₦airaland Forum

The Great Tantra Challenge

Everything started, when Uma Bharati (former chief minister of the state of Madhya Pradesh) accused her political opponents in a public statement of using tantrik powers to inflict damage upon her. In fact, within a few days, the unlucky lady had lost her favorite uncle, hit the door of her car against her head and found her legs covered with wounds and blisters.

India TV, one of India’s major Hindi channels with national outreach, invited Sanal Edamaruku for a discussion on “Tantrik power versus Science”. Pandit Surinder Sharma, who claims to be the tantrik of top politicians and is well known from his TV shows, represented the other side. During the discussion, the tantrik showed a small human shape of wheat flour dough, laid a thread around it like a noose and tightened it. He claimed that he was able to kill any person he wanted within three minutes by using black magic. Sanal challenged him to try and kill him.

http://www.rationalistinternational.net/article/2008/20080310/en_1.html


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpwCuv_izn4


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9taL2vcOJ0

MerryMonody:
Not communism per say, more like democratic socialism as practiced in the Nordic Countries of Europe. In this sense labour unions could be empowered, taxes lowered for the poor and raised for the rich, extremely transparent government, provision of social amenities e.g. education being free till tertiary. Atheists could advocate for this.

Atheists do advocate for this, but not as atheists. Atheists in labour unions advocate for unions. Atheists in politics advocate for freedoms. The fact that some atheists have chosen to speak out against religion and superstition doesn't mean others have stopped fighting for other things. The Young Turks for example are atheists, but they don't talk about atheism much. They fight for the rights of blacks, LGBTs, women, etc.

Ontarget:
I really laughed at the part in bold. So you chose to believe that the first simple life emerged from nowhere and formed every other thing while you still refused to believe that a God emerged from nowhere and created everything? What's the difference between the two?

No, I choose to believe that we don't yet know how the first simple life form emerged. I don't know. You don't know. Nobody knows. In the past we didn't know how complex life forms came to be, but now we know that. It's reasonable to expect that we will know more in the future.

What makes you think a God isn't behind the natural selection of species and evolution cos I am still wondering how a farming hoe can blindly evolve to a tractor through "natural selection" without any intelligence guiding the transformation.

We cannot completely rule out the possibility that God, Superman, or Voltron created the first life form, but there's no good evidence for that.

DoctorAlien:
Who are scientists? People who can't lie? Evolution looks more like a cooked-up fairytale than a science theory.

The scientific community has a good track record of telling the truth. The same cannot be said of religious institutions or their scriptures. Every time in history that religion has been in conflict with science, science has been proven to be right, and religious people have been forced to re-interpret their scriptures to accommodate the truth of science. Religious authorities persecuted Galileo because he said the earth moves round the sun, which is contrary to a direct interpretation of the bible. Now they accept it. They thought that lightning was a sign of God's wrath, but now they accept the scientific explanation. Many Christian denominations e.g. the Catholic church have accepted evolution too. Now it's your turn!

This "debate" between Richard Dawkins and an Anglican bishop ended up being a tutorial on evolution for the intelligent bishop:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bow4nnh1Wv0

It may interest you to know that scientists are seriously divided over evolution. So, who are you those you call "scientists"?

Scientists who promote creationism aren't considered real scientists because their theory isn't based on reality. These people have decided that the earth was created by God because the bible says so, and so they try to distort the evidence to support their predetermined conclusion.

DoctorAlien:
"The same intelligent scientists whose theories are responsible for all the comforts we enjoy in the modern world, have told us..." -Argumentum ad verecundiam. This is a fallacy.

Many people don't have the time to study evolution in depth. For such people, it makes sense to simply accept it because scientists accept it.

KvnqPrezo:
Saying there are something in the bible that are not true I'll totally disagree because those things exist long time before we were born..

The existence of God is completely a misery and in the bible it's stated that "God Can't Lie" please everyone some be sure before concluding ..

Please read this blog post for some enlightenment: https://rarebible./2009/12/06/false-prophecies-of-jesus/

Lagusta:
Anyway, I did some research too, and I found out that the grant mufti of al-azhar, sheikh Ali gomaa disproves of the death penalty....

He was reported to have said the punishment for apostasy should be left to God, but he denied the statement shortly after it was reported.

But the point is, following this or that sheikh doesn't make one a Muslim, but following what is in the Quran and the authentic Sunnah...

Are you saying that the hadiths that support the death penalty for apostasy, especially the one I quoted above, are not authentic?

Zzyco:
10 foolish things that foolish people believe.
1. Believing Big bang hoax was real.

Scientists have proved that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate. If you trace that back, you get the big bang.

2. God doesn't exist, but Dinosaur exist millions of years ago,.. also Believing the existing of alien.

Yes, we believe dinosaurs existed (but not aliens) because we have dinosaur bones which are millions of years old. Do you have God's bones?

3. Believing human evolve from apes. But in reality, nature never change.

We didn't just evolve from apes. We are apes. We have all the features that scientists use to differentiate between apes and other animals.

4. Denying God, but talk about God more then theist.

Most atheists don't talk about it. In fact, you don't know they are atheists. You'd be shocked if you knew the number of atheists in Nigeria.

5. Said, soul doesn't exist, but talk about soul mate.

6. Denying God, but blame God about their scientists man made diseases.

7. Always proud to said he/she is atheist in internet, but in reality scare to show off.

Because religious people are violent. This reflects badly on you as a religious person.

8. Complain religious teaching in schools, but providing fools and hoax education in book.

Religious teaching in schools is awesome. Students should be taught about all major religions. No particular religion should be forced on them.

9. Always talk about changing world, but always criticise others, providing fools knowledge in reality. Guiding more and more in dark side of the world.

10. (Worst is) Pretending to be intelligent, but just a bunch of scientists and politics dog, who have hoax intelligent.

How can you suggest that scientists are not intelligent when all the modern amenities you enjoy including the Internet are based on science?

This type of article uses a lot of words to say almost nothing meaningful or true. And you can't debunk it because, where do you even start?

MerryMonody:
Actually the title isn't misleading. New atheism is a movement of outspoken atheists who believe religion is the main source of problems in the world and are quiet agressive in their attempts at deconverting theists.

New atheist is an imprecise term. I deplore such terms because by playing with their meaning you can constructs incorrect arguments that sound plausible. If you want to criticise Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, do that. If you want to criticize outspoken atheists, do that. Your definition of new atheism is certainly wrong. Outspoken atheists believe religion is a problem, but not necessarily that it's the main problem.

The author explains the evolution of atheistic movements. How atheistic movements were originally socialist and we're focused on ending income inequality, furthering the cause of the proletariat and dismantling unfair structures set up be the bourgeois, how they were truly humanist. This is because the old atheist movements recognised the fact that religion is "the opium of the masses" it is what they can hold on to because they are desperate, because they have needs. Remove their desperation, provide for their needs and religion will die a natural death. The old atheists did not believe in engaging in trivial arguments about the bible like new atheists, they believed in restructuring society in a way that would eliminate the necessity of religion.

This generalization of old atheists is almost definitely inaccurate. There has never been a time when all atheists shared the same philosophy. The author has every right to hold the view that atheists should stay in the closet, but his justification should not rest on false history.

He argues that the New Atheists are pro capitalism, income inequality and Social Darwinism, yet call themselves humanists.

This is false. Any conclusion based on this false premise is also likely to be false.

They are mainly those in physical sciences and so they belittle philosophy and the humanities, even though these were the fields of many old atheists,

What? Two of the atheists considered to be the leaders of the new atheist movement, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris, are philosophers!!

and even though there are higher rates of atheists who studied philosophy and the social sciences than there are in the physical sciences.

So he is simply dismissing a fact which contradicts his claim without justification.

New Atheists are aggressive, islamophobic, racist and elitist.

This is just not true. Being outspoken is not aggression. Criticizing a religion is not racism. Being well educated is not elitism.

He argues that old atheism is better for true progress and the advancement of humanity.

Which means nothing since his argument is based on false assertions and half truths. If he is saying that instead of being outspoken, atheists should seize control of the countries in which they live and impose socialism and communism in those countries, this is clearly bad advice.

Ontarget:
Some atheists became atheists because they read the Bible and spotted some loop holes in it. Most times they cite those biblical passages and mock christians with it. The Bible certainly contains things that doesn't add up, especially the account of creation.

I'm happy that you admit that there are things in the bible that are not true. How do you determine which parts are true? Are you a deist?

But that shouldn't be the ultimate reason which decides the existence or inexistence of a supreme being.

If you believe in the existence of God because of the bible, then it makes sense to drop your faith in God along with your faith in the bible.

When an atheist is challenged using the Bible he scores points, but when he is challenged using the physics and metaphysics of things in existence he struggles to prove their is no God.

Actually, atheists don't have to prove there is no God, just as you don't have to prove that there is no Santa Claus in the north pole who delivers christmas gifts to children, or that Voltron, the defender of the universe, doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on the believer. If you were minding your business, and I approached you and told you about the alien who lives in my wardrobe, the burden of proof would be on me.

If you are an atheist I would really like to know what makes you think it is possible for a complex and organized system to emerge on its own without guidance

The same intelligent scientists whose theories are responsible for all the comforts we enjoy in the modern world, have told us that there is overwhelming evidence (fossils, DNA, embryology) supporting the theory that all the complex life on earth today evolved from simple life forms over a long period of time under the guidance of natural selection or the survival of the fittest. Nobody really knows how the first simple life forms emerged, but once they emerged, their struggle for survival in a harsh environment pushed them to become more and more complex and diversified. The complexity of nature didn't emerge without guidance, but the guidance was done by a natural selection process. Close to 100% of scientists accept the theory of evolution. All efforts to disprove it scientifically since 1859, have failed. It makes no sense to reject it.

However, you should know that atheism doesn't rest on evolution. There were atheists in the world even before the theory of evolution was discovered. Even if we didn't know how living creatures evolved, that wouldn't necessarily mean they were created by a God. We human beings have always made up stories to explain the things we don't understand. Some of those stories have resonated so well that they have grown into repressive social constructs that we are willing to commit atrocities for. Now that we have science, we don't need to do that anymore.

Lagusta:
shaykh Yusuf al-qaradawiy

"Yusuf al-Qaradawi, head of the Muslim Brotherhood and one of the most respected leaders of the Sunni world, recently said on Egyptian television, "If they [Muslims] had gotten rid of the punishment [often death] for apostasy, Islam would not exist today." The most striking thing about his statement, however, was that it was not an apology; it was a logical, proud justification for preserving the death penalty as a punishment for apostasy."
Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3572/islam-apostasy-death

Video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huMu8ihDlVA

Mubbyleey:
Islam doesn't teach this, this act is on the person torturing and he is responsible for his actions. So don't jugde this pertaining to islam.

Two questions:
1) What's your interpretation of this hadith: Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' " Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260
2) Can you name any prominent Islamic scholar who supports your position that apostates must not be killed because there's no compulsion?

[quote author=UyiIredia post=49774585]I don't even believe the timescales[/qoute]
There are trees in the world that are older than the reported age of the earth according to creationists. Watch the Bill Nye / Ken Ham debate.

but then even if it were true. The evidence clearly shows that organisms conserve their form.

What evidence? Be specific.

Codedrock:
Lol. Maybe Seun's argument here should be how do we know job ever existed? How are we sure all that wasn't the writers guessing.

Yep.

I'd like muslims to drop their comments after watching this video. Is it right to harass, torture or kill people who choose to change their religion?

Smallville10:
hmmm interesting, and what are d contradictions particularly

Sorry bro, but I don't think studying the contradictions between various views of reality that are all clearly wrong is a productive use of time.

4everGod:
So Seun if those who were not Prophets as you say could have access to this info where do you think they got the info from? Their imagination？

Yes, of course. That the words he used to express his speculation appear scientifically accurate to you today is pure coincidence.

exhibition:
The Bible describes the suspension of the Earth in space.

Job 26:7 He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing.

A consistency of science with the Bible.

This was not said by God. It was said by Job. Job was not a prophet, so everything he said was just his opinion. (I made a mistake initially)

Codedrock:
I was raised as a kid around cats parents bought them specifically to kill rats though.

Same here. Our female cat got pregnant all the time. We really enjoyed watching the little kittens as they played, and playing with them.

Most Nigerians I have told that cat is my favorite pet look at me like I am crazy. What pisses me off the most is that a lot them say cats are dangerous because they can be used to do spiritual evil works. I try to convince them whenever I hear that though. Ugh.. .

I hate that too. I wonder what evil-doers need cats for that dogs, rats, mice, lizards and insects cannot do. It's because of their glowy eyes.

exhibition:
To those who feel concerned.

The Bible describes the chemical nature of flesh.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return.

After someone dies we all should know as biology students that the body decomposes.

So tell me how could God not exist if He was actually the one that created Man with such chemical nature as proven by man himself? Mr. Seun

People have always known that the body decomposes. Even animals know this. There's no special divine or scientific wisdom in that passage. Also, the chemical composition of our bodies (mostly protein) is very different from the chemical composition of soil (mostly minerals).

Smallville10:
I speak with GOD and i have studied my bible and beyond d bible to a greater level... I am a paranormal investigator so i ought to read nd study

Why should we believe your claim to speak with God when what you're saying contradicts what other people who 'spoke with God' said?

Smallville10:
Atheists are gettin it wrong... Both God and Devil are omnipotent, let me explain...
There is heaven, earth and underworld (hades). The devil has control over the underworld to certain levels, he then has full control over the earth and men therein but he then has no power what so ever over heaven.
God has power over all 3 worlds (realms)... The important realm here is earth wherein lucifer is omnipotent as well as ALMIGHTY GOD... That is d reason why the forces of good and evil is never balanced.

Where did you get this... "information" from?

I'd love to own a black cat someday.

Jackossky:
I accede with you on that candidly speaking,you asked if he was sure if it is a real mermaid or not,but the question is that,how do we get the idea of it being *real* or * fake* so how do you get the perception of it as fake?You got the idea because there is definitely a real one ,that was why fake exist.....Hope you are getting what am insinuating?

That's a flawed but common argument. I thought putting the word "real" in quotes would spare me from having to debunk it again:

Seun:
By your logic, since the Superman in Hollywood movies is fake, there must be a real Superman somewhere in the real world. This is not so.

Smallville10:
good u took ur time. Well, the devil (Lucifer) is omnipresent, omnimalevolent. If he could take Christ up for temptation theb who is man? He definately can try imposing his desire and succeed, to certain limits because his main goal is to create evil in the hearts of men and to stand against God

You know, I don't believe the devil exists. I just don't think the existence of good is what proves it. If Satan is not omnipotent then the existence of good doesn't prove that he doesn't exist. My reason for not believing Satan exists is the lack of any good evidence for his existence. Also, I understand that he was invented by the writers of scripture to take the blame for all bad things so that God wouldn't be blamed.

UyiIredia:
Doesn't the earth rest on a molten core that could be said to be its foundation.

exhibition:
on what basis do you infer that the earth doesn't have foundation? what's the proof?

The purpose of a foundation is to anchor a building to the ground. The earth is not anchored to anything; it's flying through space and spinning. The idea of the earth having "foundations" makes some sense if you think the earth is flat and stationary, but why would God think that?

ifenes:
This is a tricky question. I will be honest....I have seen a Mar-maid in year 1996 during my late grand-dad initiation. Yes I saw it in Ijebu,Nigeria during his initiation. I was very young and was there when they put a cow in the river and I knew exactly what I saw. I still have memories till this day.

Pls describe what you saw precisely. How do you know that what you saw was a 'real' mermaid and not someone pretending to be a mermaid?

We are Africans for crying out loud.

Indeed! We are proudly and unapologetically superstitious, irrational, and under-educated.

I have seen a Witch and this is just not the place to say these things

Please describe exactly what you saw, when, and where. How did you know that the entity you saw was a 'real' witch and not a hallucination?

Smallville10:
There is something called LOGICAL ARGUMENT OF EVIL which is as follows:
1. If an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God exists then evil doesnt
2. There is evil in the world
3. Therefore an omnipotent God doesnt exist
Now, it would be obviously incomplete to put up an argument from evil without the Good; there fore i would like to put up one
LOGICAL ARGUMENT FROM GOOD is as follows:
1. If a devil exists then good does not
2. There is good in d world
3. Therefore a devil does not exist.
Now from d above logics, can we then say that both GOD AND DEVIL do not exist?

You've forgotten that the devil (as imagined by Christians) is not omnipotent. Thus, unlike God, he is unable to impose his desire universally.

exhibition:
....In Verse 4...."Where was thou (the scientists, atheists etcetra) when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou has understanding." Can you answer this? Also to Mr. Seun Can you answer this?

The earth doesn't have any foundations. How could God not know that?

The answer is no. Most atheists don't believe in anything that is not supported by good evidence, including Jinns, ghosts, mermaids, & witches.

Nwendy:
where can I find these in the Bible please

Slavery:

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life. Leviticus 25:44-46

Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 1 Peter 2:18

Children Killing:

They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys. Joshua 6:21

Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” 1 Samuel 15:3

Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. Psalm 137:9

Rape:

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. Deuteronomy 22:28-29
(A young male jew could force any girl to marry him by simply raping her, getting caught, and paying 50 shekels of silver to her father.)

Codedrock:
Seun u Keep mentioning psychiatrist I don't think we have trusted and good shrinks here in Nigeria. If there are they must be too scarce.

Regular doctors can prescribe basic psychiatric medications like antidepressants. They can also refer patients to good psychiatrists if needed.

Let's go back to talking about what happens to people who mock God.