Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
u No.
First of all, though it might vary depending on which religion you ask, most will probably tell you in one way or another that the purpose of religion is to struggle against self so as to be made right with God (or whatever supernatural being said religion professes to believe in).
With that being said, "religion" in and of itself did not cause this child's death. People did. You can argue that some people misuse religion or that they have an incorrect or evil understanding of it. Some religions or subsets of it have flawed philosophy and theology. Some are badly understood or poorly practiced. But to blame the entire concept of religion is short-sighted and irresponsible. And here's why.
The Catholic Church, for instance, looks at claims of demonic possession with a certain level of skepticism. Most exorcists I've listened to or read (if you're interested, look up Father Chad Ripperger) will tell you that there are specific signs that someone may be possessed, such as the person knowing things they couldn't otherwise have known, speaking languages they've never studied, abnormal physical strength, and being repulsed by holy things and images. The case is carefully reviewed and whether or not an exorcism is necessary will then be determined.
They'll also look at the person's lifestyle, what are their family relationships and history are like, if someone put a curse on them, or other such things. As for the exorcism itself, the exorcist does not act on his own authority, but on that of the Church.
My point here is demonstrate the difference in approach and methodology to things like, for example, demonic possession. Yes, it is tragic and revolting what happened to this girl, but to blame the entirety of the concept of religion or all religious people or ministers is an unreasonable, unsustainable, and indefensible conclusion.
Exorcism was practiced in the bible this woman believed that evil spirits are real and they possessed her little girl and took her to church to perform an exorcism just like jesus. So yes it is the fault of Christianity to teach these things to gullible people which killed this little girl. All religions not based on reality are bad and will hurt and kill people and children just like this little girl
@vald9inches Okay, so let's talk about that. First of all, which version of Christianity are you talking about?
All of them
@vald9inches even in light of the criteria that I set out in my original response? Because looking over the article, my assumption is that the pastor and other people involved did minimal discernment and research at best. And I can tell you with certainty that if they brought this girl to, say, Fathers Gabriele Amorth, Chad Ripperger, or Isaac Mary Releya, they would have sent them away and said "she's a normal three-year-old. Go home."
Doesn't matter Christianity teaches gullible people about evil spirits and demons that will posses you and your loved ones and exorcism is the answer as Jesus has showed in the bible.
@vald9inches why doesn't it matter?
I just told you... because gullible people exist and will take these teaching seriously 🤦
@vald9inches okay on that note, what makes someone gullible for following Christianity?
Following Christianity does not make someone gullible, gullible people are gullible because that's their personality they are too trusting especially positions of power and leadership aka the bible and it's priests
The reason we criticize this is because *all* religions involve some belief in something not provable through the scientific method and a element of belief.
When we're criticizing religion here it's because even with those Catholics you mentioned they still believe in hell, the devil and other things not provable through the scientific method.
And still practice behaviours that harms other human beings.
Outlawing abortion causing women to seek illegal home brew solutions as likely to kill the mother as the child.
Conversion therapy, ostracizing different thinking people, be they gay or scientists etc.
Don't get me wrong.
It *is* possible to be religious without causing harm.
But the cause of the harm is still the fundamental belief in things that are nonprobable.
Technically, yes, but you shouldn't judge all of religion, or even a specific religion, just because some people in that religion do something bad.
And I say that as someone who has largely considered himself atheist most of his life. (Technically I consider myself agnostic now, but I'm still practically atheist).
Any religion that is not based on reality for example like teaching people that I gravity does not exist if god loves you or evil spirits exist and can possess you or your loved ones will inevitably hurt or kill people and children. Believe whatever you want to believe as long as it's based on reality and not delusions
That's a flawed, collectivist point of view. I'm sure that 99% of Christians, for example, haven't killed someone during an exorcism, let alone tried an exorcism in the first place. It's not religion that killed that girl, it's the poor decisions of the people involved.
You could use your same logic to say that humans are bad because inevitably we will hurt other humans, animals, or even out planet as a whole.
Are you willing to admit that you're a bad person because other humans have done bad things?
dont be jealous of my genitalia. if nudity and genitalia offends you take it up with your supposed god who made us that way lmfao 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Also your argument is incredibly dumb. How is advocating teaching laws of the universe and things grounded in REALITY a collectivist point of view? wtf does that even mean? are you like retarded? lmfao i was a christian myself and i saw the evil of it and all the religions of the world so i know there are nice and reasonable and logical Christians out there i was one of them! Just like i am sure there must have been a nice Nazi family that existed during WW2 but it doesn't change the fact that what they were advocating what they were teaching was inhumane and not grounded in reality! so i really dont give a fuck if 99% of Christians are haven't killed someone during an exorcism as you claim there will always be those gullible and uneducated and will kill their little daughter as this mother did needlessly! because of a retarded belief and delusion of exorcism and evil spirits. You idiots should not be making that choice for little children. Also what is Christianity if not a collectivist ideology huh your fucking hypocrite that just spouts words?
I'm not jealous of your genitalia. If you really want to go down that route, I can send you photos of my genitalia if you think I'd be in any way insecure knowing you claim to be 9 inches. I assure you I wouldn't be.
And nudity and genitalia doesn't offend me, I'm simply pointing out you're clearly not a man of morals. Additionally, I'm practically atheist (technically agnostic). I don't have a "supposed god" like you claim. And funnily enough, I explicitly mentioned this in the very comment you're responding to.
Since I apparently need to, let me quote myself, "and I say that as someone who has largely considered gimself atheist most of his life. (Technically I consider myself agnostic now, but I'm still practically athiest)." Now, for someone who responds to refutation with "yea your just dumb buddy" (for any onlookers, that was his response on another comment thread), perhaps it's fair to question your intelligence, since you seem so quick to question the intelligence of others? I mean, I literally said I was atheist/agnostic, so where are you getting the idea I believe in a god? Is this an issue with cognitive incompetence? Illiteracy? Poor memory? I'm inclined to choose all of the above but if I had to choose one I think I'd say "illiteracy," considering your use of "your" instead or "you're" (which, ironically, was used in the very remark intended to question my intelligence).
(Response continued below)
And I didn't say "advocating teaching laws of the universe and things grounded in REALITY is a collectivist point of view." I was referring to your claim that any religion with such qualities will inevitably hurt or kill people. You're taking the extremities, statistical outliers, and applying them to the entirety of the religion. This is objectively collectivism and it's also statistically ridiculous. A vast majority of Christians have not, and will not, hurt or kill people due to their religion, despite your claim of it being "inevitable."
And just because you ask "wtf does that even mean" doesn't mean I'm "retarded" because the meanings of words aren't immediately apparent to you.
Ohh, I see what you're saging. You were a nice, logical Christian. And there are many nice logical christians out there, and these nice, logical christians will also simultaneously inevitably hurt or kill people. Gotcha. Makes sense.
(Response continued below)
I like how you're subtly admitting you're wrong, lmao. "i really dont give a fuck if 99% of Christians are haven't killed someone during an exorcism as you claim there will always be those gullible and uneducated and will kill their little daughter as this mother did needlessly!" Like, yeah, most chrisrians don't kill their child, thus, its not an issue with Christianity, it's an issue with the "gullible and uneducated" mother.
It's not due to the "retarded belief and delusion of exorcism and evil spirits," it's due to how she went about this belief of exorcism and evil spirits. As I've already stated in our conversations, the intent of an exorcism is not to kill the host, the intent is to purge the demon or spirit or whatever from the host. So if she kills anyone during an exorcism, exorcism is not to blame. SHE is to blame. That'd be like saying scissors are to blame if someone was running with them and tripped and stabbed their eye. The intent of scissors is not to stab your eye, you can't blame scissors for someone else's malpractice. The issue isn't the scissors, the issue is the person running with them.
And even if Christianity is a collectivist ideology, that wouldn't make my a hypocrite since I'm not a Christian, as I've already stated. Though I don't see how it's a collectivist ideology, or at least not collectivist in the way I was accusing you of being.
@crmoore
"I'm not jealous of your genitalia"
1. If you are not jealous of my genitalia why bring it up? 🤪🤪🤪
"If you really want to go down that route, I can send you photos of my genitalia"
2. No thanks! That's gay i am not gay but its ok if you are! I support the LGBTQ community so find another BBC to exchange pics with! 😉
"nudity and genitalia doesn't offend me, I'm simply pointing out you're clearly not a man of morals"
3. So if nudity and genitalia does not offend you why do you conflate it with morals? Because only immorality offends which largely is dedicated by the society and culture you live in. True morality is based on logic and if you are atheist as you claim you would know this! 🤪🤪🤪
"Since I apparently need to, let me quote myself"
4. Yes you need to quote yourself again and every time you yourself contradict yourself with your actions and beliefs. Just because you claim to be atheist does not make you atheist especially since you are defending religion! 🤪🤪🤪
"And I didn't say "advocating teaching laws of the universe and things grounded in REALITY is a collectivist point of view." I was referring to your claim that any religion with such qualities will inevitably hurt or kill people."
5. But that's exactly what you are saying no matter how hard you deny it! 🤪🤪🤪
@crmoore
"You're taking the extremities, statistical outliers, and applying them to the entirety of the religion."
6. I think you really need to self reflect here and make sure you are not projecting your lack of intelligence on me. I believe the word your looking for is (Generalization) not (Collectivism)
Collectivism definition: The practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it. - "the Church has criticized the great emphasis placed on individualism rather than collectivism"
"That'd be like saying scissors are to blame if someone was running with them and tripped and stabbed their eye. The intent of scissors is not to stab your eye, you can't blame scissors for someone else's malpractice."
7. You see this is when you show how incredibly narrow minded and dim you are. If Physics, Science and everything we know about the world and reality is wrong, and evil spirits and demons do exist, and exorcism really does work to banish those spirits and cure the person you would be correct. BUT THAT IS NOT REALITY YOU NUT!! It would be like saying these invisible scissors can cut away anything bad from the world and then someone got attacked by a bear and they tried to defend themselves with invisible scissors!! You dont blame the person who was gullible enough to believe that and say they used the invisible scissors wrong! You blame the CON ARTIST who sold her those invisible scissors! While actually scissors are based in REALITY INVISIBLE SCISSORS ARE NOT!! 🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪
@vald9inches "If you are not jealous of my genitalia why bring it up? 🤪🤪🤪"
You should already know the answer to this. The reason I brought it up was stated in the very sentence is was brought up in. I can't tell if you really just can't follow a conversation or if you're just needlessly throwing random arguments against the wall and hoping they stick. To exemplify how ridiculous you're being, here's the quote: "Not to mention, are we really being scolded on morality by a man who is seemingly exposing details about his genitalia to all who come across his profile name without the consent of anybody he comes in contact with? Or am I mistaken?"
Now that you've re-read this quote, do you mean to tell me you don't understand what point is being made here? Would you consider my point to be vague or ambiguous? And if not (which would be the reasonable response), why would you ask me what the point is? If somehow it isn't clear to you yet (which would be another example of intellectual incompetence), let me reiterate my point. I was pointing out that you are attempting to scold people on morality while being an overtly immoral person, yourself. Your immorality stemming from (at the very least) the willful exposure of details regarding your genitalia. It doesn't take a rocker scientist to know how people, especially women, feel about this sort of behavior. Despite you likely being aware of this, at the expense of others (especially women), you do it anyways. Apparently filling some void of yours left by some sort of insecurity is more important than the comfort of women around you. And needless to say, this is immoral. Thus, you have very little standing when it comes to the judgement of people's morality.
Additionally, your use of emojis are real mature. I'm sure you're rather proud of them. I'm sure using them really convinces others that you're clearly correct and your opposition is obviously unfounded.
"So if nudity and genitalia does not offend you why do you conflate it with morals?"
I did not conflate nudity and genitalia with morality, I stated your indecent behavior, which is borderline sexual harassment, is immoral. Let me ask you this: if rather than putting details of your genitalia as your name you were to instead include those details at the end of all of your messages, would you consider that to be sexual harassment of people you interact with? And if so, do you not consider sexual harassment to be immoral?
"Yes you need to quote yourself again and every time you yourself contradict yourself with your actions and beliefs. Just because you claim to be atheist does not make you atheist especially since you are defending religion! 🤪🤪🤪"
I haven't contradicted myself. And if I have, which I haven't, please quote me doing so. I find it funny that you can claim I've contradicted myself, but didn't provide an example. Additionally, I'm not "defending religion," per se, but I'm not opposed to doing so and doing so does not mean I am religious, myself. That'd be like saying "defending the LGBTQ+ community means you're a part of the LGBTQ+ community, yourself" which obviously is flawed logic. What I'm doing is pointing out your illogical rationale.
"And I didn't say 'advocating teaching laws of the universe and things grounded in REALITY is a collectivist point of view.' I was referring to your claim that any religion with such qualities will inevitably hurt or kill people."
5. But that's exactly what you are saying no matter how hard you deny it! 🤪🤪🤪"
No, that's not what I'm saying. And I already explained why. Funnily enough, you just so happened to exclude that from your quote (gee, I wonder why). Again, you made a claim but did not substantiate it at all. Why don't you explain why I'm supposedly "saying that no matter how hard I try to deny it?" Additionally, you're supposed to put apostrophes on each side of a quote that is within another quote. I went ahead and fixed it for you, but the mistake is still present in your initial response.
Considering that everything you've said thus far has been either false or a poor attempt to twist something into something it isn't, as well as a couple other factors I'm not compelled to mention, I'm not going truly sit here and spend my time detailing out exactly each and every way you're incorrect. But I will make a few pointers.
1. All generalizations are collectivism, not all collectivism is generalization.
2. Anything that is collective is collectivism, hence "collectiv-ism." You see, "collectivism" isn't this word in a void completely separate from everything else. The "ism" suffix has a meaning, and when you apply that to a word it has a meaning. And just because a dictionary defines it one way doesn't mean that it can't be something else (keep in mind that the definitions of words change all the time). Additionally, some definitions mean one thing in one context, but mean something else when the context is, for example, medical. There are two separate definitions for a word, one normal one, and one medical one. Concepts aren't as simple as "but the dictionary said this."
3. It's not gay to see genitalia, otherwise you'd think doctors were gay to inspect their patient's genitalia or an issue they're having. What's gay is for you to see it and be aroused by it.
4. I didn't read everything from the top down to the part about invisible scissors, but I did happen to glance at that. You're making a point I already refuted. Since religion did not tell them "kill the child" then it is not religion's fault that they killed the child. And as for your analogy, the "con artist" did not say the scissors are invsibile. The con artist said these are real scissors and then the person proceeded to act as if they were invisible. Not the "con artist's" fault.
5. I am agnostic (practically atheist) and you asserting otherwise is just weird. If you don't believe me, then here's a post I posted indicated I am, indeed, practically atheist:
To religious individuals, how would you feel if your daughter (or future daughter) married an athiest, and the following happened as a result? ↗
And if that doesn't suffice, then here's another where I explicitly say that I'm surprised when see a well-articulated, intelligent-seeming religious person. The post is anonymous but I just now updated the post with a date, timestamp, and a remark about your intelligence where I address you by your GaG name. So it's indisputably me who made the post:
I mean no disrespect, but does anyone else find it surprising when you hear a well-articulated, intelligent religious person? ↗
Have fun pretending I'm religious and making weird emojis and trying to preserve your ego by childishly twisting other people's words or whatever it is you normally do. But you can do it without me because I won't be wasting any more of my time unless you miraculously formulate a respone that appears remotely adult-like.
Oh, one last thing. Here's a post I made about guys who expose details about their genitalia in their GaG name. Seems like girls don't like it much and think it's immoral. Who woulda thought, right?:
Ladies, what's your opinion of a man who thinks there's no problem with using his GaG name to state physical details about his genitalia (real case)? ↗
to cr, content yes? consider exorcism was practiced in the bible, and this woman believed that evil spirits are real but THE METHOD was not caused by bible. so bible did not even "make possible " torture.
They are just extreme. I know as a toddler you have frequent nightmares. I also did. I almost had nightmares every night I slept as a toddler. It's really foolish of her family to overthink so much. It's just a child wanting hug after a nightmare. If she was possessed then that means I was possessed as a toddler too. But I'm here all healthy and fine.
Religion taught her to do exorcism. There will always be gullible or foolish or uneducated people that's why religion is dangerous and children like her will continue to be hurt or killed
@vald9inches Yeah, religious people sometimes take it to other level. Nothing wrong in believing in a religion but you should use common sense also. And not to harm anyone in name of religion.
@apulu_imback thats the problem is that most of the time people will have common sense. For example lets say there is a religion that teaches in their holy book that if God loves you he will make you fly and gravity will not exist for you! Everyone who reads this book and teaches it to other people will know that jumping off a building is stupid and should not do that but there will always be some people who really think that gods loves them and will jump off the building with their children and they will die. Why? Not because they are stupid but because that is what they have been taught and they believed it. Because their beliefs are not aligned with reality that's why.
@vald9inches Yes, after all world works on basis of science, not holy books.
If only a religion existed that was based on science and reality... 😞
@vald9inches well those who are wise already follow that religion! It's called 'Humanity'. A perfect balance of spirituality and common sense.
@apulu_imback i am so proud of you right now!!! 😍😍😍😍 you remind me of myself when i was younger! Yes you are very correct! My allegiance is to humanity and humanity alone! any belief that goes against humanity is the enemy of humanity and the world and should be destroyed or broken and any person that is against humanity should be have the choice of exile or educated why they are wrong.
@vald9inches Very correct and thank you! Glad I made you feel that :)
@apulu_imback Don't let @vald9inches influence you. I'm not a religious person, either. And science is a major factor as to why. But when he tries to blame all of religion, or even one religion, for what those parents did, he's not being a reasonable. Exoricism, while pretty crazy, is performed by a VERY small percent of religious people (probably like less than 1%), including a small percent of Christians. Most Christians are more modernized and don't do those sort of things.
When Vald says "religion taught her to do exorcism" what he's really trying to make you think (as he has already expressed in other comment threads) is "religion made that girl get killed." Which is not accurate at all. In an exorcism, which I still think is rather silly, there is no killing of anyone. The point is to remove a demon from the body or whatever is supposedly possessing them. So it's not religion's fault that the girl died. The fault is entirely on the parents and whoever else may have been involved.
To put things more simply, the parents engaged in "malpractice", or in other words, they did something incorrectly. The example that I'd like to use is if a kid playing baseball hit another kid in the head with the bat, you wouldn't blame baseball for what happened. Instead, you would blame the kid. Because in baseball it says nothing about hitting other people in the head with a bat.
I fully encourage you to be a woman of science. But what Vald is doing is twisting things to try and guide your thought process to hate religious people. And remember, it's okay to disagree with people. But hate is not a good thing. Don't let Vald make you a hateful person.
Without religious belief in the parents, this story never would have happened. Absolutely religion causes such things.
that is indirect. even with religion it would not happen if not ALTER from tradition. that is like saying wedding is bad because "without wedding divorce would never happen". it is not a "cause".
Opinion
11Opinion
It's not a religious matter, kiddo.
Get your shit together and stop asking these daft questions.
I'm asking for someone else, theirs keeps getting deleted
It is a religious matter because religion taught that women that exorcism was an answer to evil spirits possessing her little girl
But the religion didn't tell them "kill the little girl." The religion told them to perform an exorcism (which is an antiquated pracfice of the religion, if I'm not mistaken). So just because they went about it wrong doesn't mean religion is to blame. Those specific individuals are to blame.
That'd be like saying baseball is to blame if a kid swung at another kid's head and killed him.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean, @strateguy632
yes it does. read the bible. God commands Abraham to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice. now god did stop him in the bible. but it just goes to show how far these religious nut cases are willing to go for their preferred delusion.
Thank you! So many people conveniently forget Abraham and Isaac and Jesus himself practiced exorcism in the bible
@vald9inches well it was a fairly common practice at the time.
@genericname85 yes it was but it doesn't make it true or grounded in reality. But they still teach it even in the 21st fucking century!
@vald9inches yeah. Sadly few things we do are grounded in reality.
read the bible? it never said torture for exorcism it is as foreign to Christianity as jihad. when jesus did exorcism which METHOD did he do? not nicolas cage method.
@strateguy632 it's funny how christians use pseudo scientific language to try to overpower another christians arguments, when in fact it's all just bullshit built on delusion, bullshit and personal opinion.
I think there's a lot of weird people out there.
Hey will you follow me back. It'd make my day :)
okay ^^
When I'm at a high enough level, I'm going to message you
Roger
No. Man is fallen. We do not need religion to do Evil. Putin is not religious etc. People and our World are fallen.
I am not going to click on that link, but suffice to say Religion is the biggest cause to loss of life in the history of our planet!
why not click on the link? its nothing graphic if thats what you are afraid of
@vald9inches Everything I needed to know was in the title of the link. A child murdered out of ignorance. A needless but violent murder, and for what?
I just don't want her to be just a faceless number that's all
the opposite, hitler and stalin killed millions and they were not obeying any religion. godless atheism is the danger. who said what is bad, atheists ask.
Oml that is so sad.
Some people do treat religion like a cult and lots of really disturbing things throughout history is because of the fanatics
Thats not the first time people have been killed during those rituals.
Stop doing these to your damn kids.
If you watch the YouTube video her mother made before she went to jail you can see how gullible and uneducated she is. She doesn't seem evil just extremely misguided and really believed in her religion. All she did was follow her religion and try to perform exorcism on her little girl that she thought was possessed by evil spirits or demons. The problem here is religion teaching this stuff to gullible uneducated people. They need to stop teaching things not based on reality.
People would do those things regardless, but religion gives them an excuse in court and makes a long ass trial.
hih? religion doesn't give an excuse in court same as polygamy.
Well, it sounds that the problem was caused by the devil and not by God.
Atheists are great persecutors of Christians.
You mean the demons and evil spirits that possessed her little girl was real?
Its possible. And if the person who tried to throw them out was not really with God but used their oen force can gave letal consecuences. If you dont do it with God you do it automatic with zhe devil. And the devil won't make somebody grt rid of demons but kill him before.
Acts 19:15-16: "But answering the evil spirit said, Jesus I know, and I comprehend Paul, but who are you? And the man in whom the evil spirit resided leaped on them, and overcoming them he was strong against them, so that they fled out of the house naked and wounded."
@standardguy you need help my friend there are no such things as demons or evil spirits. Please reflect on this and think about it...
We xan discuss if in this case were daemons involved but if you ignore the existence of Satan then you are not only opposed to the Bible but you don't see the reality. How can you after believe after the holocaust that there is no devil? 🤷♂️
Obviously if that mother was not religious that little girl would still be alive today...
see my reply to @CountessSarah also you echoed the same message in many replies instead of replying to each one content. youtube doesnot allow that.
assuming the story is true and not a lie
this is just more human sacrifice done for satan
@Losalt
holy shit you are retarded
this is what mean by atheist are retards
this is human sacrifice done by satanist
SATANIST ARE THE RULERS OF THIS WORLD
its in the bible lol
Religion and money are at the root of all evil hun
all... except stalin and nazi and abortion harm. not joking. sincere.
no it's atheism that does that
You can also add your opinion below!
