• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Are Exorcisms and Demons Real?

Apostle13 said:
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.

What you fail to realize is that Agnostics are Atheists as well. Do agnostics believe in God? No, they do not. Weak atheists (which most atheists are) and agnostics (the most common form of them) are essentially the same thing. I am not making the assertion that there definitively is no God, I am saying that "we don't have any evidence for God yet, so I am reasonably justified in not believing in him.".
 
Engimo said:
What you fail to realize is that Agnostics are Atheists as well. Do agnostics believe in God? No, they do not. Weak atheists (which most atheists are) and agnostics (the most common form of them) are essentially the same thing. I am not making the assertion that there definitively is no God, I am saying that "we don't have any evidence for God yet, so I am reasonably justified in not believing in him.".

Never did I fail in that realization. Some are weak atheists others are not. Rather undecided as based on evidence or lack thereof. This is why I said agnosticism is broad by definition. Thereby, making it more suitable as a reason/means for default.
I think you just finally agreed...lol
 
Last edited:
Apostle13 said:
Never did I fail in that realization. Some are weak atheists others are not. Rather undecided as based on evidence or lack thereof. This is why I said agnosticism is broad by definition. Thereby, making it more suitable as a reason/means for default.
I think you just finally agreed...lol

Yes, I'm sorry. I assumed that you were talking about the more colloquial understanding of what agnosticism is - there are often misconceptions among people that agnosticism is just saying "there's no way to know, so I'm not gonna say anything", when it also incorporates weak atheism. My mistake.
 
Engimo said:
Yes, I'm sorry. I assumed that you were talking about the more colloquial understanding of what agnosticism is - there are often misconceptions among people that agnosticism is just saying "there's no way to know, so I'm not gonna say anything", when it also incorporates weak atheism. My mistake.

While I appreciate your concession. There is no need for apology as you did present fair and valid points.
Based on this is it not all the wiser (humanly speaking) that one who is otherwise not compelled toward any religious doctrines/beliefs to take all the more an agnostic stance 'lest there be any other rash/reasoning which comes to light at a more personal level/degree. Shouldn't then they not shake their fists at God in mocking / persecute them that believe. Pretending they have it all figured out relying on theoretical conglomerates. Whereas, people of faith are then inclined to take them at a level of mutual disrespect in their knowing/believing that rather they have it all disfigured out.
...And in all fairness I realize the elements of radicalism of those who profess themselves to be Christian. Still and again only God knows the heart and we (as true Christians) are only to judge them by their fruits. There measure of compassion, obedience, and ultimate principles that align/define biblically accordingly as to what is integrity..?
 
Actually, atheism is the default position:

Is atheism illogical? Many theists will argue that one would have to know everything before he could say that God does not exist. Since I do not know everything there is to know in the universe, then I'm labeled as illogical for denying God's existence, becuase there's a *faint* possibility that somewhere there really is a God out there. Granted, when it comes to the uncertainty of the universe, many things are *possible*. When it comes to the concept of God, anything can conceivable be possible. It's possible that our universe exists on the hair follicle of a woolly mammoth in a parallel universe, but is it illogical to deny this? Certainly not. Likewise, it is possible that ghosts exist, but is it illogical to deny them until I actually meet one? Certainly not. In the absence of logic, evidence, and reasoning anything becomes conceivably possible, and one is only limited to one's own imagination.

This is the reasoning behind the never-tiring expression, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." 'Extraordinary' meaning requiring you to give up some common sense in order to believe and 'evidence' meaning either physical or conceptual proof.

Let's say I tell you that on a recent vacation I saw a herd of buffalo. This isn't an extraordinary claim and thus you would not have to abandon currently held beliefs in order to believe me. If I tell you that on a recent vacation I saw a herd of unicorns, then we have a different situation. Now you would be required to reject the validity of history for never mentioning unicorns as well as rejecting the media for never publicizing such a thing. To do all this in order to believe in unicorns is in itself illogical. Because I cannot present any extraordinary evidence, then it is therefore logical for you to deny that I've seen unicorns and their existence in general. In essence, by default you become an "atheist towards unicorns".

God is an extraordinary claim. Some theists will admit themselves that their stance is "not logical". This isn't uncommon. Our good friend Blaise Pascal, famous for "Pascal's Wager" wrote that some people have to take steps to dull their reasoning abilities in order to become a Christian. Martin Luther, the famous guy from the Reformation, said that reasoning should be destroyed in all Christians! Therefore we need to demand a good deal of extraordinary evidence for theism.

http://www.geocities.com/anatheist2001/subdefault.htm
 
Apostle13 said:
The link you provide is also slanted when I hit the back button at the top of the page it came up "An Atheist's site."
My position stands Agnosticism is default.


Weak atheism is usually confused with agnosticism.

Strong atheism
Strong atheism is the belief that there is no god. Usually, the strong atheists have some arguments that makes them believe that the god hypothesis is intrinsically impossible. A common counter-argument is that it is impossible to prove that there is no god. The counter-argument seems to rely on two assumptions: 1) That the strong atheist's only reason for rejecting the god hypothesis is that he cannot find any proof that theism is true and/or 2) that it is intrinsically impossible to know whether there is a god or not. The first premise is a confusion of strong atheism with weak atheism, and the second will be investigated further under popular agnosticism.

Sometimes the argument against atheism is a variant of the above and says that only because one has searched the whole world and didn't find a god, one can't draw the conclusion that there is no god. Usually the argument is presented as a parable: Suppose you search a forest for bears without finding any. Would that be proof that there is no bear in the forest? The answer is, of course, no. The bear may have moved around in the forest, avoiding you so you didn't see it, and even if there were no bear in the forest when you searched it, there may have moved some bears there after you left.

This is a misinterpretation of the atheist standpoint. Let me deny it with another parallel: A prime number is a natural number that cannot be divided by any other number than itself and 1 (one). Examples of prime numbers are 3, 5 and 57. Now, there can be no even prime number greater than 2 (two), and the reason is that all even numbers greater than 2 are divisible with 2. You don't have to search the whole infinite series of natural numbers to make that concousion. You can deny it on other grounds. For the same reason, even if the strong atheist is unable to search the whole universe and a possible supernatural world, there can be rational arguments that makes gods impossible, or at least implausible.

Another misinterpretation of strong atheism is that the strong atheist knows for certainty that there is no god. Some (if not all) strong atheists rather think that the existence of gods is just very unlikely. Atheism is not about knowledge, but about belief. The strong atheist simply believes that it is impossible for there to be a god.

All arguments for strong atheism are of the following kind (Modus Tollens):

If there is a god, then p is true
p is false (or p is probably false)
Therefore there is no god.
Of course, these arguments rest on the first assumption, that if there is a god, then p is true. All arguments have a premise that can't be proven from within the argument itself (Gödel's theorem). This is no ground for discarding strong atheist arguments though, because first of all the premise is taken from theism so if one disagrees with it, then one also disagrees with the theism that is disproved, and secondly, if this argument is discarded because of Gödel, then all arguments must be discarded for the same reason. You cannot eat the cake and keep it at the same time.

Weak AtheismThe weak atheist position does not need a justification - it is the default position. One should not accept a position unless there is some rational reason for supposing it true. For a weak atheist it is sufficient to say: "I don't know what a god is", or "I have never heard of a god". Unless theism can be proved in some way, the weak atheist position is the preferred position. This is often confused with agnosticism.

Agnosticism
The word agnosticism is derived from the Greek a- (negation) and -gnosis (knowledge). Simply put, an agnostic is one who says: "I don't know". One can be agnostic about many things, e.g. whether the moon is a cheese or not, but usually it is used about the existence of god. The popular definition of an agnostic is someone who doesn't know whether there is a god or not. This is different from the original definition, but first let me explain why this is not in any way opposed to atheism as defined above. Atheism is the belief that there is no god, or the lack of belief that there is a god. It has nothing much to do with what one knows, but more what one believes. It is fully possible to be ignorant of the fact whether there is a god or not, and still believe that there is no god, or not believing that there is a god, as this popular definition of agnosticism is not about belief, but of knowledge.

Sometimes agnosticism is popularly defined as one who doesn't believe that there is a god, while at the same time believing that there is a god. I don't think this "agnostic" position is possible. Either you believe that there is a god, or you don't. You can't believe that a position is true, at the same time believing that it isn't. Yet another definition of agnosticism is the belief that the existence of a god or gods is intrinsically unknowable. This will be addressed further down.

All popular definitions of agnosticism are unhistorical, and ignore the definition laid out by TH Huxley. Huxley was the person who coined the term in the 19th century, and he defined it thus:

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, "Try all things, hold fast by that which is good" it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him; it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him." (TH Huxley, Agnosticism, 1889)
As we can see, there is no contradiction between Huxley's definition of agnosticism and any of the atheist positions; it is even compatible with theism. As long as the conclusion can be demonstrated, it is in line with agnosticism. Most people who hold the position of Huxley would probably be classified as weak atheists according to my definition above. Many would call themselves skeptics. Note also that Huxley does not explicitly speak about God or gods, but rather of knowledge in general terms. (Other quotes by Huxley show that he is talking not just about gods, but about the ultimate questions in general.)

Popular Agnosticism
Most modern dictionaries seem to ignore Huxley's definition. Instead they define agnosticism as the belief that god is unknown and/or unknowable, but if god is unknown the weak atheist position is the default position. I call the dictionary version of agnosticism "poplar agnosticism".

As far as I can see, popular agnosticism is self-contradictory. If god is unknowable, how is it that the agnostic knows this fact? By claiming that the gods' existence is unknowable, the popular agnostics contradict themselves. If no knowledge about the gods is possible, then it is not possible to know that fact. It may be possible that the popular agnostic doesn't know whether there is a god or not, but that is no proof that the atheist does not know. It is a logical fallacy to impose your own ignorance on others. Many self-acclaimed agnostics bash theists and atheists for claiming knowledge about the unknown, but what about themselves? They too claim knowledge about the unknown. The only difference is that the popular agnostic claims that the unknown is also unknowable. Both the theist and the (strong) atheist claim that it is knowable and that they know. What if they are right? How is it possible for the agnostic to bash the theist or the atheist for knowing something the agnostic does not? It may be that the other have some good arguments that the agnostic is unaware of.

Conclusion
I have defined atheism using the two definitions of denial. An atheist can deny, either that there are gods (strong atheism), or that there is a ground for theism (weak atheism). The popular definition of agnostic is unhistorical. The original definition of agnosticism is not in contradiction neither with theism nor atheism. The popular definition of agnosticism is illogical and sometimes contradictive.

When it comes to belief about the gods, there are three possible standpoints:
The belief that there is a god (theism)
The lack of belief that there is a god (weak atheism)
The belief that there is no god (strong atheism)

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/atheism/definitions.html
 
Demons are as real as you want them to be!!
 
Okay, time for a wake up call......

Demons, souls, angels, gods, devils and the alike are all real. These beings are around us all of the time. Some torment us and others guide us, but none the less they are real. I am one person that has dealt with all of the above from one occurance to many. Exorcism is not the only way to get rid of these spirits. You can obsorb their energy, cast them out, call them out, and even call upon higher, stronger powers to interceed for you. Not all demons are out to kill you or possess your body. Most of them just want to live among us and unfortunely we are their access to this world. They can use our energy to live among us. Depression, insanity, heavy anxieties are all direct results of this. Some deaths have even occured from such spirits. Religous (not just talking about christianity) and mythical writings all talk about this type of torment. They can be scary from time to time, but eventually you get use to seeing them. Yes, I said seeing.
 
Laternater said:
Okay, time for a wake up call......

Demons, souls, angels, gods, devils and the alike are all real. These beings are around us all of the time. Some torment us and others guide us, but none the less they are real. I am one person that has dealt with all of the above from one occurance to many. Exorcism is not the only way to get rid of these spirits. You can obsorb their energy, cast them out, call them out, and even call upon higher, stronger powers to interceed for you. Not all demons are out to kill you or possess your body. Most of them just want to live among us and unfortunely we are their access to this world. They can use our energy to live among us. Depression, insanity, heavy anxieties are all direct results of this. Some deaths have even occured from such spirits. Religous (not just talking about christianity) and mythical writings all talk about this type of torment. They can be scary from time to time, but eventually you get use to seeing them. Yes, I said seeing.

Thanks for that! I didn't believe in them until you presented this compelling evidence! Boy, I'm sure glad that you're here.
 
Engimo said:
Thanks for that! I didn't believe in them until you presented this compelling evidence! Boy, I'm sure glad that you're here.

Don't forget that unicorns, fairy godmothers, and unpants gnomes are included in that.
 
Laternater said:
Okay, time for a wake up call......

Demons, souls, angels, gods, devils and the alike are all real. These beings are around us all of the time. Some torment us and others guide us, but none the less they are real. I am one person that has dealt with all of the above from one occurance to many. Exorcism is not the only way to get rid of these spirits. You can obsorb their energy, cast them out, call them out, and even call upon higher, stronger powers to interceed for you. Not all demons are out to kill you or possess your body. Most of them just want to live among us and unfortunely we are their access to this world. They can use our energy to live among us. Depression, insanity, heavy anxieties are all direct results of this. Some deaths have even occured from such spirits. Religous (not just talking about christianity) and mythical writings all talk about this type of torment. They can be scary from time to time, but eventually you get use to seeing them. Yes, I said seeing.

If you expect us to believe you, please produce some precise evidence of demons, souls, angels, or gods, or else admit that you are orating airy hope. Thanks.
 
Engimo said:
Thanks for that! I didn't believe in them until you presented this compelling evidence! Boy, I'm sure glad that you're here.

I am sure this information would serve to be handy for a person with an open mind...and if this is meant as sarcasm it preceeds you.:cool:
 
Laternater said:
I am sure this information would serve to be handy for a person with an open mind...and if this is meant as sarcasm it preceeds you.:cool:

You probably meant "precedes", but even then that sentence makes little sense.
 
Laternater said:
I am sure this information would serve to be handy for a person with an open mind...and if this is meant as sarcasm it preceeds you.:cool:

No, it would serve to be handy if you had documented eye-witness accounts of these "supernatural" entity's.
 
In and around the time of Jesus, demons, sometimes thousands, could be living in one person. Jesus could cast them out, i.e., exorcism. Today, there is a demon inside of all of our minds. That's Satan. He doesn't go away, exorcism or not. Only God can protect us from the demon inside us. It's much like the angle/devil on-the-shoulder deal that you see in cartoons.:2razz:
 
Baxter said:
In and around the time of Jesus, demons, sometimes thousands, could be living in one person. Jesus could cast them out, i.e., exorcism. Today, there is a demon inside of all of our minds. That's Satan. He doesn't go away, exorcism or not. Only God can protect us from the demon inside us. It's much like the angle/devil on-the-shoulder deal that you see in cartoons.:2razz:

And your evidence of this is...?
 
What evidence do I not have? You think people are evil naturally?
 
Baxter said:
What evidence do I not have? You think people are evil naturally?

An appeal to ignorance that is based entirely on a normative statement. Not only do I not think that people are evil by default, I don't think that there's any reason that if people were naturally evil, it could not happen for naturally-occuring reasons. Now, if you could show some evidence as to why evil must be supernatural, that'd be nice.
 
There is no evidence supporting that. I deal in faith, you deal in fact. As nice as it is to have evidence, I simply do not. The Bible is my who, what, where, when, and why. It doesn't say how. Some things we are not meant to know. I regret not knowing more scripture, but I do recall a Bible verse that said people are naturally evil...I believe it stated that we are born into sin.
 
Baxter said:
There is no evidence supporting that. I deal in faith, you deal in fact. As nice as it is to have evidence, I simply do not. The Bible is my who, what, where, when, and why. It doesn't say how. Some things we are not meant to know. I regret not knowing more scripture, but I do recall a Bible verse that said people are naturally evil...I believe it stated that we are born into sin.

Well, when we're considering the question of whether or not things are real, I think it's the "fact" side that should hold precedence.
 
Believe what you must. I won't criticize you for it.
 
Baxter said:
There is no evidence supporting that.

You can say that again. So you are admitting it could be an arcane hallucination?

I deal in faith, you deal in fact.

Wow, and since you continue to come back to this forum after emiting that, either you have big balls, or you're a pedomorphic, delusional, anarchistic, dunce.:lol:

As nice as it is to have evidence, I simply do not.

O geese. How would you react if someone claimed that he had Superman's powers, then said he had no evidence of them? Would you blindly believe him? Of course not.

The Bible is my who, what, where, when, and why. It doesn't say how. Some things we are not meant to know. I regret not knowing more scripture, but I do recall a Bible verse that said people are naturally evil...I believe it stated that we are born into sin.

Ha, that's a nice, phantasmagoric diatribe. What you have shown with this idealistic manifesto is that you can be as vague as the very god you claim exists.:lol:
 
You know, after a year of taking crap like that from another forum, I finally left. Don't push me.
 
Back
Top Bottom