Are Exorcisms and Demons Real?

[kal-el]

Dancing around the question? You insult me. I believe I have answered your question. The answer to your question, again, is "I don't." This is what "Who am I to say where Hitler or Buddha is" means. See, this is the third time I have answered your question. Only God can no what is in the hearts of men. I'd say Hitler is in Hell, but who the hell am I to say so?

Spare me all the verbal gymnstics, you haven't answered my question: How do you know that their hearts are evil, their minds are twisted, and that they don't believe in god? Please answer it, I don't feel like asking you again, it has nothing to do with Hitler or Buddha. If you don't answer it, I'll assume you don't have any way of knowing, and it's just a guess.

I would think that you would know by now that I don't play these word games. It smacks of simplicity. And stop thanking me. Save the ass kissing for someone else.

No matter what you may think, there is a difference between proclaiming that you "believe" something, and asserting it as fact. You are making all sorts of wishful thinking assertions, and posing them as facts. Is it wrong to ask for proof of something asserted as a fact? If you believe in a certain thing (god's existence) that's a personal statement, and not open for debate. But if you claim that your believe holds validity, that's kinda pushing your believe into an obligation, hence you must defend it.

 

[kal-el]

Proof that your life and anyhting else is in your own hands is a wild claim?

Uhh, last time I checked, I haven't asserted that.

Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it not true.

Likewise, just because some believe it does not make it true. It's a 2-way street here.

You want proof, find a preacher and ask for it. Like I said, "Your soul, not mine."

Hahaha, a preacher? That's a non-biased source! He'll just present the bible as proof for a divine entity, and the bible is proof of nothing.

I didn't bother reading the rest,

Why not? Don't you find it wise to know what you are arguing against?

because I tire of replying to every syllable in my posts. Plus, I don't care what you believe, though you seem awfully concerned about mine.

No, not really. You haven't proclaimed belief, you portray your beliefs as facts, that's were my concern lies.

 

[MSgt]

Spare me all the verbal gymnstics, you haven't answered my question: How do you know that their hearts are evil, their minds are twisted, and that they don't believe in god? Please answer it, I don't feel like asking you again, it has nothing to do with Hitler or Buddha. If you don't answer it, I'll assume you don't have any way of knowing, and it's just a guess.

What you call "verbal gymnastics" is simply the way I talk/type. Maybe I should dumb it down for you?

Holy **** dumb-ass. This is the answer for the fourth time....."I don't." No man can know what is in the hearts of men. You're the one that brought up Hitler or Buddhas as an example. I merely stated that God (if it is real...Post 111) will place them where he places them. I might add that it was your insistance in picking my posts apart sentence by sentence that contributed to your confusion. How Ironic? Was this dumbed down enough for you?

No matter what you may think, there is a difference between proclaiming that you "believe" something, and asserting it as fact. You are making all sorts of wishful thinking assertions, and posing them as facts. Is it wrong to ask for proof of something asserted as a fact? If you believe in a certain thing (god's existence) that's a personal statement, and not open for debate. But if you claim that your believe holds validity, that's kinda pushing your believe into an obligation, hence you must defend it.

You're the one looking for a defense. I don't care to defend what I believe nor do I care to push what I believe onto others. Aren't you the one that bitches about "Christians and their evil agenda to infect you with their ways?" Here you are wanting it forced down your throat.

 

[MSgt]

Likewise, just because some believe it does not make it true. It's a 2-way street here.

The difference being, I'm not attacking you for being an athiest or whining about why you don't believe. I believe I have stated that "I don't care what you believe." Funny how athiests cry about how "God" is being shoved down their throats, but it is usually the other way around.

I have produced nothing as fact. You just wish to argue over it.

 

[kal-el]

What you call "verbal gymnastics" is simply the way I talk/type. Maybe I should dumb it down for you?

No, I call "verbal gymnastics" the way you so aptly dance around questions and statements by diverting my attention to ones you bring up.

Holy **** dumb-ass. This is the answer for the fourth time....."I don't." No man can know what is in the hearts of men.

Then why did you claim it?

But if his heart is evil and his mind is twisted, he cannot believe in God.

Since you answered that you don't know, please retract this wild claim.

You're the one that brought up Hitler or Buddhas as an example. I merely stated that God (if it is real...Post 111) will place them where he places them.

No, you asserted as a fact that they're in heaven or hell, it would be all good if you said you believe that they're in heaven or hell, but no, you think your beliefs hold validity.

I might add that it was your insistance in picking my posts apart sentence by sentence that contributed to your confusion. How Ironic? Was this dumbed down enough for you?

Yes, you did say "if god is real". No confusion there. But everything else you said you claim as fact. If you proclaimed "if god is real" everytime you made a wild claim, I wouldn't be challenging your counter-objections.

You're the one looking for a defense. I don't care to defend what I believe nor do I care to push what I believe onto others. Aren't you the one that bitches about "Christians and their evil agenda to infect you with their ways?" Here you are wanting it forced down your throat.

Uhh, atheism does not bear a burden of proof, since they don't believe in a god, and it's a personal statement. If an atheist asserted "god does not exist" that's a statement about reality, and bears a burden of proof.

 

[MSgt]

No, I call "verbal gymnastics" the way you so aptly dance around questions and statements by diverting my attention to ones you bring up.



Then why did you claim it?


Since you answered that you don't know, please retract this wild claim.



No, you asserted as a fact that they're in heaven or hell, it would be all good if you said you believe that they're in heaven or hell, but no, you think your beliefs hold validity.



Yes, you did say "if god is real". No confusion there. But everything else you said you claim as fact. If you proclaimed "if god is real" everytime you made a wild claim, I wouldn't be challenging your counter-objections.




Uhh, atheism does not bear a burden of proof, since they don't believe in a god, and it's a personal statement. If an atheist asserted "god does not exist" that's a statement about reality, and bears a burden of proof.

:roll: I retract nothing. It's a common sense statement. No Chrisitian or non-Christian on Earth would claim Hiotler as "Godly." If you want to pretend to be stupid, do it with someone else. Take your personal issues with Christianity to some one who cares. Movin' on.

 

[kal-el]

The difference being, I'm not attacking you for being an athiest or whining about why you don't believe. I believe I have stated that "I don't care what you believe." Funny how athiests cry about how "God" is being shoved down their throats, but it is usually the other way around.

So you expect me to sit by quietly, while Christians spout utter nonsense, and claim what's not provable as fact?

I have produced nothing as fact. You just wish to argue over it.

Ha, are you talking about the same debate I am?

"God" doesn't condemn people for that.

There are only two choices. They're in Heaven or they are in Hell.

 

[MSgt]

So you expect me to sit by quietly, while Christians spout utter nonsense, and claim what's not provable as fact?



Ha, are you talking about the same debate I am?

What I choose to believe as fact according to my beliefs is my own. I believe that's my right and I believe I've earned it. This is why I do not talk religion. And this is not a debate. This is about you picking apart and bashing a religion.

 

[kal-el]

:roll: I retract nothing. It's a common sense statement.

I see we don't like to admit when we're wrong here. How exactly is saying a serial killer who murders 200 people, that there hearts are twisted, and they don't believe in god, a common sense statement? I think if they kill 200 people, they're following in god's footsteps, although he makes them seem like amateurs, it's a start.:lol: So, if you cannot prove that serial killer's do not believe in god, I'd say the next step would be to admit you were being dishonest.

No Chrisitian or non-Christian on Earth would claim Hiotler as "Godly."

Where is this originating from? Did I say this? I believe I said Hitler believed in god, no more, no less. Please don't put words in my mouth.

If you want to pretend to be stupid, do it with someone else. Take your personal issues with Christianity to some one who cares. Movin' on.

Ahh, are you getting angry? Did I strike a nerve? Relax, it's just a friendly debate, nothing to need to resort to name calling.

 

[kal-el]

What I choose to believe as fact according to my beliefs is my own.

Yes, that's fine, you can think they are facts. But as soon as you deposit these "facts" on us here, you are obligated to defend them.

I believe that's my right and I believe I've earned it.

Yes, you can beleieve whatever you wish. But don't expect to jump on this discussion, and drop unsubstantiated 1 and 2 liners, and not expect to get called on them.

This is why I do not talk religion. And this is not a debate. This is about you picking apart and bashing a religion.

No, this is about me challenging claims that god exists, and such. Once again, if people would claim "I believe god exists" there would be no discussion.

 

[teenonfire4him77]

So you expect me to sit by quietly, while Christians spout utter nonsense, and claim what's not provable as fact?

I could say the same about your beliefs.:smile:

Ahh, are you getting angry? Did I strike a nerve? Relax, it's just a friendly debate, nothing to need to resort to name calling.

Look whos talking....:roll:
How many times have people called you out for name calling?
Take your own advice.

 

[kal-el]

I could say the same about your beliefs.:smile:

What? I don't remember saying definetly that there isn't a god, just that I don't believe there is one. If I would announce, "There is no god" I would fully expect people to call me on it to provide evidence. What did I spew, that's utter nonsense, as facts? Please post them, or else refrain from accusing me of hypocracy, thanks.

Look whos talking....:roll:
How many times have people called you out for name calling?
Take your own advice.

Excuse me, but Gunny and I were having a heated debate, nothing personal. If I call someone names, that's just the manner in which I talk. And who are you to judge me? I would think that one who buys into mystical bull****, isn't equipped to judge.

 

[teenonfire4him77]

What? I don't remember saying definetly that there isn't a god, just that I don't believe there is one. If I would announce, "There is no god" I would fully expect people to call me on it to provide evidence. What did I spew, that's utter nonsense, as facts? Please post them, or else refrain from accusing me of hypocracy, thanks.

Oh my goodness, there are NUMEROUS times where you claimed there is no God and that what i was 'spouting' was false statements. You say over and over again that according to logic,reason, and fact there is no God...and that Us Christians are idiots for believing in someone who isn't real.

Excuse me, but Gunny and I were having a heated debate, nothing personal. If I call someone names, that's just the manner in which I talk. And who are you to judge me?

I didn't judge you. Calling you a hypocrite and spiteful idiot is judgeing.
I merly pointed out that you should not call something out on someone else when you do it yourself.
So if she calls someone names, is that the manner she talks? Do you know that?
So how can u judge her by calling her a name caller?
Exactly

I would think that one who buys into mystical bull****, isn't equipped to judge

So you are not saying that God isn't real in this statement?:doh im confused.
Of course no one on earth is equipped to judge, only God is. We should not be judgemental of each other, but we all do it anyway...its hard to avoid.
I know it is hard for me to not judge people, but i just keep an open mind...and have that person the opprotunity to disprove my judgement, and most of the time, people do.

 

[kal-el]

Oh my goodness, there are NUMEROUS times where you claimed there is no God and that what i was 'spouting' was false statements. You say over and over again that according to logic,reason, and fact there is no God...and that Us Christians are idiots for believing in someone who isn't real.

Again, please provide evidence of this, as you're word isn't very compelling. I might have said that it is logically impossible for their to be a bible god, but "a" god is totally up in the air.

I didn't judge you. Calling you a hypocrite and spiteful idiot is judgeing.
I merly pointed out that you should not call something out on someone else when you do it yourself.

Uhh, that is being a hypocrite, and you said calling me a hypocrite is judging. You're not making sense here.

So if she calls someone names, is that the manner she talks? Do you know that?
So how can u judge her by calling her a name caller?
Exactly

Huh? Who is she? Once again, you're not making any sense here, I think you are confused, do you even know what it is you are talking about?

So you are not saying that God isn't real in this statement?:doh im confused.

Don't try to twist my words around, I said no such thing. You're not kidding, you are confused. :doh

Of course no one on earth is equipped to judge, only God is.

Well it seems judges make a pretty decent living judging people!:lol:

We should not be judgemental of each other, but we all do it anyway...its hard to avoid.

Yea, I have yet to meet any fundie Christian on this forum that has not passed judgement on atheists.

 

[Apostle13]

The difference being, I'm not attacking you for being an athiest or whining about why you don't believe. I believe I have stated that "I don't care what you believe." Funny how athiests cry about how "God" is being shoved down their throats, but it is usually the other way around.
I have produced nothing as fact. You just wish to argue over it.

This is my observation as well... Kal-el being no exception... Quite possibly the epitome thereof. I commend you Sarge for defending the faith. If it were not for my own faith in knowing all things are possible for them that believe I might otherwise be inclined to say that you were beating a dead horse. Yet in my personal experiences it usually takes real life trauma to bring one of this measure of defiance to even begin to consider God. Most commonly they have to come face to face with their own mortality. As there are no atheists in fox holes. It is written; Them that are forgiven much...Love much The same efforts he presents here may well become multiplied and reversed when he comes to the knowledge of the truth Thereby recognizing his error and seeking amends.
It is easy to remove scripture from context to perpetuate argumentative debates... If one is not enlightened (born again) then they are likely to mis or make mis-interpretations. Example: The fool says in his heart there is no God. Then elsewhere in the bible it says, Jesus speaking, Do not call your brother a fool. One unlearned may see this as contradictory..? Though it is not. Because elsewhere it is written that only God sees the heart. Therefore, it is only Him that can make an accurate assessment / judgment of who we really are, save that man alone.

 

[kal-el]

This is my observation as well... Kal-el being no exception... Quite possibly the epitome thereof.

Gee, thanks for recognizing me!:2razz:

I commend you Sarge for defending the faith. If it were not for my own faith in knowing all things are possible for them that believe I might otherwise be inclined to say that you were beating a dead horse.

Really? So, according to you, if you believe, you can move mountains, part a sea, raise the dead, and make animals talk? Haha, saying it's true doesn't make it true, ok.

Yet in my personal experiences it usually takes real life trauma to bring one of this measure of defiance to even begin to consider God.

There you go with this dishonesty stuff again, prove that you had "personal expeirences".

Most commonly they have to come face to face with their own mortality.

Well, I certainly can't look at the bible god, cause he said man can't see him and live, o wait, Moses did!:lol: As I said, this god fella is quite the blasphemer.

It is easy to remove scripture from context to perpetuate argumentative debates...

O, so exhausting. If the bible is infallible, it's impossible for unperfect humans to take a perfect verse out of context. If I did, the bible isn't perfect, ok.

If one is not enlightened (born again) then they are likely to mis or make mis-interpretations. Example: The fool says in his heart there is no God. Then elsewhere in the bible it says, Jesus speaking, Do not call your brother a fool. One unlearned may see this as contradictory..? Though it is not. Because elsewhere it is written that only God sees the heart. Therefore, it is only Him that can make an accurate assessment / judgment of who we really are, save that man alone.

Why does one have to be a born-again Christian? Ha, I'm rather tired of Christians acting as this fella's spokesperson. Why doesn't this god come down from his sky throne, and fight his own battles?

 

[Apostle13]

Gee, thanks for recognizing me!:2razz:
Really? So, according to you, if you believe, you can move mountains, part a sea, raise the dead, and make animals talk? Haha, saying it's true doesn't make it true, ok.
There you go with this dishonesty stuff again, prove that you had "personal expeirences".
Well, I certainly can't look at the bible god, cause he said man can't see him and live, o wait, Moses did!:lol: As I said, this god fella is quite the blasphemer.
O, so exhausting. If the bible is infallible, it's impossible for unperfect humans to take a perfect verse out of context. If I did, the bible isn't perfect, ok.
Why does one have to be a born-again Christian? Ha, I'm rather tired of Christians acting as this fella's spokesperson. Why doesn't this god come down from his sky throne, and fight his own battles?

I'm sorry was I talking to you..? Oh, well about you. Fair enough.:2razz:
Actually, I was only generalizing a particular type of atheist of whom you exemplify quite well on this board. However, to be quite honest, I find little merit to justify a response to your own. Seems as if I'm talking to a drunk, or else a very angry 9 year old.
I cannot prove there is a God anymore than you can there isn't. If I speak of personal experiences, I speak of past years of ministry, or else my own God given revelations that are earnestly sought thru prayer/obedience, only to be respectfully shared among believers, or else the more receptives... Such is an agnostic. As I'm always considering the significance of this scripture;

Do not give that which is holy (the sacred thing) to the dogs, and do not throw your pearls before hogs, lest they trample upon them with their feet and turn and tear you in pieces.

Surely you can you find yourself/my reasoning in this passage.??

 

[Engimo]

I cannot prove there is a God anymore than you can there isn't.

The problem inherent to this statement is the lack of recognition of the fact that the burden of proof lies on those that are making an assertion. Proving a universal negative such as "God does not exist" is nigh-impossible, and as such proof is required of those that are making the claim that he does. The logical default is disbelief of any unsubstantiated claim.

 

[Apostle13]

The problem inherent to this statement is the lack of recognition of the fact that the burden of proof lies on those that are making an assertion. Proving a universal negative such as "God does not exist" is nigh-impossible, and as such proof is required of those that are making the claim that he does. The logical default is disbelief of any unsubstantiated claim.

I beg to differ.
As default would be agnosticism.

 

[Engimo]

I beg to differ.
As default would be agnosticism.

Untrue. You're confusing the statement "there is no God" and the statement "there is no reason to believe in God".

For example, let's say that you believe in the existence of invisible space unicorns that orbit Saturn. The default position is to not believe in them until evidence for their existence is presented. While you cannot definitively say that there are not any space unicorns, you can say that it is justified to not believe in them. This is the distinction that I am talking about.

While the statement "there is no God" is an assertion and has a burden of proof, the statement of "there is no reason to believe in God" is not, it is simply the logical default against the statement "there is a God".

 

[Apostle13]

Untrue. You're confusing the statement "there is no God" and the statement "there is no reason to believe in God".

For example, let's say that you believe in the existence of invisible space unicorns that orbit Saturn. The default position is to not believe in them until evidence for their existence is presented. While you cannot definitively say that there are not any space unicorns, you can say that it is justified to not believe in them. This is the distinction that I am talking about.

While the statement "there is no God" is an assertion and has a burden of proof, the statement of "there is no reason to believe in God" is not, it is simply the logical default against the statement "there is a God".

...And yet you fail to fully equate.
Example: If a man is charged with murder and there is little or no significant proof other than a handful of witness', and they prove to be credible. He will likely most, be convicted. In Christianity alone there are many such witness' far more than a handful past and present. Credible and non...Billions such.
Whereas, atheism is built and defined by a conglomerate of theories.
Now do the math.

 

[Engimo]

...And yet you fail to fully equate.
Example: If a man is charged with murder and there is little or no significant proof other than a handful of witness', and they prove to be credible. He will likely most, be convicted. In Christianity alone there are many such witness' far more than a handful past and present. Credible and non...Billions such.
Whereas, atheism is built and defined by a conglomerate of theories.
Now do the math.

This is a fallacious argument. Appeal To Popularity.
The fact that many people are Christians has no bearing on the validity of the religion. Not only that, what about the fact that there are billions of Hindus and Muslims? The popularity of religion does not serve to prove that it has legitimacy, it just proves that religion is popular.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html​

 

[Apostle13]

This is a fallacious argument. Appeal To Popularity.
The fact that many people are Christians has no bearing on the validity of the religion. Not only that, what about the fact that there are billions of Hindus and Muslims? The popularity of religion does not serve to prove that it has legitimacy, it just proves that religion is popular.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html​

My position stands and is morely regarded as accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

 

[Engimo]

My position stands and is morely regarded as accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Like I said, do you feel unjustified in your disbelief in Saturn's space unicorns?

While you would be right if we were talking about the statements "There are unicorns." and "There are no unicorns." - in the absence of evidence either way we would be agnostic as to whether or not we can prove they existed. The thing is, we're talking about the statements "There are unicorns." and "There is no reason to believe in unicorns.".

The burden of proof falls on those that are asserting something - in this case, those that claim the existence of the unicorns. A disbelief is not an assertion.

 

[Apostle13]

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Like I said, do you feel unjustified in your disbelief in Saturn's space unicorns?

While you would be right if we were talking about the statements "There are unicorns." and "There are no unicorns." - in the absence of evidence either way we would be agnostic as to whether or not we can prove they existed. The thing is, we're talking about the statements "There are unicorns." and "There is no reason to believe in unicorns.".

The burden of proof falls on those that are asserting something - in this case, those that claim the existence of the unicorns. A disbelief is not an assertion.

Well thank you for not using Santa Clause/The Easter Bunny as I can find at least a little humor in your orbiting unicorns imaginative. As you can clearly see if your were actually to thoroughly read the Wikipedia link you will find that agnosticism is broadly defined and relevant to your beloved Occam's Razor.
If I were wrong/disproven pride would not prevent me for to say. This link I provided is without slant... Which I can hardly perceive concerning you/yours.
Nevertheless, I know how important it is for you to get in the last word so have at it. Otherwise, the debate stops here concerning this as I see it as a trivial matter beyond legitimate compromise.