Christians celebrate rape, torture, slavery and genocide.

[Undeceived]

There are 27 New Testament books and 66 in the whole Bible, many of which make predictions that came true. Outside sources:
http://www.evidencetobelieve.net/history_of_jesus.htm
http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/...ources.htm
Are you saying all this evidence is a cleverly-contrived pack of lies? Well then, I declare all mentions of George Washington to be part of a conspiracy, perhaps devised by John Adams (the real first president) to pretend that a much more likeable man was president instead. The motive or the who makes no difference. George Washington was not president until you prove it with evidence I, the skeptic, accept as evidence. You have the burden of proof, my friend. George Washington was not a real man.

These sources deal with the existence of Jesus (a possibility I am willing to accept). Neither prove that Jesus was what he said he was. Neither prove the existence of God.

No, they don't. However, they present an interesting scenario. Jesus is the only man to claim he was God and be believed by thousands. Either he was a liar (contradicting his own teachings) or he was a madman (who was very calm and convincing). There is no evidence of later embellishment, and little time to develop a legend. All of this puts the decision on the shoulders of the individual--there is no clear proof either way. Either you believe the sources or you refuse to believe the sources because you are convinced that deep questions such as humanity's purpose and origin are answerable only by naturalistic science. The article I linked argues for a burden of proof for theists and atheists alike (http://bbhchurchconnection.wordpress.com...-of-proof/ ). My sources don't prove the existence of God, but that doesn't mean atheism is to be automatically accepted in its stead. Both beliefs have a shortage of evidence and, more importantly, require a presupposed way of looking at the evidence. Atheists presuppose empiricistic naturalism. Theists presuppose rationalism in addition to empiricism. When two sides are arguing with opposite epistemologies as we are (with the very origins of those epistemologies the topic of the argument), one of us cannot simply tell the other 'prove it' as if they have the higher ground. My reason (and I believe the Holy Spirit's intervention) tells me Jesus told the truth about himself. Your reason ignores all human motivations and cuts the answer down to a cold science. If I may make an analogy. Joe the anarchist punches Dave the policeman in the face. A rationalist would say, “Joe hit Dave because he hates government institutions.” An empiricist would say, “The object called Joe collided with the object called Dave” and look for a physical explanation. Apparently, object Joe struck object Dave when the electrical activity in Joe’s brain rose. What caused the activity? The empiricist will look for other instances of the activity. He might discover that it increases when near objects that hold some kind of authoritative power over object Joe. Science would never come close to the concept of anger the emotion because emotions are only knowable by the inside information we have as humans. In order to find Joe's reason for hitting Dave, we must employ a rationalist perspective.

The same goes for reasoning about God. God is not a material being. He is all person. Science cannot touch Him. Just as reason alone could understand Joe’s personal intent in punching Dave, reason alone can understand the all-personal God. God’s existence is not provable if by ‘proof’ you mean ‘physical proof’. Now, He might leave clues for us. But if He does, He does so on His own terms with a purpose in mind. If His desire is for people open to His love to find Him, He will provide enough evidence for them to believe. Providing undeniable physical evidence makes people view Him as a force to submit to. Even if you reasoned God's intentions differently than I just did, 'proof' would have no place. You have the right to argue, "God would show Himself better if he existed" or "God would cater to all my wants." But you lack the right to impose a naturalistic view on the question of God (at least God in the traditionally accepted sense).

Think of science as a branch of philosophy, not philosophy as a branch of science. It's methods are only as good as the epistemology behind them.