[size=18pt]25) The problem with exorcism[/size]


Exorcism is the removal of demons or spiritual entities from possessed humans or places. Exorcism exists in the Abrahamic Faiths (christianity, islam and judaism)



The problem with human exorcism is that the exorcised person or victim is consistently misdiagnosed with demonic or spiritual possession instead of a physical or psychological health problem. A good case was that of Anneliese Michel whose death would have been prevent a week before she died had medical remedies been sought rather than the exorcism. Exorcisms are quite rare in the West nowadays

Several psychological disorders, including Tourette syndrome and schizophrenia, can produce the types of effects seen in "possessed" people. People with epilepsy can suddenly go into convulsions when having a seizure; Tourette syndrome causes involuntary movements and vocal outbursts; schizophrenia involves auditory and visual hallucinations, paranoia, delusions and sometimes violent behavior. Psychological issues like low self-esteem and narcissism can cause a person to act out the role of "possessed person" in order to gain attention. In a case where the subject is in fact suffering from mental illness, the Church is doing harm by labeling the person possessed if this prevents the person from seeking out the medical treatment he or she requires

http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/afterlife/exorcism5.htm


By the way, spirits or demons have never been scientifically proven to exist, just like fairies and elves.



[img]http://i.qkme.me/354tlg.jpg[/img]

[size=18pt]26) A special case of argumentum ad ignorantium; Shifting the burden of proof by the religious[/size]


You cannot claim that "miracles exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

You cannot claim that "souls exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

You cannot claim that "angels exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

You cannot claim that "deities exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."


www.nairaland.com/attachments/938674_Epic_fail_pngc6b9fab83fc4a384c2b6c52fd86a77ae



This is a common argument from some theists. The make the argument that since the atheist can not prove that their supernatural beings can not be disproved, they exist. They are putting the burden on the atheists to prove their claims wrong when they the (theists) havent tabled any evidence for it.However, that is not how logic works. That is an argument from ignorance.


This is how logic works

X exists or is true because there is evidence for X
Tasmanian devils exist because we have scientific documentaries or videos showing them in their habitat

by Sweetnecta: 7:05pm On Jan 05
I easily could have approached your issue about God not coming out of nothing with a question about the source of gentle breeze or wind that you feel. I will leave this and others for your mind to ponder. Per chance it may dawn on you. The Ultimate Source does not have to have a source but Himself is the Source of all. It is not necessary that He is of the same nature of what He is the Source of, regardless of how He varied them into many.


by Logicboy03(m): 10:15pm On Jan 04
12) A problem of borrowed prophets in Islam

Christians and Jews believe that Jesus was a religious Jew. However, muslims believe that Jesus was a muslim. Now these two beliefs are contradictory, and at best, only one can be true.

Why Jesus can't be a muslim;

-Jesus was born into a Jewish community (ethnicity)
-Jesus quoted Jewish scriptures
-Jesus talked about the Jewish God.
-Jesus debated Jewish scholars.
-Jesus didnt live by Quranic laws. He turned water into wine for a party.

I am a muslim. Thats is my religion. My ethnicity is different. What makes me a muslim are sets of ordained laws and rules and duties.

What will make a person a jew in terms of his religion is not because he is an ethnic jew. Religion is completely different from ethnicity. What i will like to know from this op is how is Jesus a jew in his religion? Tell me what the jewish religion entails in worship, etc and fit that on Jesus. Tell me if you can, even though you are not arguing that Jesus is a Christian, if anyone is following Jesus in matters of religion, should they not imitate how Jesus worshiped; standing, bowing prostrating, in prescribed hours during the day and in some part of the night?

Neither Moses [or any prophet] nor Jesus was Jew or Christian in religion. They were all muslims as they stood, bowed and prostrated in worship of God. We muslims do this today, tomorrow and forever, till the last muslim on earth will die.

you accused the muslims with the bold. i changed yoou to provide proofs with the segments that sandwiched it. you chickened out with the below bold. how is that sincere effort?

by Logicboy03(m): 9:33pm On Jan 05

Sweetnecta: I easily could have approached your issue about God not coming out of nothing with a question about the source of gentle breeze or wind that you feel. I will leave this and others for your mind to ponder. Per chance it may dawn on you. The Ultimate Source does not have to have a source but Himself is the Source of all. It is not necessary that He is of the same nature of what He is the Source of, regardless of how He varied them into many.


I am a muslim. Thats is my religion. My ethnicity is different. What makes me a muslim are sets of ordained laws and rules and duties.

What will make a person a jew in terms of his religion is not because he is an ethnic jew. Religion is completely different from ethnicity. What i will like to know from this op is how is Jesus a jew in his religion? Tell me what the jewish religion entails in worship, etc and fit that on Jesus. Tell me if you can, even though you are not arguing that Jesus is a Christian, if anyone is following Jesus in matters of religion, should they not imitate how Jesus worshiped; standing, bowing prostrating, in prescribed hours during the day and in some part of the night?

Neither Moses [or any prophet] nor Jesus was Jew or Christian in religion. They were all muslims as they stood, bowed and prostrated in worship of God. We muslims do this today, tomorrow and forever, till the last muslim on earth will die.



Epic fail. I dont even know where to start!

how is your poor effort in bold on this line a response to me? what makes Jesus a muslim are his believe in One God, not in Trinity. Also he made night salah at the gashemane in addition to many times he made the same prayers during the day at prescribed times. he fasted, gave charity and received gifts, not charity because prophets do not consume charity.

every prophet of God, starting from Adam to Jesus and then to Muhammad [sa] were muslims for their God is One and their religion must be one, the very religion commanded by God. God did not command judaism or christianity as religion. there is no revelation for judaism or christinity. These groups erroneously claimed revelations for themselves.


Now show me a single evidence that Jesus was not a muslim and you can use the evidence of anything that is the core duties of judaism or christianity to shame me and islam here.

did Jesus talked to the wailing wall as the jews do or go to clapping and singing as the christians?

can the religion of Jesus be different from the religion of the father of faith, Abraham who was neither a jew nor christian? Note that these two religions came after Abraham was long gone. However the religion of Islam is the religion of Adam and all believers.

The burden of proof is upon the accuser, you. I am waiting for your evidence and you will not have any because not only that you post is an epic fail. but you are an empty suit. I want you to respond. mehn.

double post

i am awaiting your epic fail response. i know it will be empty rhetoric.

I like the thread. I love the pics

Atheist:-D:
I like the thread. I love the pics

Please help add pics and arguments if you can

Sweetnecta: ne. However the religion of Islam is the religion of Adam and all believers.

The burden of proof is upon the accuser, you. I am waiting for your evidence and you will not have any because not only that you post is an epic fail. but you are an empty suit. I want you to respond. mehn.

Open a thread and we will discuss

Logicboy03:


What a tool. Those arguments were written in my own words. The law maker argument for instance is my own argument. Google it and see whether you will find material on it. Or the borrowed prophet argument.

Don't get your knickers in a twist. Reproducing material that has been formerly written somewhere is not a crime so there is no need to sound somewhat pissy. The fact is that sometimes, what we want to say has been better articulated somewhere, or we just may not have the time to write the sort of robust response we would like. In such cases, pasting a link where the matter under contention was properly addressed is not only necessary but smart. At any rate, since you've now referred me to your law-maker argument, I shall take a look at it and see whether it is a defeater for the God proposition.

Logicboy03:

If we ask any lawyer today about law books, he or she will tell you that they mostly get obsolete after a year because amendments and new laws come into place. The reasons for these amendments are to keep up with advances in technology, to keep up with advances in human knowledge and to close loopholes.

Unfortunately, religion have holy books that have religious codes and are considered the laws of God. This is seen in religions like Christianity and Islam. This means that their holy books would have to be edited for modern times to be relevant. However, these religions claim that their holy books contain erternal truths (Chistianity) and that their holy book is complete (Islam). This creates a problem because we know for a fact that truth is based on evidence and knowledge which both change as time and society progress.

The problem is very simple; religious books like the Quran and Bible will continue to be outdated naturally, no matter how many times they are interpreted because laws by nature have to change with the advance of societies and technology or we will be looking at arnarchy from loopholes.

If the words/laws of an eternal being cannot be eternal, what is the point? Why not focus on laws that work?

First of all, this is not an argument against the existence of God as the title of the thread seems to suggest. Even if we grant, for the purpose of the discussion, that the argument succeeds, the atheist would have only succeeded in showing that some religious texts as we have known them are not inerrant or that they are incomplete. It does not even begin to make a case for the non-existence of God. If anything, the atheist has only succeeded in showing that the God who is commonly said to exist might have been misrepresented by some religious texts or worse that if the religious texts were completely accurate, some or all of its contents transgresses against some understanding of God’s attribute that the atheist might currently harbor.

However, that is not even the main thrust of this atheistic argument. This argument as I understand it is as follows: “human laws are mutable—i.e they are likely to be changed or altered to reflect the realities of the time they are operating in. If that is the case, we should expect that Divine laws are likewise mutable. But since the religious texts suggest that the divine commandments contained therein are to be regarded as immutable, one should disregard such divine commandments when a dynamic human society evolves a contrary position.”

But as anyone can immediately see, one should never hinge morality on the ever-changing zeitgeist of human societies and cultures. I don’t think the atheist has fully thought this point through yet. Does he even realize what he is asking for—for the rightness or wrongness of human actions to be arbitrary?; to be subject to group consent?; to be only as valid as the next revision or amendment? And what if some segment of some hypothetical society decides that another segment of the same society has different values from it and thus should not be bound to the same laws?

Why would the atheist think that we should equate human laws with divine laws? Why make the assumption that a divine law-giver, if such a being exists at all, would be like some human lawyer?

The problem isn’t so much that the divine laws which constitutes the basis of morality (i.e one’s duty and obligation towards the lawgiver himself and to his fellow humans) are faulty and need changing. It is rather the case that people do not want, or rather do not feel like they should be accountable to some divine law-giver in the first place. This is the root source of the willful disobedience and the intransigence that comes to the fore whenever people feel like they can attack the idea of a divinely ordained foundation for human morality.

Another issue is that all too often the atheist cannot tell the difference between some point or issue in some alleged divinely inspired text being simply a recommendation or suggestion or wisdom of the human hand writing divinely-inspired scriptures AND those points or issues which are express declarations of God by revelation. This is a point I simply expect no militant or evangelical atheist to be able to wrap his or her head around. Sadly there isn’t much that can be said really to make the matter much clearer to anyone whose ideological commitment hangs on a misapprehension of the point.

http://www.gfpanorama.com/2013/01/how-about-mutable-divine-law-giver.html

1Godfather:

Don't get your knickers in a twist. Reproducing material that has been formerly written somewhere is not a crime so there is no need to sound somewhat pissy. The fact is that sometimes, what we want to say has been better articulated somewhere, or we just may not have the time to write the sort of robust response we would like. In such cases, pasting a link where the matter under contention was properly addressed is not only necessary but smart. At any rate, since you've now referred me to your law-maker argument, I shall take a look at it and see whether it is a defeater for the God proposition.



First of all, this is not an argument against the existence of God as the title of the thread seems to suggest. Even if we grant, for the purpose of the discussion, that the argument succeeds, the atheist would have only succeeded in showing that some religious texts as we have known them are not inerrant or that they are incomplete. It does not even begin to make a case for the non-existence of God. If anything, the atheist has only succeeded in showing that the God who is commonly said to exist might have been misrepresented by some religious texts or worse that if the religious texts were completely accurate, some or all of its contents transgresses against some understanding of God’s attribute that the atheist might currently harbor.

However, that is not even the main thrust of this atheistic argument. This argument as I understand it is as follows: “human laws are mutable—i.e they are likely to be changed or altered to reflect the realities of the time they are operating in. If that is the case, we should expect that Divine laws are likewise mutable. But since the religious texts suggest that the divine commandments contained therein are to be regarded as immutable, one should disregard such divine commandments when a dynamic human society evolves a contrary position.”

But as anyone can immediately see, one should never hinge morality on the ever-changing zeitgeist of human societies and cultures. I don’t think the atheist has fully thought this point through yet. Does he even realize what he is asking for—for the rightness or wrongness of human actions to be arbitrary?; to be subject to group consent?; to be only as valid as the next revision or amendment? And what if some segment of some hypothetical society decides that another segment of the same society has different values from it and thus should not be bound to the same laws?

Why would the atheist think that we should equate human laws with divine laws? Why make the assumption that a divine law-giver, if such a being exists at all, would be like some human lawyer?

The problem isn’t so much that the divine laws which constitutes the basis of morality (i.e one’s duty and obligation towards the lawgiver himself and to his fellow humans) are faulty and need changing. It is rather the case that people do not want, or rather do not feel like they should be accountable to some divine law-giver in the first place. This is the root source of the willful disobedience and the intransigence that comes to the fore whenever people feel like they can attack the idea of a divinely ordained foundation for human morality.

Another issue is that all too often the atheist cannot tell the difference between some point or issue in some alleged divinely inspired text being simply a recommendation or suggestion or wisdom of the human hand writing divinely-inspired scriptures AND those points or issues which are express declarations of God by revelation. This is a point I simply expect no militant or evangelical atheist to be able to wrap his or her head around. Sadly there isn’t much that can be said really to make the matter much clearer to anyone whose ideological commitment hangs on a misapprehension of the point.

http://www.gfpanorama.com/2013/01/how-about-mutable-divine-law-giver.html

Can everyone see the arrogance of a religious blowhard? First he made an assumption that he couldnt back up (that our arguments were copy and paste) and after being proven wrong, he didnt even care to say sorry or anything, he arrogantly went on to make another nonsense claim

1) I am still waiting for apologies for your nonsense claims that we copied and pasted arguments. The law maker argument is entirely mine based on other arguments about changing morality and laws.

2) The title of the thread clearly shows that the arguments are either against god or religion. You chose for some nonsense reason to see only "god" and made a false claim.

3) The law maker argument is against religion not the existence of God

4) There is no divine law. 4,000 years of human existence has shown that- all laws have loopholes. All rules have exceptions. Can you point to a perfect law that you know concerning human behaviour? The evidence favours my claim, not yours.

5) There is already an argument here showing that morality can not come from religion or God. Morality comes from humans (evolution, logic and society). It will do well for you to read more. Something is good because it is inherently good and not because some god says so.

6)Never use the phrases "evangelical atheists" or "militant atheists". It gives away the fact that you are an intolerant and ignorant person. An atheist can not be evangelical and a religious or theistic person has no moral high ground to talk about an atheist being militant

[size=18pt]27) The inconsistency of a good God and the God of the old testament[/size]

[size=14pt]
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."[/size]



God in the old testament sanctioned many crimes against humanity like slavery (Leviticus 25;44) and genocide (1 Samuel 15:3). This is in contrast with what Christians and Jews call a good God that should be worshiped.






[img]http://t.qkme.me/fmn.jpg[/img]

Logicboy03: [size=18pt]27) The inconsistency of a good God and the God of the old testament[/size]

[size=14pt]
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."[/size]



God in the old testament sanctioned many crimes against humanity like slavery (Leviticus 25;44) and genocide (1 Samuel 15:3). This is in contrast with what Christians and Jews call a good God that should be worshiped.

This is really my main basis for being an atheist. God is evil in any and every sense of the word. Even if he did exist he certainly wouldn't be worthy of genuine worship except by masochists or people with Stockholm Syndrome.

onetrack:

This is really my main basis for being an atheist. God is evil in any and every sense of the word. Even if he did exist he certainly wouldn't be worthy of genuine worship except by masochists or people with Stockholm Syndrome.

seconded.

onetrack:

This is really my main basis for being an atheist. God is evil in any and every sense of the word. Even if he did exist he certainly wouldn't be worthy of genuine worship except by masochists or people with Stockholm Syndrome.

Thirded

[size=18pt]28)Shirk and a problem of intolerance in Islam
[/size]

Put simply, shirk (polytheism or associating partners with Allah/God) is the worst sin in Islam. There is no forgiveness for shirk in Islam.


However, shirk is actually the religion of millions of people (polytheism, pagan religions). Shirk was the way of all our Nigerian forefathers and ancestors before Arabs and Europeans came with islam and christianity. In my own opinion, the Islamic disgust with shirk highlights an intolerance and a disrespect to religions that preceded itself. How can one tolerate plurality of religions when you have classified polytheists (such as many pagans) as the most heinous sinners known to God?

What complicates this matter and makes it worse is the logic behind this. A thieving muslim can repent and go to heaven. A fornicating muslim can repent and go to heaven. However, a saintly or good polytheist will burn in Jahannam (hell).

Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin most heinous indeed. -- Sura 4:48

Allah forgiveth not (the sin of) joining other gods with Him; but He forgiveth whom He pleaseth other sins than this: one who joins other gods with Allah, Hath strayed far, far away (from the right). -- Sura 4:116

"Jibril came to me and gave me this glad tiding: "-Anyone from your ummah will enter Paradise if he dies without associating partners with Allah". Thereupon, I said to him, "-Even if he commits fornication and theft?" He replied, " Yes, even if he commits fornication and theft " According to what our Prophet (pbuh) narrates, he asked Jibril this question three times and he received the same answer each time. (Bukhari, Janaiz, 1, Libas, 24, Isti`zan, 30, Riqaq, 13,14, Tawhid, 33; Muslim, Iman, 153, 154, Zakah, 32,33; Tirmidhi, Iman, 18; Ahmad b. Hanbal, V, 152, 159, 161, VI, 166)

[size=18pt]29) The ridiculous concept of blashpemy laws; reduces freedom of religion[/size]

Blasphemy laws are laws against making insults or acts of irreverence towards a religion or deity. While this sounds good on paper it has negative consequences. The are many arguments on the freedom of speech and blasphemy laws but the most ridiculous problem of blasphemy is religion itself;


Blasphemy kills freedom of religion;
Some religions contradict each other in theology and therefore, supporting an idea from one religion could end up as blasphemy in another religion.

For instance, a Sharia practicing country will naturally ban a signboard claiming that there are many gods because polytheism is strictly forbidden in islam and an insult to Allah. Polytheism is central to many pagan religions.

[size=18pt]30) The demise of the good infidel[/size]


According to mainstream Christianity and Islam, rejection of God means hell on judgement day. The problem with this theology is that it places faith over what people do with their life on earth. Religions with such theology can not claim to promote a better life for people on earth because the main focus is on faith and it is irrelevant if a faithless person saves the whole world, he or she is still living a bad life that will be punished in hell.

Logicboy03:


Wow, just wow. Lies and failed arguments on your dead blog.

[shakes his head]Whimpering does not become you. Then again, I suppose its not surprising as you are hardly the poster-boy for restraint and refinement, are you?

[size=18pt]31) A problem of non-altruistic religious charity; Evangelism isnt selfless[/size]

[size=14pt]Altruism

1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.[/size]


Religious charity can not be considered altruistic when there is evagelism tied to it. There are some christian and muslim organisations that mix proselytizing and charity work together. This shows an ulterior motive rather than a true selfless wish to help the less privileged


In short, the religious charity is saying "you are receiving this help from our God/religion, he is choosing to help you now and so believe in it"

[size=18pt]32) Problems with Jesus's crucifixion #1; God can not die/no sacrifice[/size]


Some Christians hold that Jesus is God. If Jesus is truly God, then he cannot die. The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross then becomes meaningless because in reality, Jesus did not lose anything, he merely changed back from his human form to spirit form. Furthermore, he came back in his human form in 3 days according to the bible.

[size=18pt]33) Problems with Jesus's crucifixion #2; Suicide is a sin[/size]

Christianity holds that suicide is a sin (murder- murdering yourself). However, Jesus knew of his impending demise at the cross, yet, he allowed himself to be betrayed, captured and crucified. Suicide by assisted crucifixion. Jesus could have avoided the crucifixion but still followed through with the betrayal of Judas.

[size=18pt]34) Problems with Jesus's crufixion #3; Forgiveness without sacrifice[/size]


Was Jesus's death really that necessary? God could not forgive the whole world just like that? A sacrifice was necessary?

The sacrifice not only ruined Jesus's life but that of Judas who was predestined to betray Jesus. There is also Mary, who must have been saddened by losing her son.



One has to think of the message that the bible is sending. God, in his almighty omnipotence and omniscience, could not fathom out a way to forgive humankind of their sins that did not involve the torture and death of an innocent man called Jesus Christ?


[img]http://t.qkme.me/BqN.jpg[/img]

[size=18pt]34) Problem of incest in Christianity, Islam and Judaism[/size]

There are cases of incest in the holy books of these religions. Incest done by prophets of these religions.

-Adam and Eve; Eve according to the bible is a rib-clone of Adam. This makes Adam her parent and also husband.
-Adam and Eve's children; Since Adam and Eve were the only people on earth, their children would have to have had incest to populate the world
-Abraham and Sarah; Abraham married his half-sister Sarah
-Muhammad and Zaynab; Muhammad married his first cousin, Zaynab (who was previously betrothed to his adopted son)



[img]http://t.qkme.me/56td.jpg[/img]

[size=18pt]35) Simple reasons why the Abrahamic religions should not legislate over the sanctity of marriage[/size]

-Marriage existed in other cultures and religions before these three religions (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) existed
-There is incest in their holy books (see argument 34)
-Their prophets had insane numbers of wives; Muhammad- 12 and Solomon- 700
-Divorce happens in both secular and religious marriages; no one has the high ground.

[size=18pt]36) Another paradoxical problem with omniscience[/size]


We agree that a "married bachelor" can not exist because it is contradictory and self-refuting. An omniscient God is self-refuting and contradictory.

-Omniscience means knowing all things



If God knows everything, then he can not forget. However, that would also mean that he can't experience deja vu- he would always know where he got his experiences from. However, this then means that God does not know how it really feels to experience a moment of deja vu

[size=18pt]37) A problem of many gods in monotheistic religions[/size]

The Abrahamic faiths are monotheistic with the claim that there is one true God but there are instances where other gods are mentioned. Is it that there are other gods which the true God knows?


For instance
-The bible says; Exodus 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before me."
-The bible says; Psalm 82:1 "God presides in the great assembly; he gives judgment among the "gods"
-In islam, Muhammad's father was a pagan named Abdallah (meaning slave of god).

[size=14pt]You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,....................
Do not bow down before their gods or worship them or follow their practices. You must demolish them and break their sacred stones to pieces[/size].

[size=18pt]38) Is God afraid of modern technology?[/size]

Some religious people claim that they talk to God or see him in visions or dreams or he leaves signs. In christianity, God wrote the commandments on a stone tablet.

However, God doesnt send text messages or emails or calls nowadays. Why is God so old school? It makes one skeptical of God. He never reveals himself in identifiable ways. God prefers to reveal himself in subjective and unverifiable ways like dreams and visions, which could easily be chalked up to hallucinations.

[img]http://t.qkme.me/36j5ik.jpg[/img]

39) A problem of evolution and the Abrahamic faiths

The Abrahamic religions state that God created man from earth/sand/water/mud in the beginning. However, human evolution shows that humans evolved from other animals.

This has forced many adherents of the Abrahamic faiths to reject evolution. Howver, evolution is the science and it remains a valid scientific theory. This has resulted in court battles where schools in the USA had to go to court to ge the right to teach evolution in the past.

Evolution and the Abrahamic faith's creation theology are incompatible despite the attempt at reforms to accept a theistic evolution.


[img]http://t.qkme.me/3q7qta.jpg[/img]


[img]http://t.qkme.me/35xokk.jpg[/img]