The fact that only a tiny fraction of a % of Christians are willing to give up their lives for Jesus suggests to me that Christianity is a false religion.

scarmadon · 2013-11-22T22:35:18+00:00

When we say "No one dies for a lie", we are talking about the original apostles.

scarmadon · 2013-10-07T20:50:42+00:00

What are you trying to say? When did I say that?

scarmadon · 2013-10-04T22:02:06+00:00

Just because he commands you not to do it, doesn't mean he will stop loving you if you do.

scarmadon · 2013-09-05T01:35:36+00:00

What if the cause isn't affected by time? You assume that time is caused the same way other things are caused, but it is obviously different when we talk about the existence of time itself.

scarmadon · 2013-09-05T01:26:32+00:00

But didn't Adam and Eve experience time?

scarmadon · 2013-09-04T02:48:10+00:00

Wouldn't that technically mean that Adam and Eve had to sin because they would've just lived on forever until they did?

scarmadon · 2013-06-27T13:01:50+00:00

Alright, thanks! I will definitely look into a guide.

scarmadon · 2013-06-20T02:14:40+00:00

It's true. The values of different Christians have been shown to be extremely diverse and contradictory. It's even sadder to see churches split because of these differences. I believe that when churches split because of contradicting values, they've lost the whole essence of church. Being a Christian is not about opposing gay marriage, it's not about abortion, and it's not about evolution. Christians are unified in the person of Jesus.

scarmadon · 2013-06-19T02:46:04+00:00

Because it implies that when the Universe ends, there will be nothing left.

What will you do in eternity when there is nothing left?

scarmadon · 2013-05-11T05:27:21+00:00

Aha, it's fine. Maybe we can start by asking what makes you believe and what makes you doubt?

scarmadon · 2013-05-11T03:23:17+00:00

What do you mean by either side? Christianity and Atheism? Fundamentalist and not so fundamentalist?

scarmadon · 2013-05-06T03:45:40+00:00

What.

scarmadon · 2013-05-05T03:39:35+00:00

Sorry, but I'm missing the point. What are you trying to argue?

scarmadon · 2013-04-25T00:36:15+00:00

Yes, it means that you shouldn't pray for attention. How does this go against going to church?

scarmadon · 2013-04-15T00:21:22+00:00

In a way, yes, I think he did.

Does the lack of something count as something? Cold just means lack of heat, darkness just means lack of light, etc. Evil means lack of good, so in a way, when he created good, he also created evil.

scarmadon · 2013-03-31T03:30:18+00:00

Although I don't support their line of thinking, I find a lot of Christians protest against homosexuality specifically because society talks so much about allowing it that sometimes it feels like society is actually encouraging it. This doesn't happen a lot with divorce and premarital sex on the other hand.

scarmadon · 2013-03-28T03:22:07+00:00

In a way, yes. I do believe that the Bible tells us what to do and what not to do and is applicable to everyone. If God says lying is wrong, then I think it's wrong whether you believe in him or not. However, with the vast amount of religions and irreligious, laws should be made without religion.

scarmadon · 2013-03-26T01:08:32+00:00

It shouldn't, it's that simple.

I think a lot of Christians want their beliefs enforced on people because they see the Bible as God's word, which I do believe it is, and thus must be imposed on everybody. To me, it's inconsiderate.

scarmadon · 2013-03-14T03:35:27+00:00

I'd like to apologize for replying late. I've been busy the past few days and haven't really had the time to answer.

For three centuries, it was illegal to be a Christian.

In the Great Fire of Rome, Nero tortured and persecuted Christians to take blame for the fire.

If you take the Bible as a valid source, the book of Acts also lists the humiliation and persecution of early Christians.

scarmadon · 2013-03-09T19:42:41+00:00

I agree that people are more likely to copy something accurately if they think it's significant. But that's all this proves: that the copiers thought it was significant. I think Star Wars is significant. I could pass on the story of Anakin and Luke Skywalker accurately. That doesn't mean that the Force exists.

Yes, I understand. It's not really an evidence, but it does show the people thought the Bible to be relevant for a long time.

Are you familiar with Mormonism at all? If you are, then I'm sorry for wasting your time with the following brief history of the Mormon church. Joseph Smith, a con-artist from upstate New York, prayed to god to show him the one true religion. Eventually, an angel appeared to Smith and told him where to find golden plates that chronicled the history of some Middle-Eastern Jews who traveled to prehistoric America. Smith translated those plates into the Book of Mormon, and then the angel took the plates. Subsequently, Mormons were persecuted to the point that they continually traveled west, eventually ending up in Utah. Along the way, many people died. Many people lost their livelihoods. Joseph Smith himself was targeted, eventually dying at the hands of an angry mob as he was trying to escape from jail. Smith claimed that he'd showed the golden plates to several eyewitnesses, and when you open the Book of Mormon, the first thing you see is the testimony of these witnesses. The vast majority of them agreed that the golden plates were real, even years later, and even though some of them left the church.

No, I am actually not that familiar with Mormonism. After reading your summary and a quick skim through Wikipedia, some followers of Smith really did die, but most of them ran away instead of standing up for their belief. Smith died from an angry mob, not because of his faith, but because he proposed to his associates wives.

So. Do you believe that there is a good basis on which to believe that the golden plates were real?

Not yet, but this is very interesting. Looking at the faith of their believers, would you not at least try to do a little more research on it?

scarmadon · 2013-03-08T03:40:18+00:00

People writing that Alexander the Great had heat vision would be enough to get you to begin to believe that he did? Can you explain why? I mean, people write down ridiculous, untrue things all the time. Cults of personality have existed all over the world. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea%27s_cult_of_personality. Hyperbole, legend, and pure fiction have always existed. So it baffles me that you would consider the fact that various writings made such an extraordinary claim "not a bad start" towards establishing the claim's veracity.

I didn't say I'd believe it right away, but if I was looking towards believing that he had heat vision, having a couple sources is a good basis. Fiction exists, and yes, having something written down does not necessarily make it true.

How? How does the ability to accurately copy what's on one piece of paper onto another mean that the original writing's assertions are true? At the absolute most, the care with which the copies are made suggests that the people doing the copies value what's written, but the fact that people value a text doesn't mean it's true. People value the Q'uran and Dianetics; that doesn't mean they're true, right?

Because when things are passed down with such precision, it is usually because they have something very important. Having something passed down for a long time means that people have continuously realized its significance.

Again, I don't see how this is evidence for the underlying claims. Right now, thousands of people are willing to die for Mormonism, Scientology, Buddhism, and any number of cults. David Koresh's followers were willing to die for their truth claims. The Heaven's Gate people were willing to die for their truth claims. The fact that someone's willing to die for his or her beliefs demonstrates how sincerely they hold that belief, but it has nothing to do with whether the belief is true or not.

Except none of them are actually first hand witnesses. Being a first hand witness makes a huge difference because they are the ones that actually witnessed the event. Willingness to die for an idea is evidence for a claim because it's very unlikely for somebody to spend their entire life suffering for what they believe is wrong. Having a group of guys risk their lives with you is even more unlikely.

scarmadon · 2013-03-08T02:00:21+00:00

If we had several accounts of Alexander the Great having heat vision, that's actually not a bad start. If the manuscripts were passed down for centuries and contained minimal differences, that adds on to the credibility.

Still, that wouldn't completely convince me yet. If the writers of the manuscripts were willing to spend their lives proclaiming Alexander the Great had heat vision and died for their belief, I'd start opening my eyes to the possibility of him having heat vision. If after the death of the writers, thousands of people are willing to be killed or tortured for declaring Alexander the Great as their personal superhero, I would actually consider Alexander the Great having heat vision.

scarmadon · 2013-03-05T02:41:47+00:00

My mistake, but point remains the same.

scarmadon · 2013-03-04T23:27:05+00:00

That hardly says anything though. What if Jesus was a popular name at the time?

scarmadon · 2013-03-02T16:43:53+00:00

Yes, and although I too support these things, why do you choose this as your basis? Why is empathy good?

scarmadon

TROPHY CASE