth fairy. Therefore, all experiments conducted in the area of life's origin have an underlying design to either prove or disprove God's existence. So whenever results fail to explain something scientifically, then it is not illogical to conclude that such results point towards the existence of God.