What's so wrong with testing religious beliefs?
Not a thing, as long as you don't mind every religion "falsified".
***I don't. Like I stated before in a post to you, I think even Jesus didn't like religion. He called the religious leaders of his day, "vipers".
Sure there's some archaeological evidence that's interesting to several religions in the middle east. But I'm sure there's archaeological evidence that Jim Jones used Koolaid too. It does nothing to verify the existence of any deity.
***As we discussed prior to this, it verifies the fact that someone CLAIMED deity. The verification of deity status is an inductive pursuit. That's where people come in with their religious presuppositions & baggage.
Quite a bit more evidence of Roman "gods" than anything relating to Christianity.
***Great. Let's see some of it. Did any Roman claim to be God in the flesh and convince lotsa followers that it was true? Show me the history.
At least the Jews have the wailing wall and other archaeological evidence that there was an old faith (and nothing that proves a deity). Christians have just about zip.
***Very wrong. And I'm surprised to see you posting that after our discussion.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1478794/posts
Why are you going off on christianity? You seem to have thrown the baby out with the bath water. Notice that we never really pursued Hirohito's claim to deity, because it was taken to be rooted in history. What you do with that information is your own thing.
When you get science to invent a machine to tell you that God is present, and which "god" he is, then let me know.
***As soon as you are intellectually honest enough to investigate the historical trilemma, you'll have what you need. It's all there.
Your link only has two references between us, and nothing relevant to archeology and religion. I do remember talking with someone about Hirohito's claimed deity. I guess that was you in some other thread.
>>>>When you get science to invent a machine to tell you that God is present, and which "god" he is, then let me know.
***As soon as you are intellectually honest enough to investigate the historical trilemma, you'll have what you need. It's all there.
Nice change of subject. I bring up a hypothetical machine and you reply about history.
I have seen no archaeological evidence of any deity. I've not studied the subject of non Biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus, but I have seen references that some questionable mentions of Jesus existed. But that's it.
And it still does not speak to any real "scientific" evidence that any deity exists.
The original point on this issue was a challenge if religious folks push the ID subject, then religion will begin to be challenged by science (some professors bring up the subject today, what I'm talking about is a sustained, affirmative falsification of all things religious). I think this will happen, and religion will not fare well.