DiabloFans

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APpH-XV-93k

I know, it's usually Daemaro who posts this stuff, but yea...

Quote from aregile_cruiser

your a hero of time...

And I'm an ex-moderator.

Quote from Eroon

another similar question, what does the reputation do? I have 10 and its says good, but doesn't everyone have that?

"edit" btw I have 50 post and im a Diablo fan, so maybe its based on time online or since registration also?

Reputation is simply that, reputation. It's how many times people have pressed the + button on the lower right corner of their posts.

It isn't used by a lot of people (Many don't even know it exists) so I wouldn't take it as hard evidence that people like/agree with something.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYiNSDK6UWU

Random video is random.

Enjoy!

Quote from Aever1

Truth be told no one gives 2 copper coins on their leveling experience, what people care about is raiding and/or pvp at max level.

*Cough*

Umm...

Quote from LinkX

[...]but I personally love [leveling].

Quote from Magistrate

How did I know that you would post in here? Speedvision was way too bright imo, but I'm not loving the pew-pew-iness of the current background and all the gradients are so last gen.

What can I say, I LOVE me some Speedvision. And I don't think it was too bright. Plus it had alot less stuff going on in the background to distract the reader, which I think is a major plus for it. o.O

The problem with believing "Just In Case" is because the Christian deity will know if your believing just to be safe. And what if it's the Buddhist deity? Or a Wiccan deity? Or a Shinto Deity? What if you believed in the Jesus "Just In Case" and it turned out that Jesus was a lie and Kami is pissed at you?


The way I figure it is, I'm a good person. If whatever deity is upset that I didn't worship him, ignoring the good things I've done, then he doesn't deserve to be worshiped. If he is glad that I was a good person, then it didn't matter. And if he didn't exist, I was a good person and my memory and honor will still be there.

Hmm, well I looked, and I cannot find it. I stand corrected.


(See, I can admit I am wrong. )

Quote from AnathemicOne

Wel if you want to be literal about it, there is no natural science I recall in any holy books (correct me if I'm wrong) but there's is philosophical science.

I mean any science. Hell, the fact that the Earth is round would be a nice thing to put in the Bible, but it specifically says the Earth is flat.

Please, if there is any scientific evidence of any field (Aside from theological "science") then please share it.

Quote from Jamoose

The word ‘star’ (najm) in the Qur’an is accompanied by the adjective thaaqib which indicates that it burns and consumes itself as it pierces through the shadows of the night. It was much later discovered that stars are bodies producing their own light like the sun and have limited life (Are consumed).

Stars are not burning. They are large bodies of gas that create photons via fusion. Fire is the only thing that could be compared to them by bronze age desert people. (If any middle easterners read this, I apologize for insulting your ancestors.)

Quote from -Mephisto

God, Mephisto I find your lack of common sense disturbing.

<3

Quote from Equinox

I'm not sure Jesus said such things, actually. The Bible did, but not necessarily Jesus, that's why it's important to separate the general Bible and the people in it...

Well, considering the Bible is the basis of the Christian belief, and all we know of Jesus comes from the Bible, I think it's a safe bet to say that Jesus is quite connected to the Bible.

Quote from Equinox

Dunno, I've been apathetic, atheistic, and now I'm back to being quasi religious; I was never properly religious, never part of any church or anything. If you can't understand something it's your problem alone and has nothing to do with you being religious. You're just ignorant, and you intend to stay ignorant - you're not any better than the religious folk, just on the other side of the fence.

And exactly what do I not understand? It was a different time in the Bible when children were beat, women were not allowed to talk, and men were told to leave everything they own if they wanted to follow Jesus? Of course I don't understand, and I don't want to understand why people believe that, or how they believe that. But you are mistaken if you think I don't understand what the Bible is saying. Perhaps you should crack it open, you might just change your view point.

Quote from Equinox

No, you don't understand. The scientists can find what causes the SNF sure (if that's not the bottom). But when they come to the bottom of it, there will be nothing, it will just be, no explanation. At the bottom of it, there are two little tiny indestructible things, and they attract, period.

Ahh, so once we find out the explanation as to why the Strong Nuclear Force attracts them, the explanation we found won't exist? Clarify please?

Quote from Equinox

This is not a thread on America. This is not a thread on Christianity.
You only mentioned major religions, too, but you're offending all religions when you attack religion, including mine, which has no name, and including deism, pantheism, and others. When you say "bring some Buddhists here" you're basically saying all other non-major non-named religions do not exist or something.
I don't often see you say "Christianity". Because you can't. Because that's not what people you're talking to are discussing. We're discussing RELIGION here.

This is not a thread on America, this is a thread on a forum based primarily in America. I have only seen people arguing for the Abrahamic Religions, of which I argue back. If a Druid, a Wiccan, a Shinto, a Baha'i, etc want's to argue their religions, I would be glad to discuss it with them. If you want to argue on behalf of Baha'i, please do. However, be forewarned that I haven't a problem with most religions, as most religions do not shove their view on others.

And yes, I am discussing religion. I can only talk about one religion at a time. If you like, we can change which religion we are talking about, but it is only one religion, as they are all so different and thus cannot logically be placed under an umbrella term and be argue'ed against. For example, explain how you can argue against both Buddhism and Christianity, when they are miles apart?

Quote from Umpa65

How is it splitting hairs when the thread title says Religion? It's a very valid point and I would find it quite refreshing to see an atheist bash a different religion once and a while.

It is splitting hairs because religion A and religion B have nothing in common, and thus it would be illogical to clump them together. It's like clumping Nascar and Football, because they are both sports, even though they have nothing to do with each other.

Oh, and we don't bash. If you want bashing, you are at the wrong place.

Quote from Frostbite5

What I tried to explain in my post is that Diablo has had a Camelot factor all along, so it's not weird to feel like something is missing when it's gone.

And what I explained is that the only game in the Diablo series to even remotely touch a simbalence of an idea of a "Camelot" factor is Diablo 2. Hell, most knights in Diablo 2 were evil creatures.

Quote from Frostbite5

As for a barbarian in full plates, no, that doesn't feel knightly, to the same extent that a chicken in full plates wouldn't feel knightly. I'm just saying that the armors by themselves definitely draw heavily from a Camelot-like setting.

The armors also draw heavily from Dungeons and Dragons, Everquest, Lord of the Rings, Legend of Drizzt, shall I go on? And you are right, a D2/D3 Barbarian or a D1 Warrior is not a D2 Paladin. (Thank gods!)

Quote from Frostbite5

As for the archer, I don't mean a melee knight who uses a bow. I'm more thinking about a noble kind of archer, more or less like the one in Diablo 1. This maybe combined with some auras, defensive skills or any other kind of interesting "skill tree" (as far as we still have those... maybe I better say "skill group"), would fill up several gaps in the characters so far. I son't see why people want an evil or dark character, the Witch Doctor already covers for the necromancer there.

First, the Necromancer was anything BUT evil. So you can stop right there. It agitates me to no end when people like you know so little about Diablo that even a light player like myself has to correct you. The necromancer was probably the most righteous of the whole group in D2, aside from possibly the Druid or the Barbarian.

Next, let's take your route real quick. Noblility. In Midevial Europe, which you are obviously using as a refrence considering there is no proof that Camelot ever existed, bows were considered to be dishonorable for Knights. There were no "Noble Archers". There were archer elements in militaries, and there were hunters wielding bows, but there were never any "Camelot-like archer" bullcrap.

I don't understand this fascination you kids have with the Diablo 2 Paladin... My only guess is that you want your magic hammers in D3.

Quote from Graphite

Quote from proletaria

Quote from Graphite

Why are some people unable to believe that there is something that can not be explained? Everything can not be proven and it is a waste to attempt to do so.

Prove to me that gravity exists.

The idea that gravity is in every way as unknowable as the assertion of an almighty god is rediculous and a slap in the face to all physicists since newton who helped us form our understanding of gravity and further explain our universe.

Newton was wrong as well as all the other physicists that came after him. He mearly was incapably of understanding the great power that God holds.

I tend to be open-minded and leave others on their business but I can’t stand your way of talking.

You don’t deserve to talk about science because probably you haven’t passed your fist class of math or physics. And so you don’t deserve to mention great people like Newton.

Your foolish religions have burned this people alive because they were right in their claims that the earth circled around the sun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

The religion should have fallen apart the first moment that humanity finally accepted that is the earth that circle around the sun and that we are not the center of be all and end all.
But you have always found way to circumvent what your religion had sad in the past. It’s the same as the discussion we are having here about literal and not literal scripts. In short everything written in this holly books is literal and the word of god until, science prove otherwise, or it fall against our human moral/ethic.

I’m not saying those books are useless actually they are quite useful to understand how stupid a civilization can be.
The only true value this books hand out are matters of ethic and moral, like: don’t still, don’t lie, don’t harm the other, help the one in need, etc. You don’t need a religion to teach to a child these things.
Everything else is bullsh*t. Who ever come from the dead to say if there is a heaven or hell?
Live your life while you can because is the only one you have. After you’re dead you will just be dead and you won’t have a second chance.

Life is the future, not the past (books of any kind are part of the past).
The past can teach us, through experience, how to accomplish things in the future, comfort us with cherished memories, and provide the foundation of what has already been accomplished. But only the future holds life. To live in the past is to embrace what is dead. To live life to its fullest, each day must be created anew. As rational, thinking beings, we must use our intellect to make rational choices, not a blind devotion to what has come before.

Faith is a device of self-delusion, a sleight of hand done with words and emotions founded on any irrational notion that can be dreamed up.
Faith is the attempt to coerce truth to surrender to whim. In simple terms, it is trying to breathe life into a lie by trying to outshine reality with the beauty of wishes.
Faith is the refuge of fools, the ignorant, and the deluded, not of thinking, rational men.

Willfully turning aside from the truth is treason to one's self.

I will apologies to everyone who is trying to have a civil conversation and take my leave from this thread.

I have visited friends in the ICU and for someone to prevent you access is ridiculous. Separation of church and state needs to be way more prolific, especially in the case of hospitals. Also if you are going to be obtuse, you might as well not even argue. Saying Physicists are wrong simply because you think they did not believe in your god makes you look like an ignoramus.

Quote from Graphite

Noone is treated fairly.

But I assume that should be our goal, yes?

Quote from Graphite

Your lifestyle is outside of the norm of society and therfore you are shunned.

Being seven feet tall puts you outside societal norms too, but the tall arent' shunned. Why should anyone predispoed to being gay be shunned?

Quote from Graphite

Do i think you are treated in the correct manner? No, but legal issues are legal issues.

Actually, they are not legal issues. They are religious issues that are polluting our legally secular system and they will be over-turned eventually. I just don't see why more people aren't fighting against them, it would be the christian thing to do as far as you've described it.

Quote from Graphite

I could hold dearly the life of a close friend that is not related to me and I would not be able to visit them in the hospital either if they were in a family only area.

Yes, but you could visit your wife. I cannot visit my husband. That is discrimination for no reason except religious bigotry. You can make all the obnoxious excuses you want, but the relationship I have with another man is the same as the one you share with your wife. We just don't have bilogical children.

Quote from Graphite

To call murder a mental problem is to say it is beyond the control of the individual. This would make them innocent of teh crime they committed. That is why I disagree that people are born to make certain choices, if that were the case then anyone could say it is not really their fault for their actions. This would(if it does not come to this eventually) destroy the world. Also if we as a people go to that level I think the annihilation of the race would be for the best.

You know we do have ways of telling which people are insane and we put them in diffirent places than the rest of the criminals? Are we anhillating the human race by puting them in mental institutions intead of gas chambers? I don't think so. Anyhow, what does that have to do with the choice of adult and consenting sexual partner?

Quote from Graphite

Such gloom and doom how horrible of me to say. But I weep for those that do not understand that we all have choices and we should all have to deal with the consequences. Life is not fair and God weeps for us all in our struggles. May the Lord have mercy on our souls.

I can't say I weep for you, but I am not at all pleased that you've thus far compared me to a pedophile, an animal rapist, and now an insane murderer, all on the basis that I have the predisposition to homosexual love with another adult male.

Quote from Sabvre

It matters because athiests believe they are "enlightened" and that they need to share this "enlightenment" with the rest of the world. Since most things can be proven with science (and most educated religious people these days believe god used science as a means to an end), they use science as a means to brush off all "religious evidence." Athiests, as you can tell by what Proleteria, Necrodrac and LinkX have been doing this whole thread... can be just as preachy as religious whack jobs. They just do it in a different form.

It boils down to the fact that if god uses/used science to govern/create the universe, you simply cannot prove that he exists without discovering indisputable metaphysical evidence. However, on the other side of the coin... being that science could very well have been created by god, athiests CANNOT disprove his/its existence either.

First of all, there is no such thing as religious evidence. There is evidence and that's it, unless you want to invent a whole new range of vocabulary just so you can make sense of what you obviously cannot (and failed to) explain.

Secondly, if you unable to engage in a mature discourse, please refrain from posting. From these cheap ad hominem attacks of quoting _salvation to insult Proletaria to comparing atheists to religious whack jobs, you've pledged your utter intolerance and ignorance.

Maintaining morality and ethics having a divine origin (as you have done) is similar to psychopathy on a leash. While I (and Proletaria) have taken the time to explain the rationale whereby morality and ethics are essential to the stability and prosperity of group irrespective of the possible influence a higher power, all you've given in return is hinting that you will use sociology (which you never did) to demonstrate where we are wrong and ended up in referencing Hitler in a confused proposition involving hell and sins.
You've been given every opportunity to state your case and numerous times dodged the challenge when it was refuted.
I don't think anybody has called you a religious whack despite you showing the tell tale signs of one. So I ask you in return that we discuss on valid points instead of the petty and snide insults that you have been letting out continuously and which I think should stop right about NOW.

Quote from Umpa

@Prole- I'm sorry dude but this is all just far too predictable for me to hang around. Your nature, unfortunately is similar to any other atheist who wants to argue on the interwebs. There is literally nothing I could say that you wouldn't have an answer for despite the fact that we don't know anything. It's not a bad thing, it's just predictable. I know exactly how you'll respond every time I make a claim of any sort. I say something supporting the existence of an afterlife and you refute it by first showing me the flaws in my thought process and then tell me how science says otherwise. Or if I say something testifying to the brilliant logic of science and how it's all we have and we can know nothing else, then you greet it with praise and agreement. Then 10 other atheists join in on the conversation, agree, and repeat the same shit. Then a christian comes in and tries to tell you what he believes and then the arrogant atheist comes in and trolls and gets his post removed. And the cycle just goes on and on and on and on and on.

I'm not here to win the argument grand title belt. Which is an issue because this thread is structured for you to welcome in someone who believes something and then you proceed to tell them that nothing they believe makes any sense and they should listen to you instead. I've been involved in far too many of the SAME EXACT THREADS to want to argue about it anymore. At this point I'm just looking for decent conversation and different perspective. Not the same "I HAVE FAITH" "I HAVE EVIDENCE" thread.

In response to this I expect you to welcome me back in the conversation and tell me that I've got it all wrong and you're here to have a discussion the same way I am, Nekro to tell me I'm trolling, and Linkx to agree and say thats just how those idiots are. And then maybe Dae Dae will chime in to try and continue discussion and get it back on track before it gets closed 2 to 5 pages later.

EVERYONE read what Sabvre just wrote. We're right back to the very beginning of this discussion. Is this really what you want? If you always do the same thing, you will always get the same results. I am now going to use my better judgement to finally take myself out of this discussion because I already know the end to this story, and it's no fun when you know what's going to happen.

Are you serious? You've been asked on FIVE distinct occasions to state those assumptions and claims that you thought were baseless. You repeatedly avoided it and up to now have mentioned nothing of it.

You talk about arrogance? You say you literally know every response that atheists are going to give and that they are so predictable this discussion is not worth having. There have been nothing but different perspectives being given throughout this thread. Maybe if you had approached it with an open mind instead of being offended at each turn, it would have yielded different results?
Repeating the 'same shit'? You clearly have a double standard in terms of who should not be offended.
You are getting overly sentimental and can't be civil so I think it's best that it's for this reason you keep away from this thread instead of your claim of you-are-too-predictable.

And yes friend, you are trolling. Big time. Worst of all, you are supporting the trolling of one side.

I have been called many things nonbeliever, atheist, nihilist, satanist, etc…

My point of view is that:
“Gods do exist and they will continue to exist for as long as someone believes in them.
But it’s not the Gods who created humanity, instead is humanity who have created the Gods, to explain the things they can’t explain, to have something to hang on when they are in despair, to divert the attention of the masses from more important things, etc.”

So yeah it exists, it’s our creation we have to accept and live with it.

To all believers, hope is the last to die, keep believing hopefully one day you will have evidence that your believe is right and I’m wrong, and the same go for me.

Quote from proletaria

Quote from Umpa

Who said Big Foot doesn't exist? I dono if I believe in Big Foot but I do believe in the Lock Ness monster. Why? There's evidence. However, evidence to me might not be evidence to you.

Belief has nothing to do with evidence, you're mincing terms again. Furthermore, you've got a diffirent definition of evidence than the rest of us. I have seen articles about loch ness being dredged, sonar'd, and drag netted for decades. If all we have to show for that are blurry (and some fake) photos and eye-witness accounts, I don't feel that qualifies as evidence. It is hear-say.

Quote from Umpa

Personally I like to think more like Dae here. It simply seems more likely that all of this was designed rather than randomly poofing into existence.

I've insisted several times now that "poofing," is not required, but if that's all you can come up with... I suppose I understand why you're making that decision.

Quote from Umpa

Let me pose a question to you:

You walk into a kitchen and see a cake has splattered all across the floor. Upon further analysis, you realize there are words spelled out from splattered cake, on the floor reading "I fell for you".

What is more likely; the cake fell with the perfect conditions to splatter in such a way that it spelled out those words? Or that someone came along, knocked over the cake, and proceeded to run their fingers through the cake on the floor, to spell out those words.

How is this analogous to the universe? What is it that you are claiming as evidence for a deliberate design insted of an evolved natrual explanation in the case of the universe. I would agree, in the case of the cake, you are describing human interaction with the cake, but I disagree that this is in any way analogous to the universe as we understand it today.

Quote from Umpa

What are the odds that my existence on this earth is completely by chance? Randomly, everything in the universe worked out so well that, by chance, I simply exist?

We don't know those odds. What we do know; however, is that nothing in the universe would exist as it does without the laws of physics being what they are. This is a zero-sum approach. We're either here or we are not. Evidently we are here and thus we know the universe is such that we can be here. We don't know how "well," it works because we have no point of comparison. There are no other universes we can see to tell us wether or not ours is fine-tuned for life or not.

Quote from Umpa

Out of all the billions of species on this planet, why is it that only humans were able to evolve to a point of removing ourselves from nature and effectively removing ourselves from anywhere but the top of the foodchain? Why is it just us?

Why is it just us? Because our brains evolved where other animals had not. You can study genetics and neurology to get a better grasp on what made the mammals and the apes diffirent. This isn't indicative of design, it is simply an expression of how evolution has turned out.

Quote from Umpa

Just got done reading about several near death experiences by blind people who are able to see during the period of death and recall details no blind person would ever know(There's a reasonable explanation, I know, I know!). The nde's are interesting. Dmt could be involved. But the recollection of detail is what gets me.

I'd love to read these, any chance at a link?

Backing up Proletaria:

Quote 1: There is no such evidence proving the existence of big foot or the lockness monster. Eye witness accounts and fake photographs do not count as evidence as these sources are not entirely accurate and divulge much information that affiliates with the term proof. First off - eye witness accounts differ, thus their is no reliability with them. Photographs are few in number resulting in loss of validity. Thus you have you 3 terms of what is evidence: accuracy, reliability and validity.

(BTW what does this have to do with the topic?)

Quote 2: If you research into quantum mechanics, specifically the applications of quantum chemistry and physics you will understand that atoms share certain forms of "attraction" with other specific atoms when certain amounts of energy accommodate for fusion between different elements, when subjugated between the weak and strong nuclear forces of differing nucleons. My point being that, our sun (stars being the producers of elements of the periodic table, heavier elements requiring higher temperatures), over the 4 billion years that the Earth has been around for, has provided its limited amount of energy to "excite" atoms in a way to produce the structure of our Earth and everything inside it, along with the exact specific amount of elements available from other stars within the universe. This means that this universe was not in fact randomly designed, but created with a set structure resulting from the laws of physics in reference to the Big Bang and the positioning of our solar system. It wasn't random, its known as a fond word scientists like to use called: coincidence.

Quote 3: WTF?

Quote 4: Refer to quote 2, also your existence in this universe is extremely likely due to the massive scale of the universe and what was said in quote 2.

Quote from Umpa

Quote from proletaria

So you want me to prove a negative? Or is this just an elaborate troll?

Normally how this would go is: You ask me to state said assumptions. I state said assumptions. Then you proceed to refute what I claim to be assumptions. And nobody comes out with a different perspective. Why bother doing the same internet bs?

Instead, being the intelligent man with 3+decades(150% of my life) of knowledge and experience I think you can figure out what I was alluding to when I said assumptions. Sure I could point them out. But that would defeat the purpose of my post saying that I wasn't going to point them out.

So, from my perspective, what about that post would seem like a vast assumption? Let's pretend for a second that I'm not a 21 year old kid and instead, a 50 year old bible scholar who knows everything there is to know about the bible and the world/culture and time period that it was written in. What problems could someone find in your post?

I think if you do this, instead of controlling and fueling an debate/argument, we can come away with a different perspective. See, I have no desire to argue and debate with people anymore. I avoid it as much as possible. I want to learn. I have no need to compete intellectually. Now, I'm not saying you do and that I'm some enlightened individual or anything like that. I just want to change shit up and do this a bit differently.

So, if you will, point out for me, what might be construed as more or less here say opinion rather than "fact".

You should stop trolling. Seriously. It is distasteful and truly inconsiderate at best. Proletaria asked you to state the assumption so that he could engage in a discussion that might address your concern. What you have referred to as internet bs is what is known as sharing concrete ideas so they can be debated upon. If you are not ready for this, you should probably abstain from making comments that you are gradually turning into this elaborate and pointless riddle devoid of any sense.
It has been a back and forth exchange here. There is no control or fueling unless you are finding yourself overwhelmed in the face of truth you cannot handle.

Quote from Pyro_Doggy

Another thing about Christian it totally different from any other religion. God send his ONLY Son to die for us to pay for our sins in other religions it is always about proving you are worthy going to heaven(the ones that have a heaven)all God Ask form us is to live like the bible says and to believe he exist and believe in Him, Believe his Son died for our sins.

What is said allot of Christians don't know how to learn somebody about God. They think just use the bible, but if you just use your heart and show you care about the person and you want the person not one day to go to hell and you want God to work in his life. What ever you all believe i respect that and all i ask is you respect what i believe.

According to the many other religions around, Christians are going to hell. So be don't be too surprised when they try to convert you because they are doing so for your own good. Never mind if your life is one dedicated to service and the betterment of your fellow humans because it's all about who you worship and what rituals you do.
Still don't realize the stupidity of it all?
Also nobody died for my sins. Each man is responsible and accountable for his own actions. This is how we live on a day-to-day basis.

Quote from maela

Interesting point... the test of most religions however is the ability to continue through time, culture shifts and takeovers. We don't see many religions springing up in recent history... the ones that do, flame brightly then fade quickly - condemned to fiction. However the major religions have stood the test of time and continue to flourish.

In that case, the most true religion would be the one that could most effectively wipe-out the competition. I believe that gives the title over Islam at the moment. Needless to say, how popular a myth is as a story does not say anything about how much truth is held within. Beowulf is one of the oldest texts to survive in the west. I don't think that it's survival says anything about the reality of grendel, his mother, mist-beasts, dragons, or warriors with god-like powers.

Quote from maela

Do I believe in Zeus, Thor or Ra? Nope, why, because those religions have not stood the questions and test of time that other religions have - thus they must have been incorrect. If we take christianity as an example it has progressed through many societies and cultures and even though it doesn't have satisfactory scientific answers to some of people's questions it is still here and hass stood through a number of tests that religions that have been relegated to mythology haven't.

Had you been born in the greek countryside at the time, you very well could have believed in Zeus. Why are you dismissing this fact? Christianity has been around a few thousand years. The polytheistic religons were around for thousands of years prior to that. Which one people believed in had nothing to do with the correctness of their dogma, it had to do with which religion held the reigns of power and favor. You're ignoring the fact that hindu theology has been longer-lasting, more accepting, and more peaceful than christianity, judeism, or islam. Do you believe that makes hinduism and it's great polytheistic stories true?

I would say that they are all equally rightly branded as mythological literature. It is quite clear that the adapatability of religion explains not their truth, but of their man-made origin, and of those men's desire to remain in power by virtue of and unseeable and unknowable omnsicient entity or entities.

Quote from maela

If christianity were to be disproven then I would expect it to be considered mythology... however I don't think that is likely or could happen.

Christianity is not disproven by mythology, it is contradicted by facts. You cannot disprove one myth with another, because they are fact-less tracts of pure fiction. Where do you set about asserting truth of one myth so the other is not also true?

An argument between a christian and a muslim would be as follows:

Christian: Christianity is correct because the bible says x.
Muslim: Islam is correct because the Qur'an says x.

How do you convince the other to recind the point when they have no objective viewpoint and champion their mythology as the only truth (for no reason and without evidence)?

The answer is simple: neither religion is backed by evidence. Both are wrong to one another. Holding such "beliefs," are helpful to nobody except those who want to demonize the other in order to consolidate power for themselves.

Quote from Daemaro

Hitler wasn't Christian by the way. He masqueraded as one, much like I'd guess a lot of politicians do, it's easier that way to get into power for some reason.

Hitler had his hand in all sorts of occult stuff, he'd bow to any God or science as long as it gave him more power. He included himself in things like the Ahnenerbe and was rumored though I don't think ever proven to have been part of Thule Society and the Vril Society.

This is a fair critique, and it's obvious Hitler dabbled in all manner of cults, but one cannot divorce Hitler from the church. Neither can one divorce the strident anti-semitism of europe from it's origin in the catholic church. So potent, in-fact that even protestant dissidents maintained their anti-jewish rhetoric.