If the God of the bible does not exist, then why debate it?

Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
If the God of the bible does not exist, then why debate it?

In attacking Jesus Christ , Atheism might render itself a disservice. 

Do you lead an attack on a non existent being? 

Atheism to the logistician seems unreasonable. 

 

 

At night we see many stars in the sky. But when the sun rises, they disappear. Can we claim, therefore, that during the day there are no stars in the sky? If we fail to see God, perhaps it is because we pass through the night of ignorance in this matter. it is premature to claim He does not exist. 

Richard Wurmbrand

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:It's

caposkia wrote:

It's typically a hard place to reflect.  No one wants to hear that they deserve anything of such nature if they do.  To admit that one does is extremely difficult.  I was assuming that you answered the question yourself and by answering it have determined that you as well had not followed God's laws appropriately.  I shouldn't assume though.

Maybe.. and this is why I phrased it as a question, you're like Enoch and have found favor with God.  I also don't know you, so I can't make that call for you and I have not decided that you do or don't deserve eternal punishment.  Therefore, instead of making assumptions, why is it that you stopped?

When I'm talking with someone who honestly thinks it's possible to deserve eternal punishment, I honestly feel like I'm talking with some kind of sociopath...  I find talking with people who seriously think it's possible I deserve eternal suffering to be both highly uncomfortable and highly disturbing.  It also typically makes my depression worse...  So, yeah--that's why I suddenly wanted to stop.

No one deserves eternal punishment--NO ONE.

 


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Is it so hard

caposkia wrote:

Is it so hard to believe that happens though?   What is stopping a person from deciding their own moral limits?

To some extent, everybody already DOES decide their own moral limits. I'm a bit tired to try to explain it all, but...I would start with a google search on 'empathy and human morality'.

I mean, I'm sure it's happened at least once, but...I've never heard of anyone using that kind of justification for his/her immoral acts.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:When I'm

blacklight915 wrote:

When I'm talking with someone who honestly thinks it's possible to deserve eternal punishment, I honestly feel like I'm talking with some kind of sociopath...  I find talking with people who seriously think it's possible I deserve eternal suffering to be both highly uncomfortable and highly disturbing.  It also typically makes my depression worse...  So, yeah--that's why I suddenly wanted to stop.

No one deserves eternal punishment--NO ONE.

 

I know exactly what you're saying... but you're looking at it as someone putting you there... and not the result of actions.  

I should say again, I never said you deserved it, rather I asked you a simple question... you concluded by that question that I was suggesting it... I always say what I mean.

No one has to endure eternal punishment.  That eternal punishment btw is not hellfire and brimestone.  It's separation from God through choices made by the person.  

I'm sorry it affects your depression.  Whether you want to hear it or not, it's the very reason why Jesus Christ died... so that we may live and not endure that 'eternal punishment'.  That should make you feel better... but it probably means nothing to you.

 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:To some

blacklight915 wrote:

To some extent, everybody already DOES decide their own moral limits. I'm a bit tired to try to explain it all, but...I would start with a google search on 'empathy and human morality'.

I mean, I'm sure it's happened at least once, but...I've never heard of anyone using that kind of justification for his/her immoral acts.

What it comes down to is people will use anything to justify their actions.  If you live in the Bible belt or a very religious town, a great excuse for abuse is possession.  If you live in a secular town, who cares, there's no god telling me what to do....and what happens behind closed doors is ok as long as no one finds out right?

Without God, there are no absolute morals.  It's that simple.  Everyone wants to do what they want and no one wants to take responsibility for their actions no matter how terrible.  


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I know

caposkia wrote:

I know exactly what you're saying... but you're looking at it as someone putting you there... and not the result of actions.

It is the result of actions--your God's actions. Did He not create this universe knowing exactly how it would all turn out?

 

caposkia wrote:

I should say again, I never said you deserved it, rather I asked you a simple question... you concluded by that question that I was suggesting it... I always say what I mean.

Well, do you think it's actually possible for someone to "follow God's laws appropriately"?

 

caposkia wrote:

I'm sorry it affects your depression.  Whether you want to hear it or not, it's the very reason why Jesus Christ died... so that we may live and not endure that 'eternal punishment'.  That should make you feel better... but it probably means nothing to you.

I said a prayer of salvation once. I did feel better after crying a lot and admitting I was a horribly flawed being in desperate need of forgiveness, but...I never did get an answer back...

 


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:and what

caposkia wrote:

and what happens behind closed doors is ok as long as no one finds out right?

No.

 

caposkia wrote:

Without God, there are no absolute morals.  It's that simple.

Morals are dependent on the existence of emotional and physical pain--NOT on the existence of a god.

 

caposkia wrote:

Everyone wants to do what they want and no one wants to take responsibility for their actions no matter how terrible.

There are many times I have not done something I wanted to because it would have hurt someone.

 

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I follow your

caposkia wrote:
I follow your lead

Actually, I've been following yours since you asked me what proof I would accept. That's where we lost you.

caposkia wrote:
I'm ready when you are to progress in the conversation

Seems more like you want me to follow a very specific script. 

caposkia wrote:
Based on what you've told me so far... please... PLEASE... prove me wrong here.

Yeah, that already happened. Like I said, the trick is in making you realize it.

caposkia wrote:
Let's take out the parts that talk about how it's going to seem to me

Ha ! Let's not !

caposkia wrote:
and take your statement literally....

Hey, here's an original idea : Let's take WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID, and take THAT literally.

Waddaya say ? 

Here it is again, try to deal with it :

"If demons are real, then of course the proof I'm asking for is going to seem "irrational" to you. You'd be the first person in living history to produce such proof, so it's going to seem even a little more far-fetched than just "irrational".

Now let's watch what you make of it :

caposkia wrote:
Um... heh.. I'm sorry.  Maybe I'm way out in left field here... but... If demons are real... AND I'd be the first person in history to produce the proof you're asking for... doesn't that suggest that the proof you're asking for may just be irrational???

So now you're actually drawing triumphant conclusions out of a sentence you constructed by deleting the words you didn't want in there, and you STILL come out against proof for demons ? 

Okay, I'm starting to think (and hey, feel free to prove me wrong) that you're trying to confuse your way out of this. Sorry, but I'm not going to let you. 

So for clarity's sake, let's go through this again from the start : 

I said it was 100% accurate to say there is no proof for demonic possession. You asked me what I would accept as proof, and I told you.

You said the proof I demanded was "irrational". I explained that wasn't a valid argument, because of course it would seem (leave that word where it is, please) irrational to you and everyone else, as would any supposed proof that would turn a fantasy story into reality.

If your only reaction to this is to try and take some words out of there, in a desperate attempt to miss the bleeding obvious, well.......then all that remains for you to do, is admit that there is no proof for demons.

And if you really still don't understand why, then just tell me, don't obfuscate even more. 

caposkia wrote:
If demons are real..

Not so sure anymore, huh ? 

caposkia wrote:
why would you automatically assume I have such power or connection to the demonic realm? 

Get somebody else to do it. I don't care. Your silly belief, your problem. Anytime you'd like to admit this proof only exists in your imagination is fine with me. If not, then produce it. 

caposkia wrote:
Right... still no Mercedes in my driveway... Case closed... No proof of cars existing.
 

I"m actually going to have to explain this ? Incredible. Okay, since I don't want to insult your intelligence, and you bring this up again later, I'll give you until then to figure it out yourself

caposkia wrote:
There is evidence all around... but instead of walking with you into a theological library, it might be easier for you to pick a rational means of proof and then we can go from there... it's illogical to ask for a demon to be brought to your presence...  It'd be more logical to maybe suggest... oh wait.. If I say that, then you're going to suggest that I'm telling you what you should accept for proof... so instead... why don't you tell me something rational that you'd accept... no, what you've asked for is not... for someone who claims that this reality doesn't exist... i don't believe you have a position to suggest what would be rational on the topic... I have explained that it doesn't work that way...
 

And I've explained why it does.

Okay, I think now the time has come for you to reflect on that fact that you actually, and I still can't believe you really did this, took out the keyword from the entire argument before you could even try to miss the point.

I mean, think about that for a few seconds.

Because, again, if you really don't see how absurd that was, you're going to have to tell me.

caposkia wrote:
If you've followed the other conversations on here.. You'll also see why your "magic demon ring" source is a poor reference to Biblical truth.  It doesn't work in the same way that punching holes in my car tires won't make my car fly.  
 

If I want more analogies, I'll ask for them. I asked for proof. So far, all I got from you is excuses.

caposkia wrote:
Just follow through the last page or so...  You have not been asking for much... You're stuck on your original request... which I've become a broken record about... if you're so sure about your position, why not try other approaches... you have nothing to lose right?
 

Why would I change my approach when you're already failing ? 

You seem to be practically begging me to give you an opening. I'm sorry, but there isn't one. Again, not my fault. Don't blame me for the silliness of your belief.

caposkia wrote:
Yes, I did just say 'your fantasies are reality'... reread it... I left it up there so you could read it carefully.
 

Well, like I keep saying, it's almost impossible to know when you're kidding.

caposkia wrote:
right after you asked me what posts I was talking about???? ok.. so you read some... and select out of everything said the one thing that fits your ideals.
 

You're assuming that's what I did.

..oh wait, sorry, I keep forgetting you get to make assumptions. It's only bad when I do it.

caposkia wrote:
.. are you sure you're not a religious nut?
 

I think you have me confused with people who torture their kids to death because they believe in demonic possession. 

caposkia wrote:
How do you feel about an alleged OT book only being found in Christian archives?
 

Unless it's a magic book with actual working spells for demon summoning (lol, I can't even type that stuff without laughing), then I really couldn't care less. Proof. Bring it. 

Or admit there isn't any. Pretty straightforward, really.

caposkia wrote:
Right you're after the answer, but aren't willing to do the footwork to get to it... good luck
 

Crap. Thought we'd get through this without you making me repeat this. 

Listen : YOU're the one who believes this demon nonsense. YOU go get the proof. "Footwork" ? I done told you : Explaining nonsense with nonsense is unacceptable. (And again, if you don't get why that is, then TELL ME !)

caposkia wrote:
Sure, that has happened...does it make something non-existent?

The point was to explain what can happen when people take "demons" seriously. Apparently I need to remind you, that so far the only detail that made you decide that this might not be a "real" demonic possession, was the supposed identity of the residents of hell who "spoke through" this particular abuse victim.

caposkia wrote:
 Let's put it in a different light... 

Yeah, let's. 

caposkia wrote:
there are people out there who do just that, and justify themselves by saying there is no God so it doesn't matter... does that automatically validate God?  Of course not.

Nothing "validates" god, but we can get into that after we get done with this "demon" nonsense. 

So, any proof yet, or do you want to throw up some more distractions ? 

caposkia wrote:
Seriously... I mean it's obvious you have an adjenda... don't need to assume when you write it as clear as day... anyone who cared to know would have tried a different approach by now.

Oh please.....You have no proof, so now you're just throwing pejoratives at me. "Agenda" sounds kinda sinister, doesn't it ? Yeah, he has an "agenda". He must be up to no good, eh ? Stop embarrassing yourself.

Again, why should I change my approach when you're already failing ? 

caposkia wrote:
...now... any proof??? or your LOTR demon control ring.

For pete's sake, stop blaming other people for the ridiculous nature of the things YOU believe in ! 

caposkia wrote:
you did not give me book and verse... someone else had to tell me... a book they admitted to not being able to find in their Bible... interesting

Interesting ? No, not really. I never said it was in the bible. I said a biblical character had a demon-controlling ring. But yeah, ending a sentence with "interesting"....kinda gives it all a more suspicious vibe, doesn't it ?

Less tricks, more proof please. 

caposkia wrote:
Right... but you see, I'm playing; you, in this scenario

Hmmm, you didn't tell me that....interesting. (Lol, sorry)

caposkia wrote:
you, in this scenario... instead of opening my mind to the possibilities of obvious ways you can prove to me those things exist.. i'm stuck on the only way I see fit for accepting it...  Do you see where I'm going with this yet?

I really have to say it ? You don't wanna think about it for a sec ? I mean, it's not that hard...

Okay fine, here you go : Even if I can't/won't buy you the car, someone else can. 

caposkia wrote:
you still don't see that I'm taking your angle here??? really???

Oh man, you seem so proud of yourself here, I almost feel mean for having burst your bubble. 

But hey, please do try to salvage what's left of your analogy. Like I said, it still has plenty of fail left in the tank. Go for it !

caposkia wrote:
well, someone else said they felt that way about my posts, so I wanted to make sure you weren't feeling that way...

No worries.

caposkia wrote:
Speaking of Brian, despite our differences in belief, we both agree that we could go out and have a beer together no problem... I'm not here to make enemies.

Me neither. I'm just here for demon proof, as specified. Either that, or an admission that there is none to be found. 

Which really isn't as much to ask for as you seem to think. 

 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:It is

blacklight915 wrote:

It is the result of actions--your God's actions. Did He not create this universe knowing exactly how it would all turn out?

My God's actions??? That's just like saying God made me do it.  God is Just.  If you make a choice, you pay the consequences for that choice... good or bad... By 'you' I mean we all..  

I believe he created the universe knowing all possible outcomes.  He knew what could be if things aren't done quite right and he knew what would be if things worked according to his plan. 

This tends to go into the omniscience omnipotent discussions.

blacklight915 wrote:

Well, do you think it's actually possible for someone to "follow God's laws appropriately"?

Throughout history?  It wasn't always impossible... but the Bible does say all fall short of the glory of God... in plain English, the Bible foretells that no one will have been able to follow God's laws appropriately.  I think by the world we live in and the way we've been raised, it has become something that is too difficult at this time.  By this some word it as we're born into sin.  This is why God sent Jesus... He placed the laws there for man to follow... man had progressed to a point where the Laws became too difficult to follow and therefore He sent Jesus to take the punishment for us so that we may still have eternal life with our God if we choose. The wages of sin is death, but through Jesus we are 'born again' into life with God.   

blacklight915 wrote:

I said a prayer of salvation once. I did feel better after crying a lot and admitting I was a horribly flawed being in desperate need of forgiveness, but...I never did get an answer back...

did you need an answer?  If you prayed and were able to admit your flaws and that you needed forgiveness, you were forgiven... The Bible states that very clearly.  You don't need an answer to know that.   Why do you think you felt better after that?  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:caposkia

blacklight915 wrote:

caposkia wrote:

and what happens behind closed doors is ok as long as no one finds out right?

No.

I agree, but you and I both know that there are people out there that would answer yes to that

blacklight915 wrote:

Morals are dependent on the existence of emotional and physical pain--NOT on the existence of a god.

right... morals are dependent on emotional and physical pain... which occurs at different levels of trauma for each person.... which further supports the idea that without God there are no absolute morals.  It's quite obvious from cereal killers that these moral limits differ dramatically from person to person.  I've seen interviews with people who have killed numerous people and it's clear they felt no moral issue with what they've done.    

I never questioned the existence of morals with God, only that they're not absolute.  There really is no limit to a moral standard without God in either direction.

blacklight915 wrote:

There are many times I have not done something I wanted to because it would have hurt someone.

Same here, but would you say that everyone would abstain from doing something just because it would have hurt someone else?


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 205
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:You're just

caposkia wrote:
You're just searching for a flaw aren't you?

Your flaws are out in the open, but you're right, they're not really the issue here. Your belief in demons is.

caposkia wrote:
What really happened?  and dont' blame a post.

What do you mean "what happened" ? 

caposkia wrote:
...and to answer you directly:  No .

Then it becomes rather difficult to explain why you're still a theist. We'd have to re-read and re-discuss every thread on the board you were involved in. Don't have the time for that, so I'll limit myself to the two other conversation you have going on here.

Have to say, you don't seem to be learning much. But I'm sure you disagree.

caposkia wrote:
no, I actually try to understand what you're saying and research the answer before replying if I understand... If I'm obviously misinterpreting, instead of jumping to conclusions that it's the way I work... why not clarify first?
 

I can only clarify the obvious in so many ways. Why not obfuscate less ? I mean, this is a painfully simple issue, and pretty much everything you type is completely irrelevant so far. Less fluff would help.

caposkia wrote:
If you hadn't noticed... it works with others.

You seem to be reading two different conversations.

caposkia wrote:
no... demons just happens to be the topic at the moment in this thread.  Choice is the excuse for their crimes.

See, this is what I mean by "obfuscate". You do believe demons exists, so don't say "no" when someone asks " 'demons exist' is what you call truth, isn't it ? ", unless you've somehow changed your mind. 

"Choice is the excuse for their crimes" ? No, that doesn't even make sense. The excuse they used is "demon possession". Which you claim to believe in, unless you changed your mind. Do inform us if that's the case. 

caposkia wrote:
I'm not aware of that case actually..

You are now. I just told you about it. And like I said, there are too many more like it. Not sure how you managed to avoid them all.

caposkia wrote:
and of all possession stories and exorcisms that I'm aware of, torture from other people to the possessed person is NOT part of the process.

This is simply not true ! You ARE aware of at least one ! You brought it up yourself ! Even if you hadn't done the research, which is inexcusable to begin with, you were told about the torture several times ! You listen ? Obviously, only when it suits you.

And I'm sure there are "stories" and "exorcisms" where the victim gets off with nothing but a few bruises and severe mental problems for the rest of their lives, but that doesn't make the murders any less insane. A lesser degree of insanity is still insanity.

caposkia wrote:
I feel like you have a personal connection to this topic somehow... if that's going too far, I'm sorry. 

It's called "empathy". Something many "loving" christians seem to be very good at suppressing.

Antipatris wrote:
actually, my followup with that would be that most people would deem that person unamerican... just as anyone who does not follow Jesus Christ as they should would be deemd unchristian despite what they call themselves.  Analogy works.  

Actually, no, it still doesn't. Anyone can still interpret "american" or "christian" just exactly how they please, and they do. 

Antipatris wrote:
You're right... the person can do all those things and still believe that they're a true american, but does them believing it make it true?  That is the question in that analogy.  Also I never claimed to be an analogy master, but I think I've made a clear point despite your efforts to avoid it. 

Avoid it ? Why would I avoid my own point, which you just made for me ? "Does believing it make it true" ? Like belief in demons, you mean ? Or is that somehow exempt ? 

Antipatris wrote:
Just to recap, this goes back to the association of such persons in question being true Christians.

Which all comes down to the no-true-scotsman fallacy, so you can makes as many analogies as you like, the "true christian" title remains up for grabs. I could claim it right now, and there would be nothing you could do to take it away. The discussion would be endless, as it would with anyone who claims the title. We have several of them on the board, so if you have a few years to waste, you can give it a try.

 

Meanwhile, belief in demons is still, at best, idiotic fantasy "entertainment", and at worst, an excuse used by people suffering from severe religious delusions, to commit murder and indulge in sadism.

And if you really want to prove you're capable of learning, then you will either produce the proof you've been asked for, or honestly admit that there is none. 

No other choice left.

 

 

 


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 205
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Seems more

Anonymouse wrote:
Seems more like you want me to follow a very specific script.

 

I think I may have found the script he wants you to follow : 

 

caposkia wrote:
Concerning the card game being played, non-believers ask for "proof", I play: "what are you looking for?" They play: " I fold " This does not apply to all obviously, but it's the common reaction I get..

 

See, that's what you did wrong. Should have folded. Or at least play the cards he wants you to play.
 


 

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:This tends to

caposkia wrote:
This tends to go into the omniscience omnipotent discussions.

Yeah, I'm sure it does. 

Actually, most of your replies to him fall under "explaining nonsense with more nonsense".

Or to put it another way : 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=theobabble

He's simply been too kind to point this out to you. 


 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:caposkia

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Let's take out the parts that talk about how it's going to seem to me

Ha ! Let's not !

caposkia wrote:
and take your statement literally....

Hey, here's an original idea : Let's take WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID, and take THAT literally.

Waddaya say ? 

Here it is again, try to deal with it :

"If demons are real, then of course the proof I'm asking for is going to seem "irrational" to you. You'd be the first person in living history to produce such proof, so it's going to seem even a little more far-fetched than just "irrational".

Now let's watch what you make of it :

Alright... You're good at the avoidance game... So... let's take your statement as you actually said it... let's take it literally.

YOu said, "If demons are real, then of course the proof I'm asking for is going to seem "irrational" to you."  

So... just to clarify for me... considering that demons are real... the proof your asking is guaranteed to sound irrational to me...... if demons are real... ok... 

"you'd be the first person in living history to produce such proof, so it's going to seem even a little more far-fetched than just "irrational"

So... just to clarify for me again... considering that demons are real... not only would I find the proof your asking for irrational, but I would also be the first person in history to provide such proof.... if demons are real... 

Ya know...You're right... I should have just left it as is. even putting your whole statement as is, it says the same thing... Nice try in avoiding this, but unfortunately you've put yourself in a corner here.  Either admit that what you said here does categorize your "proof" as irrational, or maybe try rewording what you said so that it doesn't contradict your intention.  

Anonymouse wrote:

So now you're actually drawing triumphant conclusions out of a sentence you constructed by deleting the words you didn't want in there, and you STILL come out against proof for demons ? 

no, I put it all back together and still came to same conclusion... not triumphant, rather the conclusion I drew back when we first started talking.  disappointing really.

Anonymouse wrote:

Okay, I'm starting to think (and hey, feel free to prove me wrong) that you're trying to confuse your way out of this. Sorry, but I'm not going to let you. 

not at all... I think I proved it above

Anonymouse wrote:

So for clarity's sake, let's go through this again from the start : 

I'm going through this again so that I could recheck myself, then allow you to explain it and see if it changes.

Anonymouse wrote:

I said it was 100% accurate to say there is no proof for demonic possession. You asked me what I would accept as proof, and I told you.

You said the proof I demanded was "irrational". I explained that wasn't a valid argument, because of course it would seem (leave that word where it is, please) irrational to you and everyone else, as would any supposed proof that would turn a fantasy story into reality.

If your only reaction to this is to try and take some words out of there, in a desperate attempt to miss the bleeding obvious, well.......then all that remains for you to do, is admit that there is no proof for demons.

well... even after this explanation.  I left your statement above as is and still made the same conclusion taking it as is.  I didn't change a thing... I tried before to put it in perspective for you as to what you were saying.  How I might feel about what you said doesn't change what you said.  

Anonymouse wrote:

And if you really still don't understand why, then just tell me, don't obfuscate even more. 

As hard as it is for you to believe it... I have not been trying to avoid, confuse or otherwise deter anything.  I am here, waiting for you to really show me why I'm wrong...  Instead you've come back with attacks and avoidance excuses...  

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
If demons are real..

Not so sure anymore, huh ? 

...like this one.  

Anonymouse wrote:

Get somebody else to do it. I don't care. Your silly belief, your problem. Anytime you'd like to admit this proof only exists in your imagination is fine with me. If not, then produce it. 

My silly belief, but not my problem... I don't feel like I have a burden to prove anything to you.   Rather I doubt that you want to know.  

caposkia wrote:
Right... still no Mercedes in my driveway... Case closed... No proof of cars existing.
 

I"m actually going to have to explain this ? Incredible. Okay, since I don't want to insult your intelligence, and you bring this up again later, I'll give you until then to figure it out yourself

explain what?  I'm using your reasoning here...  Here I'll even give you another avenue of researching evidence for existence of the demons or spiritual influence... The Vatican, though they have their theological issues has a detailed way of record keeping and documentation of legitimate possessions and spiritual healings as well as other spiritual dealings.   

this would coenside with your offer in the car scenario of taking me to a dealership and/or offering me a testdrive.  

Anonymouse wrote:

Because, again, if you really don't see how absurd that was, you're going to have to tell me.

yea, I'm having trouble following your absurdity claims

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
If you've followed the other conversations on here.. You'll also see why your "magic demon ring" source is a poor reference to Biblical truth.  It doesn't work in the same way that punching holes in my car tires won't make my car fly.  
 

If I want more analogies, I'll ask for them. I asked for proof. So far, all I got from you is excuses.

no, I gave researchable rational reasons why your demon ring doesn't likely hold ground in Biblical truth.

Anonymouse wrote:

Why would I change my approach when you're already failing ? 

You seem to be practically begging me to give you an opening. I'm sorry, but there isn't one. Again, not my fault. Don't blame me for the silliness of your belief.

failing at what?  I have called you out on avoidance and the run-around... you're still avoiding... you are determined to make sure demons don't exist... I am determined to play your game.  In the end, I don't really care what you believe... It's your choice if you want to approach the subject rationally or not.  

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Yes, I did just say 'your fantasies are reality'... reread it... I left it up there so you could read it carefully.
 

Well, like I keep saying, it's almost impossible to know when you're kidding.

alright, if that's a stumbling block for you.  I'll try to not kid about anything from her on out.

Anonymouse wrote:

You're assuming that's what I did.

..oh wait, sorry, I keep forgetting you get to make assumptions. It's only bad when I do it.

no, It's pretty clear... reread our conversations.  I don't think you did a good job of hiding that if you were trying to.

Anonymouse wrote:

I think you have me confused with people who torture their kids to death because they believe in demonic possession. 

with the way you've been running around and avoiding... I am getting  a bit confused as to your following.  I'm starting to think I'm talking to a Jehovah's Witness.

Anonymouse wrote:

Unless it's a magic book with actual working spells for demon summoning (lol, I can't even type that stuff without laughing), then I really couldn't care less. Proof. Bring it. 

Or admit there isn't any. Pretty straightforward, really.

I've offered another avenue, let's see what you do to avoid that.  Probably blame me for telling you what to accept right?

Anonymouse wrote:

The point was to explain what can happen when people take "demons" seriously. Apparently I need to remind you, that so far the only detail that made you decide that this might not be a "real" demonic possession, was the supposed identity of the residents of hell who "spoke through" this particular abuse victim.

regardless, abuse of the possessed victim is not part of the process of getting rid of a demon.  There is no excuse for abusing a person, possessed or not.  It's not Biblical.  

Anonymouse wrote:

Nothing "validates" god, but we can get into that after we get done with this "demon" nonsense. 

with such conviction, you must have reasoning beyond lack of evidence on your part... I'd love to hear your case for believing what you do... you've done a good job avoiding that too.  Yes, I believe in demons, but you are absolutely sure they don't exist and that there's no excuse to justify God, so present your case.

what?  Oh, my demon case?  Ok, records all over the world throughout history of possession claims.  They do not coenside with just one mental illness, but have many aspects.  You can google the details.  You can also google how to consider the difference between possession and mental illness.  You can also talk to demonologists and those who are gifted in such areas.    

Anonymouse wrote:

For pete's sake, stop blaming other people for the ridiculous nature of the things YOU believe in ! 

blaming others?  I'm asking simple questions here.  again I don't really care what you believe.  I just like intelligent conversation... unfortunately, this one has been a disappointment.

Anonymouse wrote:

Interesting ? No, not really. I never said it was in the bible. I said a biblical character had a demon-controlling ring. But yeah, ending a sentence with "interesting"....kinda gives it all a more suspicious vibe, doesn't it ?

nah, just perspective... you saw a story about a Biblical character... you seem to be claiming you knew it wasn't in the Bible... yet you tied it into Biblical truth as if it applies. That I find interesting because that's the very thing you're blaming me of doing isn't it?

Anonymouse wrote:
 

Less tricks, more proof please. 

you see tricks.. I've only asked you simple questions.  Your approach is text book to everyone who is avoiding changing their understanding of reality at all costs.  This would include religious sects.  excuses like tricks and burden of proof are classic.  It may not be obvious to you, but to a lot of us, it is.  I'm keeping it simple and strait forward.. you're avoiding simple questions.  

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Right... but you see, I'm playing; you, in this scenario

Hmmm, you didn't tell me that....interesting. (Lol, sorry)

I figured it was obvious Eye-wink

Anonymouse wrote:

Okay fine, here you go : Even if I can't/won't buy you the car, someone else can. 

guess you have to find that person then... all joking aside, I have yet to find a person who will just go out and buy me such an expensive car.

Anonymouse wrote:

Oh man, you seem so proud of yourself here, I almost feel mean for having burst your bubble. 

But hey, please do try to salvage what's left of your analogy. Like I said, it still has plenty of fail left in the tank. Go for it !

Why are you looking at this like a contest.  I'm trying to level with you and actually have a serious conversation still.  You're here turning it into a win/lose scenario.  I am curious on how deep of a hole you're willing to dig though.  keep going.

Anonymouse wrote:

Me neither. I'm just here for demon proof, as specified. Either that, or an admission that there is none to be found. 

Which really isn't as much to ask for as you seem to think. 

right... just like you buying me a mercedes is just as logical as the only way you can prove to me they exist.  Point and case, you know there's more than one way to logically prove it, so do I.  Let's see what you do with the Vatican scenario... lemme guess... something about not a credible source or an entity promoting a fictional idea logically would support it or something along that line, right?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Antipatris wrote:caposkia

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
What really happened?  and dont' blame a post.

What do you mean "what happened" ? 

You seem to have a personal connection to these scenarios... or at least a specific issue with the following that seems to go on a personal level with the agression you seem to take with the subject... i say seem because it is hard to read feelings through text.

Antipatris wrote:

Then it becomes rather difficult to explain why you're still a theist. We'd have to re-read and re-discuss every thread on the board you were involved in. Don't have the time for that, so I'll limit myself to the two other conversation you have going on here.

Have to say, you don't seem to be learning much. But I'm sure you disagree.

no, on this particular thread, I'm not learning much... just going with the flow.  despite irrationalities of a conversation, I will never just stop talking to someone in hopes we can both eventually talk on the same level.  I keep my mind open regardless.

Antipatris wrote:

I can only clarify the obvious in so many ways. Why not obfuscate less ? I mean, this is a painfully simple issue, and pretty much everything you type is completely irrelevant so far. Less fluff would help.

You're right.  i"m responding too much to the banter.  I've been trying to cut that out bit by bit, but the responses are still long.  I'll try to get better at avoiding the redundancies.

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
no... demons just happens to be the topic at the moment in this thread.  Choice is the excuse for their crimes.

See, this is what I mean by "obfuscate". You do believe demons exists, so don't say "no" when someone asks " 'demons exist' is what you call truth, isn't it ? ", unless you've somehow changed your mind. 

this was in reference to people using demons as an excuse to abuse someone... I don't believe that's legitimate.  Demons are not my reason for believing.  But I  know they exist.  Demons is the topic, but my belief goes much deeper.  I don't accept the belief of those who use it to abuse.

Antipatris wrote:

You are now. I just told you about it. And like I said, there are too many more like it. Not sure how you managed to avoid them all.

I'm not avoiding them, but I'm not letting them decide for me what's true.  People are going to come up with excuses for their actions any way they can.  Sure there are a  lot of stories regarding people blaming possession for their actions, but that in no way validates or invalidates the actual occurances of such events.

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
and of all possession stories and exorcisms that I'm aware of, torture from other people to the possessed person is NOT part of the process.

This is simply not true ! You ARE aware of at least one ! You brought it up yourself ! Even if you hadn't done the research, which is inexcusable to begin with, you were told about the torture several times ! You listen ? Obviously, only when it suits you.

I mean legitimate possession and exorcisms, not just the stories of the occurences.

Antipatris wrote:

And I'm sure there are "stories" and "exorcisms" where the victim gets off with nothing but a few bruises and severe mental problems for the rest of their lives, but that doesn't make the murders any less insane. A lesser degree of insanity is still insanity.

agreed

 

Antipatris wrote:

It's called "empathy". Something many "loving" christians seem to be very good at suppressing.

then I question their legitimacy as Christians be it taht 'empathy' is part of the walk

Antipatris wrote:

Actually, no, it still doesn't. Anyone can still interpret "american" or "christian" just exactly how they please, and they do. 

sure, people can interpret it any way they want, but you and I both know there are specific denfinitions for both, and when confronted with those definitions, their interpretation is subject for scrutiny.  

Antipatris wrote:

Avoid it ? Why would I avoid my own point, which you just made for me ? "Does believing it make it true" ? Like belief in demons, you mean ? Or is that somehow exempt ? 

no, it would apply here too.  My believing in demons doesn't make them real.  Just as your disbelief in demons doesn't make them fake.

Antipatris wrote:

Antipatris wrote:
Just to recap, this goes back to the association of such persons in question being true Christians.

Which all comes down to the no-true-scotsman fallacy, so you can makes as many analogies as you like, the "true christian" title remains up for grabs. I could claim it right now, and there would be nothing you could do to take it away. The discussion would be endless, as it would with anyone who claims the title. We have several of them on the board, so if you have a few years to waste, you can give it a try.

actually, we can walk through the Bible and come up with a very specific definintion of what a Christian is.  It consists of someone who knows and accepts they are sinful, accepts the gift of life through Jesus Christ and has a passion to share that gift with others, confesses that Jesus is Lord, is repentant and hates the sin they have, is compassionate and loving toward all creation, including their enemies and puts God and family first in their life among other aspects including generosity and humbleness...  certain gifts will shine through some Christians more than others, but these are the basic traits of a True Christian.  

Antipatris wrote:

Meanwhile, belief in demons is still, at best, idiotic fantasy "entertainment", and at worst, an excuse used by people suffering from severe religious delusions, to commit murder and indulge in sadism.

And if you really want to prove you're capable of learning, then you will either produce the proof you've been asked for, or honestly admit that there is none. 

No other choice left.

maybe you can answer the $10,000 question.  How do you produce irrational proof?  


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I believe he

caposkia wrote:

I believe he created the universe knowing all possible outcomes.  He knew what could be if things aren't done quite right and he knew what would be if things worked according to his plan.

And did He know which outcomes would actually end up occurring?

 

caposkia wrote:

I think by the world we live in and the way we've been raised, it has become something that is too difficult at this time.

Which means my assumption that you think I deserve hell is almost certainly correct.

 

caposkia wrote:

did you need an answer?

In order to believe Christianity true? Yes, I did need an answer.

 

caposkia wrote:

Why do you think you felt better after that?

emotional release/catharsis...  I pretty much always feel better after crying a lot...

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Alright...

caposkia wrote:
Alright... You're good at the avoidance game...

You tried to misinterpret what I said by actually deleting an essential word from the sentence, and you call ME "good at the avoidance game" ????????????? In-bloody-credible.

caposkia wrote:
So... let's take your statement as you actually said it... let's take it literally..

Well, gee, sorry to insist that you read what I actually wrote. I mean, how dare I even suggest such a thing ?

caposkia wrote:
So... just to clarify for me again... considering that demons are real... not only would I find the proof your asking for irrational, but I would also be the first person in history to provide such proof.... if demons are real... 

Ya know...You're right... I should have just left it as is. even putting your whole statement as is, it says the same thing... Nice try in avoiding this, but unfortunately you've put yourself in a corner here.  Either admit that what you said here does categorize your "proof" as irrational, or maybe try rewording what you said so that it doesn't contradict your intention.  

WHAT ???????? 

Dude, do you really not understand that proof required to turn fantasy into reality is going to seem irrational before some produces it ?? Do you really not understand that ? THEN TELL ME !

You really need to flat out admit it if you don't understand that, because I simply cannot conceive of you being that dense. I just cant make myself even consider it.

caposkia wrote:
no, I put it all back together and still came to same conclusion... not triumphant, rather the conclusion I drew back when we first started talking.  disappointing really. 

Nope, wrong again. The fact that you so stubbornly and incredibly keep missing the point is actually encouraging. That still suggests you never thought about this at all. This might even be worth my time.


caposkia wrote:
well... even after this explanation.  I left your statement above as is and still made the same conclusion taking it as is.  I didn't change a thing... I tried before to put it in perspective for you as to what you were saying.  How I might feel about what you said doesn't change what you said.   

You asked me to "reword" it, which happened here, and you still refuse to get it, so again : 

 

Dude, do you really not understand that proof required to turn fantasy into reality is going to seem irrational before some produces it ?? Do you really not understand that ? THEN TELL ME !

You really need to flat out admit it if you don't understand that, because I simply cannot conceive of you being that dense. I just cant make myself even consider it.

caposkia wrote:
As hard as it is for you to believe it... I have not been trying to avoid, confuse or otherwise deter anything.  I am here, waiting for you to really show me why I'm wrong...  Instead you've come back with attacks and avoidance excuses...   

 

So you're actually accusing me of "avoidance", right after you avoided answering a direct question ? This is just going to keep on getting better, isn't it ? 

Fine, here it comes again, third time now and counting :

 

Do you really not understand that proof required to turn fantasy into reality is going to seem irrational before some produces it ?? Do you really not understand that ? THEN TELL ME !

You really need to flat out admit it if you don't understand that, because I simply cannot conceive of you being that dense. I just cant make myself even consider it.

caposkia wrote:
...like this one.  
 

 

Yeah, that wasn't a rhetorical question, but sure, I'll let that one go.

caposkia wrote:
My silly belief, but not my problem... I don't feel like I have a burden to prove anything to you.   Rather I doubt that you want to know.  
  

Oh wow, it DOES get better ! So now you don't even WANT to prove it anymore ?? THEN WHY DID YOU EVEN ASK WHAT PROOF I WOULD ACCEPT ?

And for pete's sake, how many times do I have to ask you to produce this proof ? How many more times do you need to fail to produce it, before you can bring yourself to admit it doesn't exist ? 

caposkia wrote:
explain what?  I'm using your reasoning here...  
  

Um, no. You're trying desperately hard to ignore it. 

caposkia wrote:
Here I'll even give you another avenue of researching evidence for existence of the demons or spiritual influence...

5th or 6th time : I don't NEED another avenue ! You're already failing ! 

caposkia wrote:
The Vatican, though they have their theological issues has a detailed way of record keeping and documentation of legitimate possessions and spiritual healings as well as other spiritual dealings.   

this would coenside with your offer in the car scenario of taking me to a dealership and/or offering me a testdrive.

   

You can tinker around with your analogies as much as you like. Doesn't prove a goshdarned thing. Same goes for the entire vatican bureacracy.

caposkia wrote:
yea, I'm having trouble following your absurdity claims
 

Yeah, I'm going to need you to confirm that again :

Do you really not understand that proof required to turn fantasy into reality is going to seem irrational before some produces it ?

Because if you really don't understand that, then we have a breakthrough. (Finally !)

caposkia wrote:
no, I gave researchable rational reasons why your demon ring doesn't likely hold ground in Biblical truth.
 

No, if I was after "biblical truth", then why would I even bother to doubt a single word of it ? Anything except the proof I asked for is an excuse.

caposkia wrote:
failing at what?

Failing at producing the proof I asked for. 

caposkia wrote:
 I have called you out on avoidance and the run-around... you're still avoiding.

Yeeeeah...As I've been able to point out quite easily, you have a rather one-sided view of "avoidance", to put it kindly. 

caposkia wrote:
.. you are determined to make sure demons don't exist...

Then why am I asking for evidence ? Your "irrational" defense now depends on you managing to misunderstand something so incredibly simple, that admitting you really don't understand, comes down do....well, let's wait until you actually admitted it. 

caposkia wrote:
I am determined to play your game.

I'm playing yours ! I'm taking your nonsense seriously enough to tell you how you can prove it to me.

caposkia wrote:
In the end, I don't really care what you believe... It's your choice if you want to approach the subject rationally or not.
 

Oh for the love of.... This is not about what I believe ! This is about what you believe ! And asking you to prove it IS rational, like it or not. 

caposkia wrote:
alright, if that's a stumbling block for you.  I'll try to not kid about anything from her on out.
  

That would really, really help, thanks.

caposkia wrote:
no, It's pretty clear... reread our conversations.  I don't think you did a good job of hiding that if you were trying to.
 

Yet more assumptions. That's all you have. Proof ? Still waiting for it.

caposkia wrote:
with the way you've been running around and avoiding... I am getting  a bit confused as to your following.  I'm starting to think I'm talking to a Jehovah's Witness.
 

I've already handled the "avoidance" accusation more than enough times for this reply. And now I have a "following" as well ? Compare me to whomever you like. It's all you have, so you might as well enjoy it.

caposkia wrote:
I've offered another avenue, let's see what you do to avoid that.  Probably blame me for telling you what to accept right?
 

You also don't understand why people don't just accept everything you say ? I explained why I don't need that "avenue". Not going to do that again.

caposkia wrote:
regardless, abuse of the possessed victim is not part of the process of getting rid of a demon.  There is no excuse for abusing a person, possessed or not.  It's not Biblical.  

Then why did you offer up a case where that DID happen as evidence ??

caposkia wrote:
with such conviction, you must have reasoning beyond lack of evidence on your part... I'd love to hear your case for believing what you do... you've done a good job avoiding that too.  Yes, I believe in demons, but you are absolutely sure they don't exist and that there's no excuse to justify God, so present your case. 

One delusion at a time. Like I said, we can get into that after we get done with this "demon" nonsense. (I know you're desperate for a way out (that's what all the "avoidcance" accusations are about), but let's finish what we started first, k ?)

caposkia wrote:
what?  Oh, my demon case?  Ok, records all over the world throughout history of possession claims.  They do not coenside with just one mental illness, but have many aspects.  You can google the details.  You can also google how to consider the difference between possession and mental illness.  You can also talk to demonologists and those who are gifted in such areas.  

You can find "records" on any crazy thing you can think of. Doesn't mean a goshdarned thing. Neither does talking to people who dedicated their lives to tuning out reality. I already told you what would be acceptable as evidence and dealt with your "irrational proof" excuse. Just answer the question about that so we can get on with this.

caposkia wrote:
blaming others?  I'm asking simple questions here.  again I don't really care what you believe. 

And again, this is about what YOU believe, so you not caring about what I believe is irrelevant. But you can mention it a few more times, if you like. And for someone who doesn't care what we believe, you sure have been hanging around an atheist website for a long time. Just talking about the weather, were you ?

caposkia wrote:
 I just like intelligent conversation... unfortunately, this one has been a disappointment. 

*hangs head in shame*

caposkia wrote:
nah, just perspective... you saw a story about a Biblical character... you seem to be claiming you knew it wasn't in the Bible... yet you tied it into Biblical truth as if it applies.  

Do you even realize that those are all assumptions ? 

caposkia wrote:
That I find interesting because that's the very thing you're blaming me of doing isn't it? 

Um, no. 

But I'm getting pretty close to accusing you of not knowing or caring what "interesting" even means.

caposkia wrote:
you see tricks.. I've only asked you simple questions. 
 

Just going "..interesting" isn't a question. And I've answered all your questions by now. You haven't done the same for me.

caposkia wrote:
Your approach is text book to everyone who is avoiding changing their understanding of reality at all costs.
 

Asking for acceptable proof is "avoiding understanding of reality at all costs" ???? And in the next sentence, you try to link ME to religious sects ?? You have some nerve, I'll give you that.

caposkia wrote:
 This would include religious sects.  excuses like tricks and burden of proof are classic.  It may not be obvious to you, but to a lot of us, it is.

Yeah, you got me. I'm totally like a religious sect. That's why I keep asking for acceptable proof.  As for "obvious to a lot of us", I already explained why that doesn't mean a thing.

caposkia wrote:
 I'm keeping it simple and strait forward.. you're avoiding simple questions.
 

Show me one question I missed.

caposkia wrote:
guess you have to find that person then... all joking aside, I have yet to find a person who will just go out and buy me such an expensive car.
 

The point is that it is possible. Please don't tell me you still don't get it

caposkia wrote:
Why are you looking at this like a contest.  I'm trying to level with you and actually have a serious conversation still.  You're here turning it into a win/lose scenario.

Assumptions yet again. Try to cut down on those

caposkia wrote:
I am curious on how deep of a hole you're willing to dig though.  keep going.

Still not clear on who's failing to produce proof, are you ? It's not me. If I'm digging holes, it's out of boredom while I wait for it.

caposkia wrote:
right... just like you buying me a mercedes is just as logical as the only way you can prove to me they exist.

Already explained where you went wrong there. 

caposkia wrote:
Point and case, you know there's more than one way to logically prove it, so do I.

I've given you a few ways, yes, and you failed to come up with any of them.

caposkia wrote:
 Let's see what you do with the Vatican scenario... lemme guess... something about not a credible source or an entity promoting a fictional idea logically would support it or something along that line, right?

Don't even need to go there. Records don't prove it actually happened, and that's assuming the records even record anything worth mentioning at all.

 

Anyways, hope you finally answered my thrice repeated question by now, so we can put this one to rest.

 


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 205
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:You seem to

caposkia wrote:
You seem to have a personal connection to these scenarios... or at least a specific issue with the following that seems to go on a personal level with the agression you seem to take with the subject... i say seem because it is hard to read feelings through text.

Aggression ? If you're trying to float the "angry atheist" argument, I'm going to have to disappoint you. Aggression's not really the right word to use when someone vehemently disagrees with an idiotic concept for which not a shred of proof exist, and which inspires people to harm the helpless and feel justified for doing it. The actual aggression lies with those people, I'm afraid, and like I said, I only need empathy to react against that. If I ever punch a person in the face for telling their child they're "possessed by the devil", then you will have a valid point. For now, no.

caposkia wrote:
no, on this particular thread, I'm not learning much....
 

Well, these are the only ones I'm following, and I'm afraid you might have to prepare yourself that it might not be those other people's fault that you're not learning yet. 

caposkia wrote:
despite irrationalities of a conversation, I will never just stop talking to someone in hopes we can both eventually talk on the same level.  I keep my mind open regardless.
 

And they would say the same, so that doesn't really mean much. But all of you are sticking with it, so kudos to all of you.

caposkia wrote:
You're right.  i"m responding too much to the banter.  I've been trying to cut that out bit by bit, but the responses are still long.  I'll try to get better at avoiding the redundancies.
 

Once you do that, you'll find people will return the favor.

caposkia wrote:
this was in reference to people using demons as an excuse to abuse someone... I don't believe that's legitimate.  Demons are not my reason for believing.  But I  know they exist.  Demons is the topic, but my belief goes much deeper.  I don't accept the belief of those who use it to abuse.
 

No, I'm sorry, but you're missing my point again. I realize you don't believe people should use their belief in demons as an excuse to abuse others, but you DO support their belief in the existence of demons. That's the seed from which the insanity grows. Once you start advocating the reality of such an absurd claim, do you then really have the right to be surprised when people take it to the next level ? You are feeding their delusions by taking them seriously, even if you only share the central concept of it. What I am suggesting here is that we have nothing to lose, only to gain, if no-one ever expresses any support whatsoever for a belief in demons, and in fact, people only discourage it, through well-deserved ridicule.

Even if only one life got saved like that, wouldn't it be worth swallowing your pride and giving up your faith in the existence of demons ? 

caposkia wrote:
I'm not avoiding them, but I'm not letting them decide for me what's true.  People are going to come up with excuses for their actions any way they can.

The least we can do is not make it any easier for them. 

caposkia wrote:
Sure there are a  lot of stories regarding people blaming possession for their actions, but that in no way validates or invalidates the actual occurances of such events.
 

Which makes even mentioning "demonic possession" completely meaningless. 

caposkia wrote:
I mean legitimate possession and exorcisms, not just the stories of the occurences.
 

But you brought up such a case yourself, as being a legitimate possession ! So you WERE aware of it ! 

caposkia wrote:
then I question their legitimacy as Christians be it taht 'empathy' is part of the walk

It's part of being human, actually. Many animals also have it. 

And you can question their christian cred as much as you like, they will simply do the same to you. In fact, the announcement "i am a christian", doesn't mean a blessed thing until you get to know the person, and by then, you will have more accurate and meaningful terms to describe them.

caposkia wrote:
sure, people can interpret it any way they want, but you and I both know there are specific denfinitions for both, and when confronted with those definitions, their interpretation is subject for scrutiny.
 

Both those definitions leave enormous room for additional interpretation. In fact, you could say the only factual information included in both is geographical.

caposkia wrote:
no, it would apply here too.  My believing in demons doesn't make them real.  Just as your disbelief in demons doesn't make them fake.
 

Then what's the point of harboring this insane belief in the first place, especially after I've made clear that we can only profit from leaving it behind ? 

caposkia wrote:
actually, we can walk through the Bible and ...

Let me just stop you right there. The bible can be interpreted in even more diverse ways than the two terms we just discussed, which leads to even more endless, never-ending discussions. 

More can be gained from simply giving up this insane belief in "demons".

caposkia wrote:
maybe you can answer the $10,000 question.  How do you produce irrational proof?  

Like the man said, it only seems irrational, as would all proof required to turn a fantasy concept into reality.

I'm afraid you're the only one who has trouble grasping that.


 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:And did

blacklight915 wrote:

And did He know which outcomes would actually end up occurring?

obviously at this point we're guessing because there's no way of really knowing.  People seem to agree that God is all knowing, but to what degree.  Genesis 6:6 says; "The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the Earth, and he was greived in his heart".  This would suggest to me that He may not actually know for sure which outcomes will actually end up occuring... i could be wrong, but then I'm not sure why he would be sorry here if He knew this is how it was going to be.

blacklight915 wrote:

Which means my assumption that you think I deserve hell is almost certainly correct.

I have not judged you.  I mentioned too that maybe you somehow found favor with God like Enoch had... but that's for you to know for sure.  I can't make a decision like this on someone I've never met and/or know almost nothing about.

blacklight915 wrote:

In order to believe Christianity true? Yes, I did need an answer.

I told you what my answers were... did you give enough time for changes to happen in your life?

blacklight915 wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Why do you think you felt better after that?

emotional release/catharsis...  I pretty much always feel better after crying a lot...

ok... If it was for nothing, why all the emotion?  Just curious.  

i understand feeling better after crying... that makes a lot of sense.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:No one has to

caposkia wrote:
No one has to endure eternal punishment.  That eternal punishment btw is not hellfire and brimestone.  It's separation from God through choices made by the person.  

@Blacklight : Told'ya.    Once they feel you're going to stop listening, anything goes. I'm not even sure he realizes that being "separated" from something that doesn't even exist, doesn't even mean anything. And never mind that it is impossible to know if "seperation" is even possible after death.

It's still an implied threat, of course, only an extremely vague one. Keep insisting on details, and it will get vaguer still, until it finally disappears in a puff of ambiguity and confusion.

 

Oh, and if you can use a laugh, have a butchers at the vid in this thread :

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33812

There's a little skit about hell in there about halfway through, which treats the "eternal damnation" concept with all the respect it deserves : None.

 

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:blacklight915

caposkia wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

And did He know which outcomes would actually end up occurring?

obviously at this point we're guessing because there's no way of really knowing.  People seem to agree that God is all knowing, but to what degree.  Genesis 6:6 says; "The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the Earth, and he was greived in his heart".  This would suggest to me that He may not actually know for sure which outcomes will actually end up occuring... i could be wrong, but then I'm not sure why he would be sorry here if He knew this is how it was going to be.

Oh, so god is not perfect? First time I have ever heard a Christian say that. I thought the whole point was that we should worship god because he is perfect. If he is not perfect, is he god? Why should we worship such a being? Simply because it is extremely powerful? 

Even when you grant Christianity the absurd fairy tales it accepts without any evidence it still remains a highly irrational religion. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Even

Beyond Saving wrote:

Even when you grant Christianity the absurd fairy tales it accepts without any evidence it still remains a highly irrational religion. 

 

How much you wanna bet they'll try to rationalize the whole mess back together ?

It's all about burying us under as much theo-babble as possible, until we get tired and give up. That counts as a win for their "arguments", btw.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Oh, so

Beyond Saving wrote:

Oh, so god is not perfect? First time I have ever heard a Christian say that. I thought the whole point was that we should worship god because he is perfect. If he is not perfect, is he god? Why should we worship such a being? Simply because it is extremely powerful? 

Even when you grant Christianity the absurd fairy tales it accepts without any evidence it still remains a highly irrational religion. 

 

What in that statement made Him not perfect?


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:What in that

caposkia wrote:

What in that statement made Him not perfect?

Wouldn't something created by a perfect being work exactly as that being intended it to work? If I described a watchmaker to you as a "perfect" watchmaker and you ordered a watch, I'm sure you would expect the watch to work exactly as the watchmaker intended it to. If the watch ran backwards for example you have two possible conclusions- either the watchmaker intended for it to run backwards and made it perfectly or the watchmaker is not perfect. A perfect watchmaker would always know exactly how well the watch being created would work. 

If god did not know the outcome of his creation as you assert then he cannot be a perfect creator. So why do you worship a being that is obviously less than perfect?  

If you believe that life was created by some super being there are only two possible conclusions, either life with all of its problems is exactly what the being intended and it was created perfectly or the being made some mistakes while creating and things don't work exactly as intended and therefore the being is not perfect. Most Christians I have come across insist that god is perfect and everything that is fucked up was the intentional plan of god (which leads me to believe they must believe that god is a sadistic bastard and yet still are happy to worship him, which I find creepy and disturbing) They say that I should worship god because he is such a perfect being and btw if I don't I am going to suffer for eternity in the fires of hell- but I am assured this being is very loving... 

So which is it? Is god perfect and everything he created works exactly as he planned, or is god less than perfect and some things didn't go the way he wanted? 

Your entire belief is nonsensical. Add on top that you have yet to provide a shred of evidence for even the very narrow issue of the existence of demons. (Yes, I have read this entire thread, and no- talking to me is not going to provide a distraction so you can escape that question). We are all waiting with bated breath for you to provide some evidence of demons. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:You tried

Anonymouse wrote:

You tried to misinterpret what I said by actually deleting an essential word from the sentence, and you call ME "good at the avoidance game" ????????????? In-bloody-credible.

How I feel about it is essential wording from the sentence??? I guess.. didn't change the meaning though did it.

Anonymouse wrote:
 

Dude, do you really not understand that proof required to turn fantasy into reality is going to seem irrational before some produces it ?? Do you really not understand that ? THEN TELL ME !

...and that's the wall you're refusing to jump over right there... Automatically you're suggesting this proof and admitting it's irrational because you're only using it to turn fantasy into reality...  It seems you're stuck on the other side.

Anonymouse wrote:

Oh wow, it DOES get better ! So now you don't even WANT to prove it anymore ?? THEN WHY DID YOU EVEN ASK WHAT PROOF I WOULD ACCEPT ?

I'm willing to discuss with those who actually want to know.  I never felt like I had a burden to show you anything.  Never said I didn't want to show you.  I like how you've subtly changed that though... 

Anonymouse wrote:

And for pete's sake, how many times do I have to ask you to produce this proof ? How many more times do you need to fail to produce it, before you can bring yourself to admit it doesn't exist ? 

I guess as many times as it takes for you to come up with something rational that would work for you... I've offered a couple possibilities now... let's see... didn't read through this one... was kind of long.. maybe you responded below.  Just gotta work through all this fluff.

Anonymouse wrote:

5th or 6th time : I don't NEED another avenue ! You're already failing ! 

Same with me and you buying that car for me... You really can't see how that parallels your methodology??? 

Anonymouse wrote:

You can tinker around with your analogies as much as you like. Doesn't prove a goshdarned thing. Same goes for the entire vatican bureacracy.

you did reply!... and did I call it or what

Anonymouse wrote:

No, if I was after "biblical truth", then why would I even bother to doubt a single word of it ? Anything except the proof I asked for is an excuse.

...AND FINALLY THE TRUTH COMES OUT!  If you're not after Biblical truth, then you're not after the proof.  

Anonymouse wrote:

Failing at producing the proof I asked for. 

gee, wonder why that is?  

Anonymouse wrote:

Yeeeeah...As I've been able to point out quite easily, you have a rather one-sided view of "avoidance", to put it kindly. 

I have made it clear why I have not researched your request for proof... If you knew anything about what you ask for, you'd realize what you're asking for is not congruent with Biblical truth.

Anonymouse wrote:

Then why am I asking for evidence ? 

evidence?  You're asking for fantasy to become reality (your words) ... since when was that asking for evidence?  

Anonymouse wrote:

I'm playing yours ! I'm taking your nonsense seriously enough to tell you how you can prove it to me.

...but then getting stuck on that being the only possible way it can be proven... even after being told that it doesn't work that way and that it's irrational.  I can't understand how you can be serious still.

Anonymouse wrote:

Oh for the love of.... This is not about what I believe ! This is about what you believe ! And asking you to prove it IS rational, like it or not. 

it is about what you believe... your belief has caused you to look for a fanatical identity to become reality when what you think you're asking for is evidence of demons.

I've offered a few avenues, apparently records aren't proof... it works for history though... also phone calls and internet searches in a court of law.  

Anonymouse wrote:

Then why did you offer up a case where that DID happen as evidence ??

the movie?  that was the only one i offered up... and the issue in the court case wasn't abuse.

Anonymouse wrote:

One delusion at a time. Like I said, we can get into that after we get done with this "demon" nonsense. (I know you're desperate for a way out (that's what all the "avoidcance" accusations are about), but let's finish what we started first, k ?)

I don't know where you think this is going... if you think I'm looking for a way out, you must have been bluffing when you mentioned Brian.. see if you had been talking to him, you'll know that I don't just quit on people.  The avoidance accusations are strait forward... it's clear that's what you've been doing... I've been giving you strait clear information and even trying to guide you into a more rational approach to the subject and you're bound and determined that your way is the only way. 

Anonymouse wrote:

You can find "records" on any crazy thing you can think of. Doesn't mean a goshdarned thing. Neither does talking to people who dedicated their lives to tuning out reality. I already told you what would be acceptable as evidence and dealt with your "irrational proof" excuse. Just answer the question about that so we can get on with this.

wow did I call it... so basically what you're telling me... now be honest here... is that you're not interested in the truth. 

Ultimately, if you're going to dismiss everything, including records of occurences and those who specialize in the topic at hand, then you might as well dismiss everything else that exists as well. 

Anonymouse wrote:

...And for someone who doesn't care what we believe, you sure have been hanging around an atheist website for a long time. Just talking about the weather, were you ?

again, good job changing the wording... hey wait! didn't you accuse me of doing that at one point... even though it didn't change the outcome.

anyway, I didn't say I didn't care what everyone here believes.. I really at this point don't care what you believe.  I am curious though... been waiting for you to start discussing something rational and maybe allow the conversation to progress a bit.

Anonymouse wrote:

Do you even realize that those are all assumptions ? 

well then start talking! I might as well start to make assumptions if you're gonna be stuck.  I want to progress... not away from the subject, but beyond the first post with us.

Anonymouse wrote:

Just going "..interesting" isn't a question. And I've answered all your questions by now. You haven't done the same for me.

haven't answered your questions or haven't given you your fanatical proof?  If it's a question, ask it directly and I'll answer it... if it's why I'm not giving you proof, then I've already answered that... and yet I've still given you avenues of evidence.  

Anonymouse wrote:

Asking for acceptable proof is "avoiding understanding of reality at all costs" ???? And in the next sentence, you try to link ME to religious sects ?? You have some nerve, I'll give you that.

You're "textbook"... don't mean to offend here... Where in this conversation did we determine that the proof you're asking for is acceptable???

Anonymouse wrote:

Yeah, you got me. I'm totally like a religious sect. That's why I keep asking for acceptable proof.  As for "obvious to a lot of us", I already explained why that doesn't mean a thing.

right... Jehovah's Witnesses ask for "acceptable proof" too... that acceptable proof is only acceptable if it coensides with what the Watchtower says is true.  Acceptable proof is subjective isnt' it.

Anonymouse wrote:

Show me one question I missed.

besides the questions you not being able to see the parallel in me asking for you to buy me a car and you asking me your means of proof?  Ok

1. You never referenced your demon control ring except to say it was Solomon... I was looking for references to research the subject.  Someone else had to tell me.

2. Post #223: Is it true that you will never accept anything that you don't know?

Though I have to admit, though mostly indirectly... after reading through the posts again, you did answer most questions.  Sorry for claiming you didn't.

The point is that it is possible. Please don't tell me you still don't get it

I guess it's possible... but is it rational for me to decide that to be the only proof I'd accept?

Anonymouse wrote:

Anyways, hope you finally answered my thrice repeated question by now, so we can put this one to rest.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Wouldn't something created by a perfect being work exactly as that being intended it to work?

not if you create it with a rational mind that learns and the freedom of choice.

Beyond Saving wrote:

If I described a watchmaker to you as a "perfect" watchmaker and you ordered a watch, I'm sure you would expect the watch to work exactly as the watchmaker intended it to. If the watch ran backwards for example you have two possible conclusions- either the watchmaker intended for it to run backwards and made it perfectly or the watchmaker is not perfect. A perfect watchmaker would always know exactly how well the watch being created would work. 

Right... God knew exactly how His creation would work in every scenario too.  He knew what would happen when the fruit was eaten of the Tree of Knowledge... the rest is history.  He also knew what it would do if that never happened.  Again freedom of choice in the creation.  

If the watchmaker made a watch that could make choices...the guarantee by the perfect watch maker is that the watch can make a choice and is capable of working perfectly.  The watch may be capable of working perfectly, but if it chose to, it could work backwards... doesn't mean it's broken or wasn't made perfectly, only means it made a choice contrary to what the owner wants.  It's the risk you take when choice is part of the equation.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

If god did not know the outcome of his creation as you assert then he cannot be a perfect creator. So why do you worship a being that is obviously less than perfect?  

why do our choices make God less perfect?  

to answer you directly, I don't.

Beyond Saving wrote:

If you believe that life was created by some super being there are only two possible conclusions, either life with all of its problems is exactly what the being intended and it was created perfectly or the being made some mistakes while creating and things don't work exactly as intended and therefore the being is not perfect. Most Christians I have come across insist that god is perfect and everything that is fucked up was the intentional plan of god (which leads me to believe they must believe that god is a sadistic bastard and yet still are happy to worship him, which I find creepy and disturbing) They say that I should worship god because he is such a perfect being and btw if I don't I am going to suffer for eternity in the fires of hell- but I am assured this being is very loving... 

some do believe that God intentionally put the problems into creation... that's called double predestination.  I'm not so sure about that angle myself.  Considering my angle above, do you see why there's more to it than that?

Beyond Saving wrote:

So which is it? Is god perfect and everything he created works exactly as he planned, or is god less than perfect and some things didn't go the way he wanted? 

God is perfect and everything He created is CAPABLE of working exactly as He planned... but freedom of choice puts a wrench in this either or scenario.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Your entire belief is nonsensical. Add on top that you have yet to provide a shred of evidence for even the very narrow issue of the existence of demons. (Yes, I have read this entire thread, and no- talking to me is not going to provide a distraction so you can escape that question). We are all waiting with bated breath for you to provide some evidence of demons. 

Wow, you dive in with that huh... If you're really waiting for an answer, what would work for you then?  I'm not going to try to escape the question, rather I'm going to look for someone who wants to discuss rationally and is willing to do it with an open mind... are you someone willing to take that leap?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Antipatris wrote:Aggression

Antipatris wrote:

Aggression ? If you're trying to float the "angry atheist" argument, I'm going to have to disappoint you. Aggression's not really the right word to use when someone vehemently disagrees with an idiotic concept for which not a shred of proof exist, and which inspires people to harm the helpless and feel justified for doing it. The actual aggression lies with those people, I'm afraid, and like I said, I only need empathy to react against that. If I ever punch a person in the face for telling their child they're "possessed by the devil", then you will have a valid point. For now, no.

Ok.. Can an atheist answer a simple question with a simple answer?  I'm not trying anything... don't know how many times on this thread I have to say that.  Thank you for your eventual strait answer.

Antipatris wrote:

Well, these are the only ones I'm following, and I'm afraid you might have to prepare yourself that it might not be those other people's fault that you're not learning yet. 

be it that I'm currently involved in other threads on this site where I'm learning a lot, I'm thinking it just might be some of those other people.

Antipatris wrote:

No, I'm sorry, but you're missing my point again. I realize you don't believe people should use their belief in demons as an excuse to abuse others, but you DO support their belief in the existence of demons. That's the seed from which the insanity grows. Once you start advocating the reality of such an absurd claim, do you then really have the right to be surprised when people take it to the next level ? You are feeding their delusions by taking them seriously, even if you only share the central concept of it. What I am suggesting here is that we have nothing to lose, only to gain, if no-one ever expresses any support whatsoever for a belief in demons, and in fact, people only discourage it, through well-deserved ridicule.

I see what you're saying and I understand your perspective.  I wouldn't say as i; "support their belief in the existence of demons".  Rather I know they exist.  Just like we both know cars exist.. are we supporting each others belief in it?  no, they exist regardless of how wreckless people drive them and how many deaths per year happen due to them.  

Likewise, there are many stories of people doing such abuses without using such an excuse.. in fact, if you look at the statistics, i'm willing to bet you'll find more abuse cases without the demon excuse and the demon excuse being more of an outlier in the statistics.  

For people to take it to the next level shows that their belief is not founded on knowledge, but rather ignorance.

Antipatris wrote:

Even if only one life got saved like that, wouldn't it be worth swallowing your pride and giving up your faith in the existence of demons ? 

it's not pride that holds me to my belief.  I also believe more lives would be saved if people were aware of Gods' existence and intentions.  I know you'll easily disagree.  I know where you stand.

Antipatris wrote:

The least we can do is not make it any easier for them. 

believing isn't enabling... my belief would actually make it harder for them to use it as an excuse.  The knowledge I have of it would not support their understanding of dealing with it in any way.

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Sure there are a  lot of stories regarding people blaming possession for their actions, but that in no way validates or invalidates the actual occurances of such events.
 

Which makes even mentioning "demonic possession" completely meaningless. 

in those instances yes

Antipatris wrote:

But you brought up such a case yourself, as being a legitimate possession ! So you WERE aware of it ! 

the case had nothing to do with abuse

Antipatris wrote:

Both those definitions leave enormous room for additional interpretation. In fact, you could say the only factual information included in both is geographical.

kindness is kindness, abuse is not love no matter how you want to look at it.  People can try to turn anything around that they want, it doesn't change what it is.

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
no, it would apply here too.  My believing in demons doesn't make them real.  Just as your disbelief in demons doesn't make them fake.
 

Then what's the point of harboring this insane belief in the first place, especially after I've made clear that we can only profit from leaving it behind ? 

maybe the belief isn't so insane.  Disbelief does not make a reality disappear.

Antipatris wrote:

Like the man said, it only seems irrational, as would all proof required to turn a fantasy concept into reality.

I'm afraid you're the only one who has trouble grasping that.

I know exactly what he's asking for.. He's asking for fantasy to be turned into reality.. not evidence of a reality... which is why it's irrational.  You both have predetermined the truth before asking for evidence, therefore no matter what actual evidence is presented... typically it won't matter.  That's not going into the subject with an open mind.  

I actually walked into this conversation with a state of mind that I know what I know, but if someone's got rational reasoning why what I know isn't true, then I will consider it.   I'm sure you will claim the same.  

What do I need to accept that demons are not real?  Maybe proof that first all my personal reliable sources were actually lying and a rational explanation for claimed demonic events happening to people I know including myself.  Then it would have to go over to the spiritual realm and a rational explanation of how prayers I've prayed have been answered ironically exactly the way I've prayed for them to come to pass.

Irrationalities and redundancies while ignoring progression attempts in a conversation are not very convincing.  

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:not if you

caposkia wrote:

not if you create it with a rational mind that learns and the freedom of choice.

We have significant evidence that many people do not have rational minds and some people are actually incapable of making choices. Did god fuck up, or did he intend it?

 

caposkia wrote:

Right... God knew exactly how His creation would work in every scenario too.  He knew what would happen when the fruit was eaten of the Tree of Knowledge... the rest is history.  He also knew what it would do if that never happened.  Again freedom of choice in the creation.  

If the watchmaker made a watch that could make choices...the guarantee by the perfect watch maker is that the watch can make a choice and is capable of working perfectly.  The watch may be capable of working perfectly, but if it chose to, it could work backwards... doesn't mean it's broken or wasn't made perfectly, only means it made a choice contrary to what the owner wants.  It's the risk you take when choice is part of the equation.

Ok, so god intentionally created us with imperfect judgement. Why? Why did he create the Tree of Knowledge? Just to fuck with us? Seriously think about what you believe and you should see why it is laughably absurd. 

 

caposkia wrote:

why do our choices make God less perfect?  

Because he supposedly created us, so any poor choices we make are a result of his creation.

 

caposkia wrote:

some do believe that God intentionally put the problems into creation... that's called double predestination.  I'm not so sure about that angle myself.  Considering my angle above, do you see why there's more to it than that?

No. I don't see how there is anything to it other than your fancies. Some evidence would be grand. Right now I kind of feel like I am arguing with a Trekie about whether or not it is possible to transport through an ion storm.

 

caposkia wrote:

God is perfect and everything He created is CAPABLE of working exactly as He planned... but freedom of choice puts a wrench in this either or scenario.

Damn, I thought you were a different kind of xtian nut, well that just injected a shitload of boredom into this conversation. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Wow, you dive in with that huh... If you're really waiting for an answer, what would work for you then?  I'm not going to try to escape the question, rather I'm going to look for someone who wants to discuss rationally and is willing to do it with an open mind... are you someone willing to take that leap?

I'm not picky, I accept all sorts of evidence that doesn't stem from people saying "just trust me". Show me someone who is possessed and demonstrate that it isn't from one of the hundreds of mental disorders we know exist. Show that the condition is being caused by some kind of external force that apparently fears psychotic priests and holy water. It is your crazy ass belief, you should be able to find some kind of convincing evidence. 

Do you believe that aliens have visited our planet?

Do you believe in sasquatch?

Do you believe in psychic powers?

Do you believe in telekinetic powers?

Most likely I can find exactly the same kind of "evidence" for those above that you can find for demonic possession. Find me some kind of evidence that goes above and beyond that and at least makes me think "huh, there might be something here"

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:How I feel

caposkia wrote:
How I feel about it is essential wording from the sentence??? I guess.. didn't change the meaning though did it.

Yes, it did. Again, it's encouraging that you don't seem to notice that glaringly obvious fact.

caposkia wrote:
...and that's the wall you're refusing to jump over right there... Automatically you're suggesting this proof and admitting it's irrational because you're only using it to turn fantasy into reality...  It seems you're stuck on the other side.

ANSWER THE QUESTION ! And while you're at it, stop your desperate attempts to try and misinterpret such a simple sentence ! Again : YOU, yes YOU, are the one who needs to provide this proof, NOT ME ! So saying I'm the one who's using it to turn reality into fantasy doesn't even begin to make sense.

So here's the question AGAIN. Answer it now, please, so I don't have to repeat this a sixth time :

do you really not understand that proof required to turn fantasy into reality is going to seem irrational before some produces it ?? Do you really not understand that ? THEN TELL ME !

caposkia wrote:
I'm willing to discuss with those who actually want to know.

Stop being so vague when we already established what we're discussing here : Your failure to produce acceptable proof for demons, and your subsequent failure to even admit it. 

caposkia wrote:
 I never felt like I had a burden to show you anything.

Then just honestly admit that you can't prove this ridiculous thing you choose to believe in ! Where's the burden in that ?

caposkia wrote:
  Never said I didn't want to show you.

Then give me the proof or admit there isn't any ! That's all you need to "show" me, because that's all I asked for ! Again, what is so hard about that ?

caposkia wrote:
  I like how you've subtly changed that though... 

Changed what ??? What are you even talking about ? Stop making these vague suggestions and assumptions ! You asked me what proof I would accept, I told you, and since then you've just been dancing around the fact that you can't produce it.

caposkia wrote:
I guess as many times as it takes for you to come up with something rational that would work for you... I've offered a couple possibilities now... let's see... didn't read through this one... was kind of long.. maybe you responded below.  Just gotta work through all this fluff.

Then stop writing it ! You only needed to answer ONE bloody question and admit ONE unavoidable truth !

I guess I could stop reacting to it, but why should I let you get away with all this new nonsense you keep producing, to distract from the fact that you can't prove your idiotic claim ? I already explained why that stuff you mentioned won't work ! That's why you asked me for acceptable proof in the first place !

caposkia wrote:
Same with me and you buying that car for me... You really can't see how that parallels your methodology??? 

My WHAT ?? Dude, it was YOUR stupid analogy in the first place , and it SUPPORTS my "methodology" (aka, reality) ! I guess you haven't read that part yet either, eh ? AGAIN : The point is that it's POSSIBLE for someone to buy you that car ! Can't you even understand something so fundamentally simple ? 

caposkia wrote:
you did reply!... and did I call it or what

If you already knew why it doesn't count as proof, then why do you offer it as proof ? That doesn't make a lick of sense. So are you just wasting time here, or do you need to have it explained to you WHY it doesn't count as proof for anything ? Is this another bleeding obvious fact you just don't understand ? THEN TELL ME ! How else am I even supposed to know if you're kidding or not ! 

caposkia wrote:
...AND FINALLY THE TRUTH COMES OUT!  If you're not after Biblical truth, then you're not after the proof.
 

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

...okay, now wait just a goshdarned second. 

If you only accept the bible as truth, then why did you ask me what I would accept as proof, since you obviously couldn't care less ? 

And why did you even bother to argue this point ? Why would you even use words like "rational" and "irrational", or pretend to care about facts, except as a deliberate attempt to mislead me, and make me waste my time trying to reason with you ?

Are you seriously going to hide behind the bible now ? Really ? 

But that's cowardice ! We're talking about REAL people, abusing REAL kids and sick people. And you're going to hide behind the bible, just so you can keep your precious "demons" ???

caposkia wrote:
gee, wonder why that is?  
 

*sigh* Because there is no proof for "demons". Is admitting that simple fact going to cause you physical pain or something ?

caposkia wrote:
I have made it clear why I have not researched your request for proof...  

And I have made it clear why the proof I asked for is the only one that can be acceptable for a claim as absurd as yours. You will either produce that proof, or you will admit there is no proof for demons.

caposkia wrote:
 If you knew anything about what you ask for, you'd realize what you're asking for is not congruent with Biblical truth.

And I've explained, ad nauseam, why you can't explain nonsense with more nonsense, validate magic with more magic, etc...

So again, if you don't understand why that is, THEN TELL ME ! How else am I even supposed to know if you're being serious ??

caposkia wrote:
evidence?  You're asking for fantasy to become reality (your words)

That's because demons ARE fantasy ! Admit it !

caposkia wrote:
... since when was that asking for evidence?  

Since people such as yourself started taking their fantasies for reality ! How else am I supposed to get them to admit it ??

caposkia wrote:
...but then getting stuck on that being the only possible way it can be proven... even after being told that it doesn't work that way and that it's irrational.

YOU, yes YOU, again YOUUUUUU, are the one who believes these irrational things are real ! YOU

Do I now have to explain what "You" means ? Has it come to that ?

caposkia wrote:
it is about what you believe... your belief

Are you physically incapable of processing this simple fact ???? Okay, AGAIN, and probably not for the last time : YOU believe in demons ! I do not. AGAIN, say it with me now : YOU. BELIEVE. IN. DEMONS. And who doesn't ? THE PERSON YOU ARE TALKING TO.

For pete's sake, I'm running out of ways to say it.

caposkia wrote:
has caused you to look for a fanatical identity to become reality when what you think you're asking for is evidence of demons.

AGAIN, there is nothing fanatical about asking for proof for demons (in which YOU believe) ! Stop throwing pejoratives around ! 

AGAIN, if you really don't understand that proof required to turn fantasy into reality is going to seem irrational before some produces it , THEN TELL ME !

caposkia wrote:
I've offered a few avenues, apparently records aren't proof... it works for history though...

You're making a supernatural claim, not a historical one. Do I need to have a sesame street character explain the difference between the two to you ? 

caposkia wrote:
also phone calls and internet searches in a court of law.

In a court of law, you can offer up ANYTHING as proof. Doesn't mean it will end up proving anything at all. Why are you making me explain things you already know yourself ? 

caposkia wrote:
the movie?  that was the only one i offered up... and the issue in the court case wasn't abuse.

But it DID happen !!!! If you don't consider cases where that happens to be "real" demonic possession cases, then WHY did you offer it as proof ?????

caposkia wrote:
I don't know where you think this is going...

?????????? YOU DON'T KNOW ?????????

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT BEFORE THIS REGISTERS ??? You either produce the proof I asked for , or you admit there is no proof for demons ! THAT'S IT ! 

caposkia wrote:
if you think I'm looking for a way out, you must have been bluffing when you mentioned Brian.. see if you had been talking to him, you'll know that I don't just quit on people.

Oh, I knew that from the start. That's why I said this might be worth my time. Brian's very generous when it comes to giving props, btw.

caposkia wrote:
 The avoidance accusations are strait forward...

They're also false. Let's not forget that.

caposkia wrote:
it's clear that's what you've been doing...

Not to you, it isn't. No matter how many times you make me repeat myself. And yeah, I'm the one doing the "avoiding".

Not you, who has to delete essential words from simple questions, so he can even go on pretending to miss the point. Not you, who managed not to answer the only question that mattered, YET AGAIN. 

caposkia wrote:
I've been giving you strait clear information and even trying to guide you into a more rational approach to the subject and you're bound and determined that your way is the only way. 

I didn't ask for "information". I asked for proof, and I explained why your info doesn't qualify as such. If you don't understand why it doesn't, then tell me, and I will explain more clearly. 

And btw, since when does "biblical truth" qualify as "a more rational approach" ?

caposkia wrote:
wow did I call it... so basically what you're telling me... now be honest here... is that you're not interested in the truth. 

?? Did you even read that sentence ??? NO, that is not "basically" what I said. That is "basically" not even remotely close to what I said. So are you now going to change ALL the words in my sentences to suit your purpose ?? Wow, indeed.

Read it again !

caposkia wrote:
Ultimately, if you're going to dismiss everything,  

I'm not going to dismiss "everything" ! I told you what I would accept ! Geez, how dishonest can you get ? 

caposkia wrote:
including records of occurences and those who specialize in the topic at hand, then you might as well dismiss everything else that exists as well. 

Do you really not understand that records can be faked, embellished, simply made up, or even written by people who have no idea what they're talking about, and who are masking their ignorance by making up their own explanations ? 

Do you really not understand that ANYONE can claim knowledge of the supernatural ? ANYONE !!!!!! 

Because, AGAIN, if you really don't understand that, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TELL ME !

caposkia wrote:
again, good job changing the wording...

"Changing the wording" ? What "wording" ? You mean you DO care what we believe ? Oh, never mind, you explain yourself a little later on...

caposkia wrote:
hey wait! didn't you accuse me of doing that at one point...

No, I accused you of changing a keyword in a sentence so you could avoid the painfully simple fact it was explaining. You just did it again a few sentences ago, btw. Only this time you simply ignored the whole sentence and replaced it with your own. I'm not even surprised anymore.

caposkia wrote:
even though it didn't change the outcome.

Removing a verb from a sentence doesn't change it's meaning ????

I'm starting to wonder, did you even read it ?  

caposkia wrote:
anyway, I didn't say I didn't care what everyone here believes.. I really at this point don't care what you believe.

Oh dear, then I have an unpleasant surprise for you : Not a single atheist here would accept what you offer as "proof" for demons. Not. A. Single. One. 

So I guess you don't care about what they "believe" either. 

Which again brings up the question why you've been hanging out here for so long. Talking about traffic ? Movies ? Your stamp collection ? 

caposkia wrote:
 I am curious though... been waiting for you to start discussing something rational and maybe allow the conversation to progress a bit.

No, AGAIN, YOU're the one with the irrational belief, not me. I explained why your "irrational proof" excuse doesn't work. The conversation is waiting for you to answer the question I've been asking...oh wait, I asked that at the end too, didn't I ? I'll go check if you answered it there. 

*deep,deep sigh*

You didn't. 

So yeah, if you want the discussion to progress, this is the question you have to answer (without changing any words in it !!!!!!!!!!!!)

Do you really don't understand that proof required to turn fantasy into reality is going to seem irrational before some produces it ?? Do you really not understand that ? THEN TELL ME !

(To minimize any more attempts from you to run away from this, I'd appreciate a "yes, I do", or "no, I don't" answer. We can take it from there)

caposkia wrote:
 well then start talking!

What, I should repeat the question a 7th time ? This selective blindness you seem to suffer from is really quite extraordinary. 

caposkia wrote:
I might as well start to make assumptions if you're gonna be stuck.

So who's stopping you from answering that question ? Is it a demon ? 

caposkia wrote:
 I want to progress... not away from the subject, but beyond the first post with us.

You mean you're actually going to answer the question in your next post ? That would be appreciated, thanks. Took you long enough, though.

caposkia wrote:
haven't answered your questions or haven't given you your fanatical proof?
 

Haven't answered my questions. And for the last (LOL) time, there is nothing "fanatical" about demanding proof for demons ! S

caposkia wrote:
If it's a question, ask it directly and I'll answer it...
 

Yeah, that hasn't been working very well up to now. Still, seems damn near impossible for you to dodge this any longer. 

caposkia wrote:
if it's why I'm not giving you proof, then I've already answered that
 

And I explained why your "irrational proof" defense doesn't work. If you really want to progress, then stop making me repeat myself.

caposkia wrote:
... and yet I've still given you avenues of evidence.
 

And I've explained why they don't count as evidence, as will every other atheist on this site (or anywhere else, for that matter. Heck, even some christians will. Even you yourself seemed to know why !).

And I'm going to have to explain this again, aren't I ? Seriously, what does it take for you to remember something for longer than one post ? 

caposkia wrote:
You're "textbook"... don't mean to offend here...
 

Why would I be offended by such a ridiculous accusation ? Actually, it's encouraging that you would sink so low, so fast. It usually takes longer for the "friendly neighborhood theist" mask to drop. 

caposkia wrote:
Where in this conversation did we determine that the proof you're asking for is acceptable???
 

I already explained why the "proof" you offer is not acceptable, which just leaves mine. And your "irrational proof" excuse has been dealt with. Answer the question you forced me to repeat about 4 times (sorry, lost count) in this reply, and even you won't be able to run from this anymore.

caposkia wrote:
right... Jehovah's Witnesses ask for "acceptable proof" too...
 

Not the ones that come to my door, they don't. They just want me to accept their interpretation of the bible as truth. Now who else wants me to do that ? Not you, right ? Cuz you don't care. Which is why you've been here for years. 

caposkia wrote:
that acceptable proof is only acceptable if it coensides with what the Watchtower says is true.  Acceptable proof is subjective isnt' it.
 

I told you, again and again and again, if you don't understand why my proof is acceptable and why the stuff you offer isn't then TELL ME ! Heck, you even knew yourself why yours wasn't acceptable, which makes your refusal to recognize mine as acceptable (since YOU believe in demons. YOU ! Not me !) even more confusing. 


 

caposkia wrote:
besides the questions you not being able to see the parallel in me asking for you to buy me a car and you asking me your means of proof?  Ok
 

Um, that's not a question, and I already explained why your analogy supports me and not you. But it appears selective blindness had struck again, so sure ...

AGAIN : It is POSSIBLE for someone else to buy you the car, so if cars are real, the proof CAN be provided.

caposkia wrote:
1. You never referenced your demon control ring except to say it was Solomon... I was looking for references to research the subject.  Someone else had to tell me.
 

You expect me to answer questions you can google yourself ???????????? And Blacklight did it for you and you're STILL complaining ? Incredible..

caposkia wrote:
Though I have to admit, though mostly indirectly... after reading through the posts again, you did answer most questions.  
 

Would you perhaps like to return the favor ?

caposkia wrote:
Sorry for claiming you didn't.

Apology accepted.

caposkia wrote:
I guess it's possible... but is it rational for me to decide that to be the only proof I'd accept?

Cars aren't supernatural creatures. 


 

Anyways, hope you finally answered my often repeated question by now, so we can put this one to rest.

 


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 205
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Ok.. Can an

caposkia wrote:
Ok.. Can an atheist answer a simple question with a simple answer?  I'm not trying anything... don't know how many times on this thread I have to say that.  Thank you for your eventual strait answer.

Can a theist refrain from "reading" and "feeling" emotions that only exist in between his own ears, and not try to assign them to the atheist he's talking to ? Thank you for not trying anything...anymore. 

 

caposkia wrote:
be it that I'm currently involved in other threads on this site where I'm learning a lot, I'm thinking it just might be some of those other people.

If you're referring to the threads in which JP is teaching you a history lesson, then yes, you could potentially be picking up some facts there. In this thread, though, you are going to amazing lengths to avoid contact with even the simplest notion.


caposkia wrote:
I see what you're saying and I understand your perspective.  I wouldn't say as i; "support their belief in the existence of demons".  Rather I know they exist.

No, you've been vehemently supporting belief in the existence of demons ever since the subject came up. This is a simple fact, supported by the existence of your posts in this thread.

Unless you'd like to deny the existence of those posts ?

 

caposkia wrote:
 Just like we both know cars exist.. are we supporting each others belief in it?  no, they exist regardless of how wreckless people drive them and how many deaths per year happen due to them.
 

Are you serious ? Even a child of four could explain why that analogy doesn't work. A car is a machine. A demon is a storybook character.

 

caposkia wrote:
Likewise, there are many stories of people doing such abuses without using such an excuse.. in fact, if you look at the statistics, i'm willing to bet you'll find more abuse cases without the demon excuse and the demon excuse being more of an outlier in the statistics.
 

Since that doesn't make the cases we're discussing any less monstrous, why did you even bring that up ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
For people to take it to the next level shows that their belief is not founded on knowledge, but rather ignorance.
 

The excuse you're using here is often used in court-cases involving these crimes, and it has never worked (well, not since the dark ages). 

I'll tell you why : Because when something doesn't exist, claiming to have knowledge of it is simply an aggressive kind of ignorance.

 

caposkia wrote:
it's not pride that holds me to my belief.
 

I really couldn't care less what makes you hold on to this ludicrous belief. The fact is and remains, belief in "demonic possession" is entirely toxic. At best, it causes irrational fear. At worst, it inspires parents to torture their children to death.

So you have nothing, absolutely nothing to gain, and always something to win from giving it up completely.

So tell me, what possible excuse could you, or anyone, have for not giving up this exclusively poisonous idea ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
 I also believe more lives would be saved if people were aware of Gods' existence and intentions.  I know you'll easily disagree.  I know where you stand.
 

Please try to stick to the belief in question. This is about belief in "demonic possession". I stand with the victims. So do you, but you also offer support to the delusions of their torturers. I am asking you to stop doing that. These people do not deserve to have their sick ideas supported, and you should not be harboring these vile beliefs yourself.

 

caposkia wrote:
believing isn't enabling...

You are doing more than just believing. You are actively defending this insane belief on an atheist website. And would I be correct in assuming that if the subject comes up elsewhere, you don't immediately give it the scorn it so richly deserves ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
my belief would actually make it harder for them to use it as an excuse.  The knowledge I have of it would not support their understanding of dealing with it in any way.

"Demons are real and they can possess people". That is all they need, and that is what you offer them. That is how the madness always starts. What possible reason could you have for not nipping it in the bud, knowing what terrible tragedies this can lead to ? 

I mean, really, what possible reason could you have ? 


 

caposkia wrote:
in those instances yes

No, in all instances. It's a fairy tale that's being kept alive by religious fanatics who want to hang on to a shred of the power they used to have. But why you are so determined not to let it go, I have as yet no idea. I asked for your reason. I hope you gave it.

 

caposkia wrote:
the case had nothing to do with abuse

That is a lie. You should be ashamed of yourself.

She was made to kneel until her knees broke. She was denied proper care for her condition, which led to her death from starvation and dehydration. She died in excruciating pain. 

So I will ask you again. Why bring up this case as proof, if you believe there is no abuse involved in "real" demonic possession cases.

 

caposkia wrote:
kindness is kindness, abuse is not love no matter how you want to look at it.  People can try to turn anything around that they want, it doesn't change what it is.

But we were talking about the terms "christian" and "american". The variety of meanings and characteristics assigned to both is near endless, since they describe such a large group of people.


 

caposkia wrote:
maybe the belief isn't so insane.

I have explained why it is exactly that.

 

caposkia wrote:
 Disbelief does not make a reality disappear.

Who said it did ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
I know exactly what he's asking for..

Well, I should hope so. He's been repeating this question for long enough now.

 

caposkia wrote:
He's asking for fantasy to be turned into reality.. not evidence of a reality... which is why it's irrational.

It's not his fault that the concept under discussion is a fantasy. He's explained that quite enough as well. 

 

caposkia wrote:
 You both have predetermined the truth before asking for evidence, therefore no matter what actual evidence is presented... typically it won't matter. That's not going into the subject with an open mind.

No, he quite clearly stated, several times, that he would accept that evidence. You know what "accept" means, right ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
 I actually walked into this conversation with a state of mind that I know what I know, but if someone's got rational reasoning why what I know isn't true, then I will consider it.   I'm sure you will claim the same.

He's asking you to prove this thing you claim to "know". Since you can't, rational reasoning tells us that what you think you know is thus far only supported by your imagination. He is now waiting for you to "consider" this.

 

caposkia wrote:
What do I need to accept that demons are not real?  Maybe proof that first all my personal reliable sources were actually lying

Like you, they cannot prove they were telling the truth. You have just as much reason to take any supernatural claim seriously, and yet for some mysterious reason, you don't require proof to dismiss those. Think about that for a second. 

 

caposkia wrote:
and a rational explanation for claimed demonic events happening to people I know including myself.

I'm guessing this "demonic event" couldn't possibly be repeated under laboratory conditions, could it ? Shy creatures, demons. Kinda like elves, trolls, leprechauns, brownies, sidhe, centaurs, chupacabras, ...etc ad infinitum...  

And yes, whatever happened to you does have a rational explanation. Don't try to pretend you don't know that.

 

caposkia wrote:
 Then it would have to go over to the spiritual realm and a rational explanation of how prayers I've prayed have been answered ironically exactly the way I've prayed for them to come to pass.

It's called lying to yourself and to others, and in extreme cases, stupid coincidence. The brain is a wonderful organ, capable of amazing feats of self-deception. 

 

So now that you have all those rational explanations, what will you do with them ? Ignore them ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
Irrationalities and redundancies while ignoring progression attempts in a conversation are not very convincing.  
 

 

It is neither irrational nor redundant to demand proof for an insane and exclusively toxic belief.

Making people repeat that very simple fact over and over again, is what is really holding back any progression.

As for "convincing" , it has already been stated, more than enough, exactly what that would entail. 

So bring the proof, or admit that there is none. 

And then abandon this vile belief in "demonic possession", before it spreads even more.


Havoc
Havoc's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2010-06-28
User is offlineOffline
missed

i read over a lot of these comments and unless i missed it no one has pointed out that atheist are not attacking Jesus Christ but salvationist religion as a whole. I for one argue against it because I believe it's harmful to humanity to follow a god that would create you with basic human desires, condemn you for them, then force you to ask for his forgiveness with threat of an eternity in agony. I believe it was John Lamb Lash who compared this to the victim/perpetrator bond, similar to the relationship between a woman who is beaten by her husband but continues to go back to him because "he loves her"


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:We have

Beyond Saving wrote:

We have significant evidence that many people do not have rational minds and some people are actually incapable of making choices. Did god fuck up, or did he intend it?

You're forgetting the third option... or did we do something to cause that person to be that way... either in their lifetime or in their bloodline history.

To answer with just your options, it's likely he did it intentionally.  John 9:1-5 Jesus' desciples ask why this person was born blind.  They thought it was sin that caused it, but Jesus said it was not sin or anyone's doing.  Rather God made him blind on purpose.. for this instance, so that the works of God can be displayed through him.  

Though we might not understand why God would do something like that to a person, it has to do with a particular mission for God.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Ok, so god intentionally created us with imperfect judgement. Why? Why did he create the Tree of Knowledge? Just to fuck with us? Seriously think about what you believe and you should see why it is laughably absurd. 

God may have created some with imperfect judgement... though how does one judge?  usually it's not innate, but rather a learned behavior.  Therefore its' not likely God created anyone with a certain level of judgement capabilities.  

The tree of Knowledge.  We can make assumptions all day, your assumptions lead to a laughably absurd belief.  My assumption is that God had a plan for it and that if they waited, they eventually would have been able to eat of it.  It doesn't make sense to put it there just to mess with us.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Because he supposedly created us, so any poor choices we make are a result of his creation.

so... lemme get this strait... A creator creates something with the freedom of learning and making their own choices from those things they learned... regardless of what choice they make and why, the creator is still responsible for that persons choices?  

With your reasoning, every parent who has a child who commits a crime should then be going to jail in place of their child... that doesn't make a lot of sense.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Damn, I thought you were a different kind of xtian nut, well that just injected a shitload of boredom into this conversation. 

awe, too serious for you?

Beyond Saving wrote:

I'm not picky, I accept all sorts of evidence that doesn't stem from people saying "just trust me". Show me someone who is possessed and demonstrate that it isn't from one of the hundreds of mental disorders we know exist. Show that the condition is being caused by some kind of external force that apparently fears psychotic priests and holy water. It is your crazy ass belief, you should be able to find some kind of convincing evidence. 

Do you believe that aliens have visited our planet?

Do you believe in sasquatch?

Do you believe in psychic powers?

Do you believe in telekinetic powers?

Most likely I can find exactly the same kind of "evidence" for those above that you can find for demonic possession. Find me some kind of evidence that goes above and beyond that and at least makes me think "huh, there might be something here"

 

...so you need to be face to face with a possessed person in order to believe it's real?  you would also have to investigate their symptoms yourself...  Good luck.  I'm sure you could find some place or person that deals with them near you.  You could ask them to tag along with them for a bit and see what you can see.

As far as reasoning, you can google the symptoms of possession.

Aliens?  No haven't seen enough evidence to believe so or had any experience with it

Sasquatch?  likely not, evidence is sketchy, but possible I guess.  Strange that no one has any clear picture of it if it is in fact so common. 

psychic powers?  depends on what you mean by that.  I know people who have had a connection to someone else in such a way that before anyone told them, they knew something bad had happend to them, or a prophetic dream is also possible.

telekinetic powers?  no, have not seen evidence for it or had any experience with it.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Yes, it

Anonymouse wrote:

Yes, it did. Again, it's encouraging that you don't seem to notice that glaringly obvious fact.

whether you meant it or not, it said what it said.  dispute it all you want.

Anonymouse wrote:

do you really not understand that proof required to turn fantasy into reality is going to seem irrational before some produces it ?? Do you really not understand that ? THEN TELL ME !

I do not understand that... sorry that wasn't clear the last 10 times. 

Anonymouse wrote:

Then give me the proof or admit there isn't any ! That's all you need to "show" me, because that's all I asked for ! Again, what is so hard about that ?

alright, open your eyes and look around... The evidence is difficult to see unless you know what you're looking for.  If that confuses you, then tell me. 

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
...AND FINALLY THE TRUTH COMES OUT!  If you're not after Biblical truth, then you're not after the proof.
 

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

...okay, now wait just a goshdarned second. 

If you only accept the bible as truth, then why did you ask me what I would accept as proof, since you obviously couldn't care less ? 

To understand that demons exist is Biblical truth... If you're not willing to accept Biblical truth, you're not willing to accept any rational evidence of demons existing.  I care if you do to know, but it seems that you don't... instead you've left me with one avenue of proof and said all or nothing.  Again, it doesn't work that way.

Anonymouse wrote:

Are you seriously going to hide behind the bible now ? Really ? 

Hide behind it?  What do you think I believe?  

Anonymouse wrote:

But that's cowardice ! We're talking about REAL people, abusing REAL kids and sick people. And you're going to hide behind the bible, just so you can keep your precious "demons" ???

...and this is what I've been saying this whole time.  Yes, we're talking about real people and real abuse... Are you suggesting outside the possession excuse abuse doesn't happen?  does someone who abuses a child because of the claim of possession automatically make all occurances untrue?  

Anonymouse wrote:

And I have made it clear why the proof I asked for is the only one that can be acceptable for a claim as absurd as yours. You will either produce that proof, or you will admit there is no proof for demons.

So right here... why are you so convinced that this is the only acceptable proof for demons?  Can I see the research behind your conclusion?

Anonymouse wrote:

That's because demons ARE fantasy ! Admit it !

Thank you for validating your intentions.  Wasn't i right?  Your mission on this thread was to prove it wrong, not to seek out the truth.  You will never find evidence for something you refuse to consider as a possibility.  

Anonymouse wrote:

Since people such as yourself started taking their fantasies for reality ! How else am I supposed to get them to admit it ??

That's a good question.  Be it that they consider it to be reality, the burden would be on you to show them they don't exist... You would do this by showing them the alternative to the occurrances they have associated with demons and/or anything else spiritual.  

Anonymouse wrote:

Why are you making me explain things you already know yourself ? 

self reflection

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
the movie?  that was the only one i offered up... and the issue in the court case wasn't abuse.

But it DID happen !!!! If you don't consider cases where that happens to be "real" demonic possession cases, then WHY did you offer it as proof ?????

I'll be honest, I dont' fully understand what you are saying here.  Are you saying abuse did happen in this case?  What part of it was abuse?

I never said all of the abuse cases didn't have to do with possession, but again, possessed or not, there is no excuse for abusing the person.  Abuse does not get rid of the demon and/or cure the person. 

Anonymouse wrote:

I didn't ask for "information". I asked for proof, and I explained why your info doesn't qualify as such. If you don't understand why it doesn't, then tell me, and I will explain more clearly. 

And btw, since when does "biblical truth" qualify as "a more rational approach" ?

since no one has been able to refute it.  beyond that, what is proof but information that one accepts as truth?  

Sure, I don't understand why it doesn't... unless it's congruent with what i already guessed you'd say about it.

Anonymouse wrote:

Do you really not understand that records can be faked, embellished, simply made up, or even written by people who have no idea what they're talking about, and who are masking their ignorance by making up their own explanations ? 

sure, but do you not understand that though records can be faked, embellished, simply made up or even written by poeple who have no idea what they're talking about the concept can still be real?

Anonymouse wrote:

Do you really not understand that ANYONE can claim knowledge of the supernatural ? ANYONE !!!!!! 

Because, AGAIN, if you really don't understand that, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TELL ME !

Sure, anyone can claim anything, does that make it false?

Anonymouse wrote:

Oh dear, then I have an unpleasant surprise for you : Not a single atheist here would accept what you offer as "proof" for demons. Not. A. Single. One. 

So I guess you don't care about what they "believe" either. 

I'm not going to lose sleep over what people want to believe.  It's not my burden to prove something to someone who doesn't want to believe it.

Anonymouse wrote:

Which again brings up the question why you've been hanging out here for so long. Talking about traffic ? Movies ? Your stamp collection ? 

pink elephants actually.  my collection of pink elephants... oh wait.. sorry, I did say I wouldn't joke.  

I'm here to learn from others and if anyone's interested teach them about what i know.  Flexability is a part of learning and teaching however. 

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I guess it's possible... but is it rational for me to decide that to be the only proof I'd accept?

Cars aren't supernatural creatures. 

...so are you saying it's irrational?  This is why I had difficulty seeing that you had been answering questions... just like you want from me, I was just looking for a yes or no here.  The answer is not contingent on what it is.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Antipatris wrote:If you're

Antipatris wrote:

If you're referring to the threads in which JP is teaching you a history lesson, then yes, you could potentially be picking up some facts there. In this thread, though, you are going to amazing lengths to avoid contact with even the simplest notion.

What notion are you offering?  What would you accept in other words

Antipatris wrote:

No, you've been vehemently supporting belief in the existence of demons ever since the subject came up. This is a simple fact, supported by the existence of your posts in this thread.

Unless you'd like to deny the existence of those posts ?

I was wording it in a way that allowed for you to see that I believe in them without accepting their rendition of it.  What I've posted stands

Antipatris wrote:

Are you serious ? Even a child of four could explain why that analogy doesn't work. A car is a machine. A demon is a storybook character.

...and so is Santa, but He's based of an actual person in history from Turkey despite the tall tale aspect of the stories.

Antipatris wrote:

Since that doesn't make the cases we're discussing any less monstrous, why did you even bring that up ? 

because it doesn't nullify the point.

Antipatris wrote:

The excuse you're using here is often used in court-cases involving these crimes, and it has never worked (well, not since the dark ages). 

I'll tell you why : Because when something doesn't exist, claiming to have knowledge of it is simply an aggressive kind of ignorance.

The only logical place to support such belief would be the Bible and there's nothing in the Bible to support their actions toward a demon possessed person, case closed.

Antipatris wrote:

I really couldn't care less what makes you hold on to this ludicrous belief. The fact is and remains, belief in "demonic possession" is entirely toxic. At best, it causes irrational fear. At worst, it inspires parents to torture their children to death.

demons may inspire people to do that, but the belief in them does not.  another reason why I brought up the statistic

Antipatris wrote:

So tell me, what possible excuse could you, or anyone, have for not giving up this exclusively poisonous idea ? 

existence and experience

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 I also believe more lives would be saved if people were aware of Gods' existence and intentions.  I know you'll easily disagree.  I know where you stand.
 

Please try to stick to the belief in question. This is about belief in "demonic possession". I stand with the victims. So do you, but you also offer support to the delusions of their torturers. I am asking you to stop doing that. These people do not deserve to have their sick ideas supported, and you should not be harboring these vile beliefs yourself.

you're associating a belief and understanding with inappropriate actions of others.  With the cars thing, can you get mad at everyone who drives a car just because over 5000 children die each year in them?  

Antipatris wrote:

 

You are doing more than just believing. You are actively defending this insane belief on an atheist website. And would I be correct in assuming that if the subject comes up elsewhere, you don't immediately give it the scorn it so richly deserves ? 

I represent it with the same Biblical foundation anywhere

Antipatris wrote:

"Demons are real and they can possess people". That is all they need, and that is what you offer them. That is how the madness always starts. What possible reason could you have for not nipping it in the bud, knowing what terrible tragedies this can lead to ? 

If they're going to take the existence as an excuse for abusing, then they were going to find any reason to abuse... it could have been a mental disorder if the demon belief didn't exist.  You and I both know children with mental disorders are abused all the time as well... should we automatically deny the existence of mental disorders so those children don't get abused as well?

Antipatris wrote:

No, in all instances. It's a fairy tale that's being kept alive by religious fanatics who want to hang on to a shred of the power they used to have. But why you are so determined not to let it go, I have as yet no idea. I asked for your reason. I hope you gave it.

yea, not only have I seen instances and know people who have had experiences with them, no one has given me evidences or alternatives as a reason not to believe.  

Antipatris wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
the case had nothing to do with abuse

That is a lie. You should be ashamed of yourself.

She was made to kneel until her knees broke. She was denied proper care for her condition, which led to her death from starvation and dehydration. She died in excruciating pain. 

From the stories I've read about what has actually happened, She broke her own knees by smashing them over and over again on the ground... not a part of the exorcism... and she herself was refusing food and drink due to her disorder, it was not kept from her.  These are non religious or movie based sources... I just checked and you can google it too

Antipatris wrote:

So I will ask you again. Why bring up this case as proof, if you believe there is no abuse involved in "real" demonic possession cases.

it was one that most people know about and had the signs of possession.  It's a difficult story yes, but seems to be congruent with what possession would be.

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 Disbelief does not make a reality disappear.

Who said it did ? 

By the responses I've gotten, it seems that the effort is to just stop believing.  Would that make them not real if in fact they are?

Antipatris wrote:

It's not his fault that the concept under discussion is a fantasy. He's explained that quite enough as well. 

right, he's already made his decision on the truth, so why bother pushing it?  Again, not trying to get out of it here, but to conclude before investigation, is that not bias?

Antipatris wrote:

He's asking you to prove this thing you claim to "know". Since you can't, rational reasoning tells us that what you think you know is thus far only supported by your imagination. He is now waiting for you to "consider" this.

no, he's asking me to prove his fanatical understanding of this thing i claim to know.

Antipatris wrote:

Like you, they cannot prove they were telling the truth. You have just as much reason to take any supernatural claim seriously, and yet for some mysterious reason, you don't require proof to dismiss those. Think about that for a second. 

I have, and i"ve seen it.  I also was willing to consider many avenues rather than just one as far as evidence is concerned.

Antipatris wrote:

I'm guessing this "demonic event" couldn't possibly be repeated under laboratory conditions, could it ? Shy creatures, demons. Kinda like elves, trolls, leprechauns, brownies, sidhe, centaurs, chupacabras, ...etc ad infinitum...  

And yes, whatever happened to you does have a rational explanation. Don't try to pretend you don't know that.

Can you test the existence of a black hole under laboratory conditions?  Random yes, but same idea.  Not everything can be studied under laboratory conditions.  You seem so sure everything that happened to me has an alternative explanation.  How can you determine that?  

Antipatris wrote:

It's called lying to yourself and to others, and in extreme cases, stupid coincidence. The brain is a wonderful organ, capable of amazing feats of self-deception. 

"nobody's real, but they're willing to let you down..."  (powerman 5000)  Take that understanding to an extreme and how do we determine what is real?

Antipatris wrote:

So now that you have all those rational explanations, what will you do with them ? Ignore them ? 

no, ask questions about them... like i did

Antipatris wrote:

Making people repeat that very simple fact over and over again, is what is really holding back any progression.

I'm not making anyone do anything here.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
continuation

 considering that we're obviously here for the long haul on this topic, I don't know how the OP feels about where this is goign, but it is kind of off point... should we continue this on a new thread?


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:You're

caposkia wrote:

You're forgetting the third option... or did we do something to cause that person to be that way... either in their lifetime or in their bloodline history.

To answer with just your options, it's likely he did it intentionally.  John 9:1-5 Jesus' desciples ask why this person was born blind.  They thought it was sin that caused it, but Jesus said it was not sin or anyone's doing.  Rather God made him blind on purpose.. for this instance, so that the works of God can be displayed through him.  

Though we might not understand why God would do something like that to a person, it has to do with a particular mission for God.  

Ah, the "God works in mysterious ways" defense, a classic. 

 

caposkia wrote:

God may have created some with imperfect judgement... though how does one judge?  usually it's not innate, but rather a learned behavior.  Therefore its' not likely God created anyone with a certain level of judgement capabilities.  

But Adam and Eve had no one to learn from, so what did god expect? When I get a new dog, I train it to do what I want because obviously if I do not it might do something I don't want it to like bite a friend. It takes a little work, and can take several times of the dog being disobedient before I expect it to obey me. You would think that an all powerful deity could see the potential problems of releasing a couple of intelligent but ignorant beings into a world and not be terribly surprised when they don't obey his commands right away (especially since he created them so they would not). 

 

caposkia wrote:

The tree of Knowledge.  We can make assumptions all day, your assumptions lead to a laughably absurd belief.  My assumption is that God had a plan for it and that if they waited, they eventually would have been able to eat of it.  It doesn't make sense to put it there just to mess with us.  

Yes, that is the great thing about fantasies, you can just make new shit up every day instead of being bound by such constrictions as reality. Kind of like the Harry Potter books where every time there was a problem Rowling came up with a new spell that solved the problem leaving the discerning reader to wonder why if that spell existed the wizards didn't use it in the earlier books. The great thing about fantasy is that it doesn't have to be perfectly consistent. 

 

caposkia wrote:

so... lemme get this strait... A creator creates something with the freedom of learning and making their own choices from those things they learned... regardless of what choice they make and why, the creator is still responsible for that persons choices?  

With your reasoning, every parent who has a child who commits a crime should then be going to jail in place of their child... that doesn't make a lot of sense.  

Parents do not design their children. If parents were omnipotent beings who could design their children to whatever specifications they chose they would be responsible. Also, I think it is quite clear that parenting can have a huge influence on whether or not a child grows up to be a model citizen or a crook. However, parenting is hardly the only influence on a child growing up- even the best parents can at best work to be a positive influence in their child's life because not being omnipotent they cannot control everything. 

An almighty creator that created everything in the universe is responsible for everything that has influence on everything else. He designed not only Adam and Eve, but everything in their environment. So either he did not have perfect control over the environment and is therefore not omnipotent, or he did have perfect control and is therefore responsible.    

 

caposkia wrote:

awe, too serious for you?

No, I said boring. I say what I mean. It is just that I have had that same discussion with christians a thousand times and was hoping for something new. 

 

caposkia wrote:

...so you need to be face to face with a possessed person in order to believe it's real?  you would also have to investigate their symptoms yourself...  Good luck.  I'm sure you could find some place or person that deals with them near you.  You could ask them to tag along with them for a bit and see what you can see.

So you have no evidence then? You expect me to go look for it myself? No thanks. 

 

caposkia wrote:

As far as reasoning, you can google the symptoms of possession.

Sure, and I get a hundred sketchy looking websites all of which have completely different ideas of exactly what the symptoms are from violence, to speaking weird languages, to levitation, inhuman strength, excessive masturbation and everything in between.  

Comparatively, I can google autism symptoms and I will get a veritable encyclopedia of intelligent people who have studied people with those symptoms, ran tests on people with those symptoms and conducted studies testing the effectiveness of various therapies and medications that can relieve those symptoms. Can you provide me information on someone who did a comparative study of people with demonic possession where some went through exorcisms and others given a sugar pill? 

 

caposkia wrote:

Aliens?  No haven't seen enough evidence to believe so or had any experience with it

So do you have evidence of demonic possession?

 

caposkia wrote:

Sasquatch?  likely not, evidence is sketchy, but possible I guess.  Strange that no one has any clear picture of it if it is in fact so common. 

Hmmm... sketchy, you mean like the evidence of demonic possession? Strange that demonic possession never happens in a controlled medical environment. Are demons afraid of hospitals?

 

caposkia wrote:

psychic powers?  depends on what you mean by that.  I know people who have had a connection to someone else in such a way that before anyone told them, they knew something bad had happend to them, or a prophetic dream is also possible.

I hope my dreams last night were prophetic, that means I am going to have a really good time in the near future. 

 

caposkia wrote:

telekinetic powers?  no, have not seen evidence for it or had any experience with it.

Hmmm, you mean like the rest of us asking you for evidence of demonic possession?

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Since most of your replies

Since most of your replies center around missing the point in a variety of nonsensical ways, here is the point again :

You asked me what I would consider proof for demons. I told you. I explained why your "irrational proof" excuse didn't work.

And that's where you got stuck. Really, seriously stuck.

caposkia wrote:
whether you meant it or not, it said what it said.  dispute it all you want.

It said what it said, UNTIL YOU DELETED THE KEY WORD IN THE SENTENCE ! How does pointing out something you actually did turn into "disputing" ??????? 

caposkia wrote:
I do not understand that... sorry that wasn't clear the last 10 times. 

Oh please, now don't start lying as well. This is the first time you answered that question directly. I have no choice but to ask you these simple and direct questions. How else am I supposed to know for sure if you're serious or not ?

Right. Phew. Finally.

Okay then, so you don't understand why proof required to turn fantasy into reality is going to seem irrational before someone produces it.

Then let me rephrase : Do you understand, that if somebody were to produce this proof for demons I am asking for, I am going to be extremely surprised indeed ? And do you understand WHY I will be extremely surprised ? (Direct answers, please)

Can't make it any clearer than that, but do tell me if I have to.

caposkia wrote:
alright, open your eyes and look around... The evidence is difficult to see unless you know what you're looking for.  If that confuses you, then tell me. 

Why would I be confused by you failing, again, to produce the proof I asked for ? I opened my eyes and looked around, and there were no demons. End of story. 

You telling me I "didn't look in the right way" or some such nonsense will also not produce these demons. I told you this a dozen times already : You can't prove nonsense by producing even more nonsense. 

caposkia wrote:
To understand that demons exist is Biblical truth... If you're not willing to accept Biblical truth, you're not willing to accept any rational evidence of demons existing. 

I just told you, you can't prove nonsense with more nonsense. Just calling something "truth" doesn't make it true, which makes "biblical truth" the exact opposite of rational evidence. 

So you can put your bible away until someone actually asks for it.

caposkia wrote:
 I care if you do to know, but it seems that you don't...

? "i care if you do to know" ? I'm sorry, we all make typos, but I can't even guess at what that was supposed to mean.

caposkia wrote:
instead you've left me with one avenue of proof and said all or nothing.  Again, it doesn't work that way. 

And I have explained why it does. You have no more excuses left.

caposkia wrote:
Hide behind it?  What do you think I believe?  

Your belief can't turn supernatural creatures into reality, so it's not going to help you here. I already explained that. Please stop bringing up these irrelevant, time-wasting points.

caposkia wrote:
...and this is what I've been saying this whole time.  Yes, we're talking about real people and real abuse... Are you suggesting outside the possession excuse abuse doesn't happen?  

No. Would you like me to suggest that, so you can wander even further away from the bleeding obvious point of it all ? 

caposkia wrote:
 does someone who abuses a child because of the claim of possession automatically make all occurances untrue?
 

The "occurances" were untrue regardless of how cowardly and sadistic those people behaved, behave, and will keep on behaving, as long as people such as yourself keep supporting their beliefs, all in the name of "biblical truth". 

I am telling you that denying the insanity of the concept of demons, for no other reason than that you choose to "believe" the bible, is an act of cowardice with serious, tragic consequences.

caposkia wrote:
So right here... why are you so convinced that this is the only acceptable proof for demons?
 

Those were the only things I could think of that you couldn't fake. 

caposkia wrote:
 Can I see the research behind your conclusion?

It doesn't take research to think of things you can't fake. 

caposkia wrote:
 Thank you for validating your intentions.  Wasn't i right?
 

Um, no. I asked for proof, and told you I would accept it. You then not only failed to produce it, but tried to weasel out of having to come up with it in the first place.

After all that, is it really unfair to conclude that you can't produce the proof I asked for, and that you've been aware of it the whole time ? 

caposkia wrote:
Your mission on this thread was to prove it wrong, not to seek out the truth.  You will never find evidence for something you refuse to consider as a possibility.
 

If you're going to make assumptions, try not to make them direct contradictions of what I actually said. I said I would accept the evidence I specified. It's not my fault that you haven't produced it yet. 

caposkia wrote:
That's a good question.
 

And we already have the answer. I told you what I would accept as proof. Now produce it or admit there are no demons. ("irrational proof" excuse, dealt with. "biblical truth" excuse, also dealt with)

caposkia wrote:
Be it that they consider it to be reality, the burden would be on you to show them they don't exist..You would do this by showing them the alternative to the occurrances they have associated with demons and/or anything else spiritual.  
 

If reality would convince them, they would never have started believing in demons in the first place.

No, I think I might have more success by asking a believer in demons to produce acceptable proof. Which I just did. And since no proof was produced, I will now endeavor to guide you to the logical implications of that fact. Once you choose honesty over "belief", there will be one less person supporting this insane belief. 

caposkia wrote:
self reflection 
 

But that doesn't make any sense. YOU are the one who's denying those facts, not me. 

caposkia wrote:
I'll be honest, I dont' fully understand what you are saying here.  Are you saying abuse did happen in this case?  What part of it was abuse? 
 

??????????????????? What the hell is wrong with you ? I told you ! TWICE ! How can you even claim you didn't know ????? They made her kneel until her knees BROKE ! They denied her medical care until she died !

caposkia wrote:
I never said all of the abuse cases didn't have to do with possession,
 

That's another lie. Here's what you said :

caposkia wrote:
and of all possession stories and exorcisms that I'm aware of, torture from other people to the possessed person is NOT part of the process.
 

And you WERE aware of this case.

caposkia wrote:
but again, possessed or not, there is no excuse for abusing the person.  Abuse does not get rid of the demon and/or cure the person. 
 

Making up stories and rules about imaginary creatures does not make them real. 

caposkia wrote:
since no one has been able to refute it.
 

Except for reality itself. Takes a lot of wasted energy to keep ignoring that one.

caposkia wrote:
beyond that, what is proof but information that one accepts as truth?
  

Seriously ? Well, it would need to be reality-based, for starters. Otherwise you could just take your own imagination as proof for whatever the heck you fancied. 

caposkia wrote:
Sure, I don't understand why it doesn't... unless it's congruent with what i already guessed you'd say about it.
 

This is a bit puzzling, as it would suggest you don't understand something you explained yourself, but okay, you get into that a little later, so I'll explain there.

caposkia wrote:
sure, but do you not understand that though records can be faked, embellished, simply made up or even written by poeple who have no idea what they're talking about the concept can still be real?

And do you now understand the necessity of being able to prove that ? 

caposkia wrote:
Sure, anyone can claim anything, does that make it false?

Doesn't make it true either, hence the necessity for proof.

I have to say, I'll be damn impressed if you STILL manage somehow to miss the point now. 

caposkia wrote:
I'm not going to lose sleep over what people want to believe.  It's not my burden to prove something to someone who doesn't want to believe it.

Which is why you've been defending your insane faith here for, what ? , 5 years or so ? Lol.

Oh, and AGAIN, if you bring us the proof, we will believe. ("biblical proof" excuse, dealt with. "irrational proof" excuse, also dealt with. Time for a new excuse ?)

caposkia wrote:
I'm here to learn from others and if anyone's interested teach them about what i know.

Then I guess it really all comes down to your discussions with JP. I'm sure he'll be honored you're here just for him.

caposkia wrote:
Flexability is a part of learning and teaching however.

Meh, "flexability" can turn out as hypocrisy. I'd say honesty is more important.  

caposkia wrote:
...so are you saying it's irrational?

Why not read what I write ? I said "cars aren't supernatural creatures". 

caposkia wrote:
This is why I had difficulty seeing that you had been answering questions... just like you want from me, I was just looking for a yes or no here.  The answer is not contingent on what it is.

I have rephrased the amazingly simple concept you have so much trouble grasping (and again, this is encouraging), in a way that would make it virtually impossible to miss the point again, as you're doing again now.

Just focus on the underlined section. We're almost at the finish line.

 

 


 


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 205
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:What notion

caposkia wrote:
What notion are you offering?

I was of course referring to the notion of proof required to turn fantasy into reality, seeming irrational before someone produces it

 

caposkia wrote:
I was wording it in a way that allowed for you to see that I believe in them without accepting their rendition of it.

So you admit and realize you do more than "believing". Good.

Now understand that you still support their belief in the reality of "demonic possession", which is the starting point that leads to abuse and torture, regardless of you supporting their "rendition" of it.

 

caposkia wrote:
What I've posted stands

How can you be anything but deeply ashamed of that ? 


 

caposkia wrote:
...and so is Santa, but He's based of an actual person in history from Turkey despite the tall tale aspect of the stories.

Which doesn't make santa real. Once again a child of four needs to teach you a lesson. Learn it. REMEMBER IT !

 

caposkia wrote:
because it doesn't nullify the point.

?????????? 

You brought it up because it doesn't nullify the point ??? Then why bring it up in the first place ?!!!!

 

caposkia wrote:
The only logical place to support such belief would be the Bible and there's nothing in the Bible to support their actions toward a demon possessed person, case closed.

You manage to both miss the point and bring up more nonsense at the same time. Claiming knowledge of something that doesn't exist is insane, and any religious text that encourages belief in "demonic possession" is only exacerbating the problem, as are you.

 

caposkia wrote:
demons may inspire people to do that, but the belief in them does not.

Belief in them is what makes all those tragedies possible in the first place. There is simply no good reason imaginable to even consider defending a belief in "demonic possession". 

 

caposkia wrote:
 another reason why I brought up the statistic

Your statistic is irrelevant to what's being discussed. You admitted it yourself !

 

caposkia wrote:
existence and experience

But you cannot prove they exist or were ever experienced by you or anybody ! You have nothing ! Nothing is not a reason !

So I will ask you again : What possible reason can you have not to give up this exclusively toxic belief ?


 

caposkia wrote:
you're associating a belief and understanding with inappropriate actions of others.

NO, and I already explained this to you : I am associating you defending this insane belief on this atheist website with someone reading it and accepting your mad "reasoning". 

 

caposkia wrote:
With the cars thing, can you get mad at everyone who drives a car just because over 5000 children die each year in them?  

You're going to tire out this poor four year old. Once again : cars=machines, demons=made-up nonsense. Enough with the false analogies already.

 

caposkia wrote:
I represent it with the same Biblical foundation anywhere

So we establish and affirm yet again that you do more than just believing. 

 

caposkia wrote:
If they're going to take the existence as an excuse for abusing, then they were going to find any reason to abuse... 

Wrong again. Who said they actually wanted to do this to the victim, before they "learned" there was a "demon from hell" involved ? Those people love their kids, which makes the whole "demon" belief even more vile and insidious.

And as for the sadistic nutjobs, what other excuse offers them the chance to get away with it, and create for themselves, and others unlucky enough to believe them, the illusion of "battling supernatural evil", something they know will always resonate with an extremely large group of religious people?

  

caposkia wrote:
it could have been a mental disorder if the demon belief didn't exist.  You and I both know children with mental disorders are abused all the time as well... should we automatically deny the existence of mental disorders so those children don't get abused as well?

I just asked you to stop with the false analogies. Mental disorders are real. Demons are not. 

 

caposkia wrote:
yea, not only have I seen instances and know people who have had experiences with them, no one has given me evidences or alternatives as a reason not to believe.
 

Hearsay is not evidence for supernatural creatures. If it was, you would believe anything anyone told you. And if a complete lack of evidence for an absurd claim really wouldn't make you reject it, then you would, again, believe anything anyone told you. 

So you have nothing, and I'm forced to ask you again :

What possible reason could you have to keep supporting such an exclusively vile and destructive belief ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
From the stories I've read about what has actually happened, She broke her own knees by smashing them over and over again on the ground... not a part of the exorcism

No, that is NOT TRUE. It WAS part of the exorcism. Even the german supernatural sites don't bother to hide this well-known fact :

 "Ihre Knie sind aufgeplatzt, weil sie während der Exorzismen bis zu sechshundertmal dem Zwang nach Kniebeugen nachgibt. "
 

Source : http://www.spiritrelease.ch/html_geister/anneliese-michel.html

On what planet is that not abuse ???????


 

caposkia wrote:
... and she herself was refusing food and drink due to her disorder, it was not kept from her.  These are non religious or movie based sources... I just checked and you can google it too

She was convinced she was possessed ! Even if part of what happened was self-abuse, that just makes it even more horrible ! And not forcing necessary care on someone who's slowly killing themselves in the most painful way possible, for no other reason than that they believe in demons, is ALSO abuse. 

This tragedy could have been averted, but for the sake of your precious idiotic belief, it ended in torture, abuse and death.

Again, what possible reason could you, could anyone have to keep this belief in "demonic possession" alive ?  

 

caposkia wrote:
it was one that most people know about and had the signs of possession.  It's a difficult story yes, but seems to be congruent with what possession would be.

So suddenly abuse doesn't count as disqualification anymore ? Make your mind up. Does it, yes or no ? 


 

caposkia wrote:
By the responses I've gotten, it seems that the effort is to just stop believing.  Would that make them not real if in fact they are?

Your misinterpretations of other people's responses are getting us nowhere. Nobody ever suggested "believing" could make fantasy into reality or vice versa. They've been telling you the exact opposite and explaining why !

 

caposkia wrote:
right, he's already made his decision on the truth, so why bother pushing it?  Again, not trying to get out of it here, but to conclude before investigation, is that not bias?

Again, please stop so blatantly and absurdly misrepresenting what people tell you ! He's made it clear, again and again, what he would ACCEPT as evidence.  Stop doing this, seriously. 

 

caposkia wrote:
no, he's asking me to prove his fanatical understanding of this thing i claim to know.

You're not going to stop, are you ? 

And you also simply don't listen to what he tells you. How many times has he been forced to repeat that there is nothing fanatical about demanding proof for a supernatural claim ??? Do I now have to repeat it as well ? Is it really THAT hard to understand ??

And he also explained WHY your "irrational evidence" excuse doesn't work, and the same for your "biblical truth" excuse. We are all waiting for you to "learn". Or at least to listen ! So we don't have to keep repeating not only ourselves, BUT OTHER PEOPLE AS WELL !

 

caposkia wrote:
I have, and i"ve seen it.
 

Seen what ? What are you talking about ?? I am asking if you also accept the uncountable other supernatural claims, that have just as much in the way of proof as the ones you DO accept. You do not. I asked you to think about that, and this is all you have to say ?? Do I have to spell it out for you ? This means your standard for proof is worthless !

 

caposkia wrote:
I also was willing to consider many avenues rather than just one as far as evidence is concerned.
 

It's been explained to you, quite clearly, repeatedly and succinctly, just exactly WHY those other avenues don't lead anywhere. Read what he actually said before you come here and misrepresent it. 

 

caposkia wrote:
 Can you test the existence of a black hole under laboratory conditions?  Random yes, but same idea.  Not everything can be studied under laboratory conditions.
 

Could you please do something about your addiction to false analogies ? You can't just keep going like this.

 

caposkia wrote:
You seem so sure everything that happened to me has an alternative explanation.  How can you determine that?
 

Because there is no proof for your insane, toxic supernatural claim. None. Nothing.

You have no excuses left not to draw the only possible conclusion. 

 

caposkia wrote:
"nobody's real, but they're willing to let you down..."  (powerman 5000)  Take that understanding to an extreme and how do we determine what is real?
 

I don't know who that is or what he thinks he's talking about. If you have something to say, try using your own words. 

 

caposkia wrote:
no, ask questions about them... like i did
 

Your questions were answered. 

So will you now adopt the rational explanations and drop the supernatural ones ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
I'm not making anyone do anything here.
 

If you keep misinterpreting what we say, and keep making mistakes we already corrected, what else can we do but repeat ourselves ?? 

If you really want progress, then prove it by at least remembering what people tell you. 

 


 


 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Ah, the

Beyond Saving wrote:

Ah, the "God works in mysterious ways" defense, a classic. 

actually, the scenario used as an example was quite clear when Jesus made the man born blind see again.... but sure if that helps you sleep

Beyond Saving wrote:

But Adam and Eve had no one to learn from, so what did god expect? When I get a new dog, I train it to do what I want because obviously if I do not it might do something I don't want it to like bite a friend. It takes a little work, and can take several times of the dog being disobedient before I expect it to obey me. You would think that an all powerful deity could see the potential problems of releasing a couple of intelligent but ignorant beings into a world and not be terribly surprised when they don't obey his commands right away (especially since he created them so they would not). 

are you saying the conversation between Satan and them didn't happen?  Satan didn't teach them false information like God was actually lying and that they wouldn't die if they ate of it?  They had no intention of eating it as far as we can see before another entity came down to teach them differently.

I'm sure with your dog, if someone else came in while you were training him and started teaching him to bite people, your dog would have different actions around people.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

The tree of Knowledge.  We can make assumptions all day, your assumptions lead to a laughably absurd belief.  My assumption is that God had a plan for it and that if they waited, they eventually would have been able to eat of it.  It doesn't make sense to put it there just to mess with us.  

Yes, that is the great thing about fantasies, you can just make new shit up every day instead of being bound by such constrictions as reality. Kind of like the Harry Potter books where every time there was a problem Rowling came up with a new spell that solved the problem leaving the discerning reader to wonder why if that spell existed the wizards didn't use it in the earlier books. The great thing about fantasy is that it doesn't have to be perfectly consistent. 

so, she was making assumptions or she was just trying to make the story work?  I haven't seen the inconsistencies you're likely referencing to here in the topic at hand.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Parents do not design their children.

who does?  They raise them from birth and also the 2 create them don't they?  Why wouldn't a parent be responsible for what their child does?

 Also, I think it is quite clear that parenting can have a huge influence on whether or not a child grows up to be a model citizen or a crook.

my point exactly

Beyond Saving wrote:

However, parenting is hardly the only influence on a child growing up- even the best parents can at best work to be a positive influence in their child's life because not being omnipotent they cannot control everything. 

ah, and there we have it... though are you suggesting that omnipotence causes control over everything?  Wouldn't an omnipotent being be able to choose whether they have control over something?  Hmmm... do I want to create a race of robots all forced to do as I say, or do I want a race of people free to choose whether they want to love me or not....

Beyond Saving wrote:

An almighty creator that created everything in the universe is responsible for everything that has influence on everything else. He designed not only Adam and Eve, but everything in their environment. So either he did not have perfect control over the environment and is therefore not omnipotent, or he did have perfect control and is therefore responsible.    

...so either he made us all robots and we have no choice in what we do, or we have choice and he's not perfect... something's wrong with this scenario.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

No, I said boring. I say what I mean. It is just that I have had that same discussion with christians a thousand times and was hoping for something new. 

Good to know.  How about instead of jumping to your own conclusions and deciding the result before you even begin a conversation (and yes, i feel like we've barely begun a conversation) approach a Christian with an open mind and discuss things as if they all have a possibility.... You might be surprised at where the conversation goes.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

...so you need to be face to face with a possessed person in order to believe it's real?  you would also have to investigate their symptoms yourself...  Good luck.  I'm sure you could find some place or person that deals with them near you.  You could ask them to tag along with them for a bit and see what you can see.

So you have no evidence then? You expect me to go look for it myself? No thanks. 

Just like you, i mean what I say... when i asked you a question... I actually meant to ask you a question.  when I made a statement regarding the question at hand, I meant that it would be contingent upon that approach.  

If you're expecting a face to face encounter with a possessed person, yea, I'm fresh out of stock... but if your answer is yes, I gave you the means as to which you could possibly get that.  

You don't want to do the homework?  tough luck... Not everything can be handed to you on a silver platter.  Dont' challenge someone to evidence of a truth if you're not willing to do the legwork to get the answer with them. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Sure, and I get a hundred sketchy looking websites all of which have completely different ideas of exactly what the symptoms are from violence, to speaking weird languages, to levitation, inhuman strength, excessive masturbation and everything in between.  

They probably worded it as "symptoms can include".  How about all the above?  Just like mental illness, it is unique to the person possessed and the demon possessing them.  If it was just as simple as googling the answer, then you wouldn't need demonologists and those who specialize in the field to actually diagnose it.  Amateurs can't diagnose a mental illness appropriately either... it's why we pay doctors to do it.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Comparatively, I can google autism symptoms and I will get a veritable encyclopedia of intelligent people who have studied people with those symptoms, ran tests on people with those symptoms and conducted studies testing the effectiveness of various therapies and medications that can relieve those symptoms. Can you provide me information on someone who did a comparative study of people with demonic possession where some went through exorcisms and others given a sugar pill? 

Unlike possession, typically a person with a mental illness is stuck with it... it is more constant... this would be one reason why you'd find many more studies on the subject.  CAn I find a comparative study of people with demonic possession?  Lemme check... 

Ok, so This link is I think the best "scientific/psychological" explanation I have found to date.  Due to the limitations as the article says, we can only see it as an unconscious manifestation, but these articles make it clear that it is distinct from other mental illnesses.  

http://medicinefuture.hubpages.com/hub/Demonicpossessionandscience

and check out:

http://medicinefuture.hubpages.com/hub/parasychologyanddemoniacpossession (2nd link at the bottom of the first article)  

No, I don't believe this is the complete answer, but as far as studies go, I do believe this is the extent as to which we can "study" the phenomenon.  The main point is that it is distinct from other mental illnesses.  

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Since most

Anonymouse wrote:

Since most of your replies center around missing the point in a variety of nonsensical ways, here is the point again :

You asked me what I would consider proof for demons. I told you. I explained why your "irrational proof" excuse didn't work.

And that's where you got stuck. Really, seriously stuck.

I love how you turn it into an excuse on my part.  I did ask you, you told me... I told you it doesn't work that way... call it an excuse, say I'm avoiding, whatever you want... it doesn't change what it is.  You can be happy believing what you want.  Doesn't bother me.  apparently there is no other way of knowing for you.  You might want to read the articles I linked in the previous post... Maybe then you'll see why I call your considered proof as irrational.  

Anonymouse wrote:

It said what it said, UNTIL YOU DELETED THE KEY WORD IN THE SENTENCE ! How does pointing out something you actually did turn into "disputing" ??????? 

yea... um.. give it up... I even replied to the full post in tact with nothing taken out and explained why i came to the same conclusion.  Moving on.

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I do not understand that... sorry that wasn't clear the last 10 times. 

Oh please, now don't start lying as well.

yea, I guess, irrational, doesn't work that way, trying to turn fantasy into reality doesn't make sense etc didn't work... not lying, recheck the posts.  Ask Brian, I don't lie.  

Anonymouse wrote:

This is the first time you answered that question directly.

We both apparently did the same thing to each other then... Let's agree to answer directly from now on.

Anonymouse wrote:

I have no choice but to ask you these simple and direct questions. How else am I supposed to know for sure if you're serious or not ?

don't know

Anonymouse wrote:

Okay then, so you don't understand why proof required to turn fantasy into reality is going to seem irrational before someone produces it.

well, I think I get that part... trying to turn fantasy into reality IS irrational... If I'm wrong, explain it to me please.

Anonymouse wrote:

Then let me rephrase : Do you understand, that if somebody were to produce this proof for demons I am asking for, I am going to be extremely surprised indeed ? And do you understand WHY I will be extremely surprised ? (Direct answers, please)

yes, and I would be surprised too.  But so I"m not making assumptions, why would you be surprised?

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
alright, open your eyes and look around... The evidence is difficult to see unless you know what you're looking for.  If that confuses you, then tell me. 

Why would I be confused by you failing, again, to produce the proof I asked for ? I opened my eyes and looked around, and there were no demons. End of story. 

yup, end of story

Anonymouse wrote:

You telling me I "didn't look in the right way" or some such nonsense will also not produce these demons. I told you this a dozen times already : You can't prove nonsense by producing even more nonsense. 

right, but tell me how I can prove Kangaroos exist by looking for apples?  I'll bet you looked around for a demon standing there physically in front of you... or behind you... or to the side... or maybe hiding under your bed right?

Anonymouse wrote:

I just told you, you can't prove nonsense with more nonsense. Just calling something "truth" doesn't make it true, which makes "biblical truth" the exact opposite of rational evidence. 

So you can put your bible away until someone actually asks for it.

Right, remember your own statement above... your truth is that demons don't exist... "just calling something "truth" doesn't make it true"  (a wise person once said)

Anonymouse wrote:

? "i care if you do to know" ? I'm sorry, we all make typos, but I can't even guess at what that was supposed to mean.

If you care to know, i care to help you know whatever it is you want to know, but you have to accept when an approach is out to left field too.

Anonymouse wrote:

And I have explained why it does. You have no more excuses left.

alright, I'll play... and I have explained why it doesn't.  You have no more excuses left...

How long do you want to do this before we start discussing the topic again?

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
...and this is what I've been saying this whole time.  Yes, we're talking about real people and real abuse... Are you suggesting outside the possession excuse abuse doesn't happen?  

No. Would you like me to suggest that, so you can wander even further away from the bleeding obvious point of it all ? 

no, just needed to hear you say "no" to that so we can see your abuse excuse doesn't work

Anonymouse wrote:

The "occurances" were untrue regardless of how cowardly and sadistic those people behaved, behave, and will keep on behaving, as long as people such as yourself keep supporting their beliefs, all in the name of "biblical truth". 

can you send me a link to that study?  

Anonymouse wrote:

Those were the only things I could think of that you couldn't fake. 

AH!  ok, this makes a lot more sense.  I wish you said that up front.  You're suggesting then that you cannot tell whether any other evidence is faked in regards to possession or demons?  

Would you mind giving me some examples of "faked" evidence on this front?  I'm just curious on where you're coming from with this.

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 Can I see the research behind your conclusion?

It doesn't take research to think of things you can't fake. 

...so then... no?

Anonymouse wrote:
 

Um, no. I asked for proof, and told you I would accept it. You then not only failed to produce it, but tried to weasel out of having to come up with it in the first place.

I try to weasel out of all of it huh... wouldn't the easier way out be to just... walk away?  I can come up with a religious slam that would look good to all the believers and probably not work for any of you.  I would vindicate myself in the process to all those believers out there and your opinions wouldn't matter... instead, I'm still here... what's your excuse now?

Anonymouse wrote:

After all that, is it really unfair to conclude that you can't produce the proof I asked for, and that you've been aware of it the whole time ? 

not unfair to conclude that i can't produce the proof you asked for.. I gave reasons to why.  Also, i have been aware of that the whole time... you didn't notice when I said it was irrational, it doesn't work that way, etc?  I know that's an excuse for you to throw out the whole case, so go for it if you want.  I still hold to other angles of evidence that actually make sense... start with those articles.

Anonymouse wrote:

If you're going to make assumptions, try not to make them direct contradictions of what I actually said. 

You've done that to me.  Don't be hypocritical.  

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Be it that they consider it to be reality, the burden would be on you to show them they don't exist..You would do this by showing them the alternative to the occurrances they have associated with demons and/or anything else spiritual.  
 

If reality would convince them, they would never have started believing in demons in the first place.

that right there is quite an assumption on your part.

Anonymouse wrote:

No, I think I might have more success by asking a believer in demons to produce acceptable proof. Which I just did. And since no proof was produced, I will now endeavor to guide you to the logical implications of that fact. Once you choose honesty over "belief", there will be one less person supporting this insane belief. 

ooh... is it working yet?  How long do you fail at an attempt before you try something different?  I've failed to convince you that your proof request is not based on reality, so I've basically stopped trying to convince you of that... I'm just responding to your rants now.  I am hoping that you're going to soon be willing to try something new instead of using assumptions and redundancies.. Again ask Brian, he failed as well... he may deny that, but ask him where our conversation went... the correct answer would be nowhere.

Anonymouse wrote:

??????????????????? What the hell is wrong with you ? I told you ! TWICE ! How can you even claim you didn't know ????? They made her kneel until her knees BROKE ! They denied her medical care until she died !

She broke her knees by slamming them on the ground repeatedly, your knees don't just shatter by being in a kneeling position.  She also ended up refusing all help including the exorcisms.  Self abuse, sure, not abuse from others.

Anonymouse wrote:
 

caposkia wrote:
I never said all of the abuse cases didn't have to do with possession,
 

That's another lie. Here's what you said :

caposkia wrote:
and of all possession stories and exorcisms that I'm aware of, torture from other people to the possessed person is NOT part of the process.
 

And you WERE aware of this case.

wow, so you reposted it and you still don't see it?  Ok, lemme explain... the quote you reposted specifically says:  "and of all the possession stories and exorcisms that I'm aware of, TORTURE FROM THE OTHER PEOPLE TO THE POSSESSED PERSON IS NOT PART OF THE PROCESS." 

That statement is in reference to the process of exorcism and how it should be performed and has nothing to do with the statistics of abuse cases being related to legitimate possessions or not.  Not all exorcisms are done appropriately  It also specifies the cases that I'm aware of.  Just because torture and abuse is not a part of the appropriate process does not suggest that abuse does not happen in legitimate possession cases...

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
beyond that, what is proof but information that one accepts as truth?
  

Seriously ? Well, it would need to be reality-based, for starters. Otherwise you could just take your own imagination as proof for whatever the heck you fancied. 

What is reality?  I'm looking for an objective answer, not what you think it is. 

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
sure, but do you not understand that though records can be faked, embellished, simply made up or even written by poeple who have no idea what they're talking about the concept can still be real?

And do you now understand the necessity of being able to prove that ? 

Still answering all my questions?

To answer yours, yes, i do, but we can't get past your proof of fantasy to reality concept.

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Sure, anyone can claim anything, does that make it false?

Doesn't make it true either, hence the necessity for proof.

now we're getting somewhere, so we can at least agree that claims by themselves cannot make anything true or false right?  So lets' get away from the claims excuses then for support.

Anonymouse wrote:

Which is why you've been defending your insane faith here for, what ? , 5 years or so ? Lol.

you still think I'm here defending my faith huh?  I've explained it 100 times in these 5 years.  I'm here with an open mind to have a discussion about truth, whatever that might be.  If anyone has something against my belief, I will research it and discuss it.  Do you still wonder why we haven't gotten anywhere?

Anonymouse wrote:

Oh, and AGAIN, if you bring us the proof, we will believe. ("biblical proof" excuse, dealt with. "irrational proof" excuse, also dealt with. Time for a new excuse ?)

puppies in peanutbutter... proves demonic possession... and..... Go!  

EEH... sorry, I have a hard time not joking in conversations like these.

Anonymouse wrote:

Then I guess it really all comes down to your discussions with JP. I'm sure he'll be honored you're here just for him.

He's the only one currrently willing to discuss rationally and with progression.  I've discussed with many others in the same manner... you decide how you want the conversation to go.  I don't just give in to your idea of truth just because you offer one avenue of irrational proof and expect a result.  If you had research or support behind why that is the only way to prove it, I'm willing to look into it.  

Anonymouse wrote:

Meh, "flexability" can turn out as hypocrisy. I'd say honesty is more important.  

I like honesty.

caposkia wrote:
...so are you saying it's irrational?

Why not read what I write ? I said "cars aren't supernatural creatures". 

you quickly jump on me for not answering you directly and yet you can't give me a simple yes or no for that?

After reading what you said, I said the answer is not contingent on what the object or subject is. So yes or no?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Antipatris wrote:I was of

Antipatris wrote:

I was of course referring to the notion of proof required to turn fantasy into reality, seeming irrational before someone produces it

isn't it?  Maybe you can explain it better

Antipatris wrote:

So you admit and realize you do more than "believing". Good.

Now understand that you still support their belief in the reality of "demonic possession", which is the starting point that leads to abuse and torture, regardless of you supporting their "rendition" of it.

Statistically speaking, I don't think that holds water...  Do you have a study on this?  I'm still under the belief that if someone was to abuse or torture someone else that they'd find any excuse to get away with it including possession, but I'm willing to look into what you have

Antipatris wrote:

How can you be anything but deeply ashamed of that ? 

Those who know what I believe don't make the same associations you do.  I am ashamed for those who present themselves as Christian and yet abuse or torture others in the name of God.  It's appauling! 

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
...and so is Santa, but He's based of an actual person in history from Turkey despite the tall tale aspect of the stories.

Which doesn't make santa real. Once again a child of four needs to teach you a lesson. Learn it. REMEMBER IT !

actually, it does... not that he exists today, rather that he existed in history as a person who gave gifts to homeless children and families with little or no money.

Antipatris wrote:

?????????? 

You brought it up because it doesn't nullify the point ??? Then why bring it up in the first place ?!!!!

to make that point clear

Antipatris wrote:

Belief in them is what makes all those tragedies possible in the first place. There is simply no good reason imaginable to even consider defending a belief in "demonic possession". 

do you honestly believe those tragedies would all be avoided if demonic possession or the belief in it was not an aspect?  I believe those people would have found another excuse.

Antipatris wrote:

But you cannot prove they exist or were ever experienced by you or anybody ! You have nothing ! Nothing is not a reason !

So I will ask you again : What possible reason can you have not to give up this exclusively toxic belief ?

experience and reliable sources with experience.  Understanding and knowledge in the subject matter as well.

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
With the cars thing, can you get mad at everyone who drives a car just because over 5000 children die each year in them?  

You're going to tire out this poor four year old. Once again : cars=machines, demons=made-up nonsense. Enough with the false analogies already.

c'mon, you know the reasoning parallels.  It really doesnt' matter what the subject matter is, it could be carbon monoxide for all I care.

Antipatris wrote:

Wrong again. Who said they actually wanted to do this to the victim, before they "learned" there was a "demon from hell" involved ? Those people love their kids, which makes the whole "demon" belief even more vile and insidious.

ok, then I'm  curious where they get the idea that abuse is the way to rid them of this possession.  It's not the bible

Antipatris wrote:

And as for the sadistic nutjobs, what other excuse offers them the chance to get away with it, and create for themselves, and others unlucky enough to believe them, the illusion of "battling supernatural evil", something they know will always resonate with an extremely large group of religious people?

well, with the extremely religious crowds, what about deviant behavior for starters...  doesn't have to be demonic.

Antipatris wrote:

I just asked you to stop with the false analogies. Mental disorders are real. Demons are not. 

k

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
From the stories I've read about what has actually happened, She broke her own knees by smashing them over and over again on the ground... not a part of the exorcism

No, that is NOT TRUE. It WAS part of the exorcism. Even the german supernatural sites don't bother to hide this well-known fact :

 "Ihre Knie sind aufgeplatzt, weil sie während der Exorzismen bis zu sechshundertmal dem Zwang nach Kniebeugen nachgibt. "
 

Source : http://www.spiritrelease.ch/html_geister/anneliese-michel.html

On what planet is that not abuse ???????

That says it happened during the exorcism.  It says nothing about anyone making her do it.  

Antipatris wrote:

She was convinced she was possessed ! Even if part of what happened was self-abuse, that just makes it even more horrible ! And not forcing necessary care on someone who's slowly killing themselves in the most painful way possible, for no other reason than that they believe in demons, is ALSO abuse. 

...and this is where the court case comes in...  I see what you're saying here though...

Antipatris wrote:

This tragedy could have been averted, but for the sake of your precious idiotic belief, it ended in torture, abuse and death.

It could have been averted... maybe... but if demons are real, what could have been instead?  I know you're bent on convincing me that they're not, but the only way you're giong to do that is by showing me the convincing research that convinced you.

Antipatris wrote:

So suddenly abuse doesn't count as disqualification anymore ? Make your mind up. Does it, yes or no ? 

Abuse is not a part of it.  I see what you were saying above though of not forcing her... however there are laws that say if she can verbally refuse, you can't make her... she was verbally refusing from what I can tell.

yes, deemed mentally ill, someone can override that law, however, then were was everyone else who knew about her condition that could have done something about it?  it wasn't kept secret, doctors were giving her meds for a short time... why no followup? why no intervention on the family?

Antipatris wrote:

You're not going to stop, are you ? 

I stick it out... it's interesting to me to see how far people will take it.

Antipatris wrote:

And you also simply don't listen to what he tells you. How many times has he been forced to repeat that there is nothing fanatical about demanding proof for a supernatural claim ??? Do I now have to repeat it as well ? Is it really THAT hard to understand ??

no, I understand what he's doing.  he's choosing to repeat himself.  i have made my position on it clear

Antipatris wrote:

And he also explained WHY your "irrational evidence" excuse doesn't work, and the same for your "biblical truth" excuse. We are all waiting for you to "learn". Or at least to listen ! So we don't have to keep repeating not only ourselves, BUT OTHER PEOPLE AS WELL !

I'm reading all of it.. I have nothing to go on yet as far as questioning my own belief.  

Antipatris wrote:

Seen what ? What are you talking about ?? I am asking if you also accept the uncountable other supernatural claims, that have just as much in the way of proof as the ones you DO accept. You do not. I asked you to think about that, and this is all you have to say ?? Do I have to spell it out for you ? This means your standard for proof is worthless !

no, I do not accept all of the uncountable other supernatural claims... we've already agreed that people can make things up.  I've made it clear where I stand.  My standard of proof has not been brought to light in these conversations, we've gotten stuck on particulars.

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 Can you test the existence of a black hole under laboratory conditions?  Random yes, but same idea.  Not everything can be studied under laboratory conditions.
 

Could you please do something about your addiction to false analogies ? You can't just keep going like this.

that was a simple question really

Antipatris wrote:

Because there is no proof for your insane, toxic supernatural claim. None. Nothing.

You have no excuses left not to draw the only possible conclusion. 

ok... great!  not convincing... but great!

Antipatris wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
"nobody's real, but they're willing to let you down..."  (powerman 5000)  Take that understanding to an extreme and how do we determine what is real?
 

I don't know who that is or what he thinks he's talking about. If you have something to say, try using your own words. 

Awe, not a metalhead?  sorry.  the idea is reality is in your mind.  It can be very subjective.

Antipatris wrote:

Your questions were answered. 

yes, yes they were weren't they.

Antipatris wrote:

So will you now adopt the rational explanations and drop the supernatural ones ? 

no, you can't let go of yours that easily can you?

Antipatris wrote:

If you keep misinterpreting what we say, and keep making mistakes we already corrected, what else can we do but repeat ourselves ?? 

how about consider what I've said about it and try something different... no... wait... that would to logical

Antipatris wrote:

If you really want progress, then prove it by at least remembering what people tell you. 

It's hard to stay focused when the last time the problem question was brought up was so many extensive posts ago.  

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
re :: .. deo dignus vindice nodus

Re :: .. deo dignus vindice nodus (latin)
_______________________
{Anonymouse wrote}

Anonymouse wrote:

Which is why you've been defending your insane faith here for, what ? , 5 years or so ?

You replied, "..you still think I'm here defending my faith huh? I've explained it 100 times in these 5 years. I'm here with an open mind to have a discussion about truth, whatever that might be."



To :: Cap (the good one!!):


Makes good sense to be able to use your long standing Thread as a novel model for threads in the future. It is one others have wished to copy (I've witnessed with my own eyes), and was highly intelligent tact for you to (purposefully) 'limit' the conversation. Being topic driven by this indispensable model and approach to broader textual discussions or any future discussions (really). I dont know if you've ever heard that from anyone on the board (before/yet). So I am saying. Although, I may be extending such 'praise', because of having 'suffered' some cheap shots about my age, in some very patronizing behavior and comments, in the clear form of going out of your way to ridicule. I didnt look at my adversary in the eye (so to speak) and replied, “Do you really think that little of me?” Most patronizing people tend to back off quickly when their little game is exposed without rancor. I doubt it applies to actual , factual troll(s), so I not so subtlety went with a different tact w/ him. I am being sincere when I say all of this. I am so very thankful for you, Cap (the good one). You most certainly are not a troll and should be commended for that most highly. The Book of Romans tells us, "to give honor, unto whom honor is due". In your case it is much deserved for the way you carry yourself. Nice to make comparisons between people.

¬ Your (Hoping) 'Friend',


D a n a
-

:


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:experience

caposkia wrote:

actually, the scenario used as an example was quite clear when Jesus made the man born blind see again.... but sure if that helps you sleep

The following assumes the 'God' caposkia speaks of is exactly as he describes:

And what about every other scenario, caposkia? Why did your asshole of a God give me depression, huh? And what about the dozen or so people I PERSONALLY KNOW who wish for death on a daily basis? Are those the scenarios where God "works in mysterious ways"? (Granted, such ways are mysterious to me, but that's because I don't think like a sociopath.)

 

caposkia wrote:

who does?

No one does, caposkia.

 

caposkia wrote:

Self abuse, sure, not abuse from others.

Self abuse because she was convinced by others she was evil and/or under the control of an evil entity. Children and the mentally ill are far more suggestible and vulnerable than healthy adults.

 

caposkia wrote:

experience and reliable sources with experience.  Understanding and knowledge in the subject matter as well.

I'd be very interested in you detailing your experience, your reliable sources, and your understanding and knowledge on the subject matter of "demons".

 

caposkia wrote:

I know you're bent on convincing me that they're not, but the only way you're going to do that is by showing me the convincing research that convinced you.

I generally don't look up or do research to disprove something for which I've never found any credible evidence for. If what you have about demons is actually convincing, then I may look for research that gives alternative and/or more likely explanations.

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:are you

caposkia wrote:

are you saying the conversation between Satan and them didn't happen?  Satan didn't teach them false information like God was actually lying and that they wouldn't die if they ate of it?  They had no intention of eating it as far as we can see before another entity came down to teach them differently.

I'm sure with your dog, if someone else came in while you were training him and started teaching him to bite people, your dog would have different actions around people.

Of course it didn't happen, none of it did because it is all made up. But within your little fairy tale, who created satan? God did right? At least that is what I have been told because God created everything. Now me, as a mere mortal am able to control the people who have access to my dog, and if someone is teaching my dog to be aggressive I am going to stop them right away. If I can do so as a mortal, why can't an omnipotent god do the same thing? 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Parents do not design their children.

who does?  They raise them from birth and also the 2 create them don't they?  Why wouldn't a parent be responsible for what their child does?

Do you need a sex ed class? Maybe you have a lot more control than me, but once my sperm comes out I have no control over which one reaches the egg, let alone any ability to determine which genetic material is preferable. It is completely up to random chance, I don't even have control over whether the child is male or female. There may come a time when humans have that kind of detailed control, but certainly not in my lifetime. An omnipotent god on the other had has perfect control over the creation like I have perfect control when I make a leather wallet.

 

caposkia wrote:

ah, and there we have it... though are you suggesting that omnipotence causes control over everything?  Wouldn't an omnipotent being be able to choose whether they have control over something?  Hmmm... do I want to create a race of robots all forced to do as I say, or do I want a race of people free to choose whether they want to love me or not....

Certainly an omnipotent being would, and would also be responsible for the result. If I build an army of robots and give them free will, I am responsible when all those robots decide to annihilate humanity. My creation, my fault. If I decide to build a car without brakes and the result is that I crash into someone, no one is going to find "well I couldn't stop because the car doesn't have brakes, it isn't my fault" as an excuse.  

 

caposkia wrote:

...so either he made us all robots and we have no choice in what we do, or we have choice and he's not perfect... something's wrong with this scenario.  

There is a lot wrong with your beliefs. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Good to know.  How about instead of jumping to your own conclusions and deciding the result before you even begin a conversation (and yes, i feel like we've barely begun a conversation) approach a Christian with an open mind and discuss things as if they all have a possibility.... You might be surprised at where the conversation goes.

Because I had this conversation a thousand times so it has become predictable. That is why I was so disappointed that you didn't go another direction.  

 

caposkia wrote:

Just like you, i mean what I say... when i asked you a question... I actually meant to ask you a question.  when I made a statement regarding the question at hand, I meant that it would be contingent upon that approach.  

If you're expecting a face to face encounter with a possessed person, yea, I'm fresh out of stock... but if your answer is yes, I gave you the means as to which you could possibly get that.  

You don't want to do the homework?  tough luck... Not everything can be handed to you on a silver platter.  Dont' challenge someone to evidence of a truth if you're not willing to do the legwork to get the answer with them.

Why should I have to do the legwork? YOU are the one making an extreme claim, so if you hold that belief, I assume you already did the legwork and I am simply asking you to provide the results. If you scan through any of my posts in the politics section you will find that when I make a positive claim I provide evidence that supports it. I don't expect everyone to put in the time and effort tracking down the facts when I have them readily available because I already did the research. It would simply be an incredible waste of time to research every bullshit claim made on the internet because 99% of claims on the internet are false. So provide with the evidence that convinced you.   

 

caposkia wrote:

They probably worded it as "symptoms can include".  How about all the above?  Just like mental illness, it is unique to the person possessed and the demon possessing them.  If it was just as simple as googling the answer, then you wouldn't need demonologists and those who specialize in the field to actually diagnose it.  Amateurs can't diagnose a mental illness appropriately either... it's why we pay doctors to do it.  

Sure, I need a psychologist if I want a specific diagnoses, but I don't need one to get a general idea about how a particular mental illness works, some general treatment strategies and peer reviewed studies on how various treatment methods work under which conditions. Googling "demonic possession" simply does not turn up similar types of results. 

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Unlike possession, typically a person with a mental illness is stuck with it... it is more constant... this would be one reason why you'd find many more studies on the subject.  

Some illnesses are constant, others can be treated. Unlike possession, mental illnesses are real.

 

caposkia wrote:

CAn I find a comparative study of people with demonic possession?  Lemme check... 

Oh goody am I going to get evidence!?!?!?!

 

caposkia wrote:

Ok, so This link is I think the best "scientific/psychological" explanation I have found to date.  Due to the limitations as the article says, we can only see it as an unconscious manifestation, but these articles make it clear that it is distinct from other mental illnesses.  

http://medicinefuture.hubpages.com/hub/Demonicpossessionandscience

and check out:

http://medicinefuture.hubpages.com/hub/parasychologyanddemoniacpossession (2nd link at the bottom of the first article)  

No, I don't believe this is the complete answer, but as far as studies go, I do believe this is the extent as to which we can "study" the phenomenon.  The main point is that it is distinct from other mental illnesses.  

 *facepalm*  That wasn't even an attempt at a study. It was a blowhard explanation of why studying it is impossible and a really long way to say "we have no evidence". So do you agree with the article that there is no evidence of demonic possession? Obviously it is distinct from mental illness because mental illnesses exist and demonic possession does not. That is a pretty important distinction. 

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I love how

caposkia wrote:
I love how you turn it into an excuse on my part.

Didn't need any "turning". Instead of proof, I got excuses.

caposkia wrote:
I did ask you, you told me... I told you it doesn't work that way... call it an excuse, say I'm avoiding, whatever you want... it doesn't change what it is.

No, I explained WHY it's an excuse. You just ignore that and keep using it. 

caposkia wrote:
You can be happy believing what you want.  Doesn't bother me.
 

But this isn't about what I believe. It's about what you believe and can't prove.

caposkia wrote:
apparently there is no other way of knowing for you.  You might want to read the articles I linked in the previous post... Maybe then you'll see why I call your considered proof as irrational.
 

Unless it's an article that explains exactly why you have trouble grasping such a simple sentence, it has no bearing on what's being discussed here. 

Your "other way of knowing" is believing without proof, which you will ignore when it suits you, so why should I, or anyone accept it ? 

caposkia wrote:
yea... um.. give it up... I even replied to the full post in tact with nothing taken out and explained why i came to the same conclusion.  Moving on.
 

????? And I explained why you STILL didn't make any sense ! Are you seriously STILL trying to pretend the meaning of a sentence isn't affected by taking out the verb ?? You are some piece of work.

caposkia wrote:
yea, I guess, irrational, doesn't work that way, trying to turn fantasy into reality doesn't make sense etc didn't work... not lying, recheck the posts.
 

You're reacting to something I didn't even write ! How difficult is it for you to simply reply to what I write without trying to change it first ??? YOU recheck what I wrote ! 

caposkia wrote:
Ask Brian, I don't lie.
 

Then he's in for a surprise, I guess.

caposkia wrote:
We both apparently did the same thing to each other then... Let's agree to answer directly from now on.
 

Show me where you had to repeat a question 5 times before I replied to it directly. Better find something, or this might look bad, right after you claimed you don't lie.

caposkia wrote:
don't know

Well, that makes two of us then.

Anonymouse wrote:
Okay then, so you don't understand why proof required to turn fantasy into reality is going to seem irrational before someone produces it.

caposkia wrote:
well, I think I get that part... trying to turn fantasy into reality IS irrational... If I'm wrong, explain it to me please.

Gladly. I underlined your reply as well, and left the sentence you replied to, so anyone who can read can see your obvious mistake.

Once again, you turned my sentence into something it isn't. You left out the "proof" part as well this time.

Read it again. The subject of the sentence is "proof required to turn fantasy into reality". Got that ? Okay. 

Now do you understand that "proof required to turn fantasy into reality", is going to seem irrational before someone produces it ?

caposkia wrote:
yes, and I would be surprised too.

And why is that ? 

caposkia wrote:
But so I"m not making assumptions, why would you be surprised?

Because something that seemed utterly irrational to me before now has acceptable proof for it's existence. 

Get it now ? Are we finally there ? 

caposkia wrote:
yup, end of story

Well, yes. You wouldn't accept "open your eyes and look around" as proof skin-wearing lizard people, so why should anyone accept it for demons ?

caposkia wrote:
right, but tell me how I can prove Kangaroos exist by looking for apples?

Will you please quit trying to construct analogies between things that don't exist and things that do ? If you don't understand why those don't work, then tell me, and I'll explain.

caposkia wrote:
I'll bet you looked around for a demon standing there physically in front of you... or behind you... or to the side... or maybe hiding under your bed right?

No, I literally did what you asked. 

caposkia wrote:
Right, remember your own statement above... your truth is that demons don't exist... "just calling something "truth" doesn't make it true"  (a wise person once said)

What I said was, and you know this very well, it's 100% accurate to say that there's no proof for the existence of demons. How many times do I have to ask you to stop misrepresenting what I say ?

caposkia wrote:
If you care to know, i care to help you know whatever it is you want to know, but you have to accept when an approach is out to left field too.

And when someone explains why the approach is not "out of left field", then you can't just ignore their explanation. But it's okay, we're past that. It took some doing, but you're paying attention now.

caposkia wrote:
alright, I'll play... and I have explained why it doesn't.  You have no more excuses left...How long do you want to do this before we start discussing the topic again?

Well, as you can read in the above underlined section, your explanation of why mine doesn't work, doesn't actually deal with my explanation at all, but with another sentence you constructed by leaving out the words that give it it's specific meaning. 

And that's where we're stuck.

But hey, no worries. At least we have the problem reduced to simple reading comprehension. Extremely easy to resolve. 

caposkia wrote:
no, just needed to hear you say "no" to that so we can see your abuse excuse doesn't work

The abuse is a fact, not an "excuse". The fact that abuse happens somewhere else too is irrelevant to what's being discussed.

caposkia wrote:
can you send me a link to that study?
 

Look up any "occurrence". You will find no proof there. 

caposkia wrote:
AH!
 

Oh dear, every time you get all excited like this, I have to burst your bubble. I apologize in advance.

caposkia wrote:
ok, this makes a lot more sense. I wish you said that up front. 
 

?? Why ? What do you mean ? Why would anyone accept proof that could be faked ?

caposkia wrote:
You're suggesting then that you cannot tell whether any other evidence is faked in regards to possession or demons?  
 

I'm not suggesting anything. What I said was clear enough.  And I'm guessing you mean "can tell" ??

caposkia wrote:
Would you mind giving me some examples of "faked" evidence on this front?  I'm just curious on where you're coming from with this. 
 

Sure, I already told you, btw. That bbc show I mentioned used all the usual nonsense that people put forward as proof, including the "demon voices" and all the so-called "symptoms" of possession. 

caposkia wrote:
...so then... no?
 

Do you really not understand that it doesn't take research to figure out things you can't fake ? Because if you don't, you're going to have to tell me. (Sorry, but really, still impossible to tell if you're kidding or not.

caposkia wrote:
I try to weasel out of all of it huh... wouldn't the easier way out be to just... walk away?
 

Read what I write, please. I said you tried to weasel out of having to come up with the evidence in the first place. Not weasel out of the conversation.

caposkia wrote:
 I can come up with a religious slam that would look good to all the believers and probably not work for any of you.
 

But I didn't ask for a "religious slam", whatever that may be. I asked for acceptable proof. 

caposkia wrote:
 I would vindicate myself in the process to all those believers out there and your opinions wouldn't matter

? I thought they already didn't matter ?

caposkia wrote:
... instead, I'm still here... what's your excuse now?

That you didn't read what I wrote. And it's not an excuse, it's a fact.

caposkia wrote:
not unfair to conclude that i can't produce the proof you asked for.. I gave reasons to why.

And I told you why that didn't work as an excuse. Again, this all centers around you simply refusing to deal with all the words in one simple sentence. You keep taking words out so you can turn it into something I didn't say, which you then declare "the same". That is not how words and sentences work.

But like I said, no worries. Thanks to your reply this time, the problem is now out in the open, and can be dealt with. 

caposkia wrote:
Also, i have been aware of that the whole time... you didn't notice when I said it was irrational, it doesn't work that way, etc?

Again, see above. Feel free to concentrate solely on that in your next reply.

caposkia wrote:
 I know that's an excuse for you to throw out the whole case, so go for it if you want.

Doing quite fine without excuses, thanks.

caposkia wrote:
 I still hold to other angles of evidence that actually make sense... start with those articles.

I remember quite clearly explaining already why articles don't cut it as acceptable proof for the existence of demons.

caposkia wrote:
 You've done that to me.  Don't be hypocritical.
 

At least you're not trying to deny it. That's admirable. Would love to own up as well, but I can't seem to remember making an assumption about you that was in direct contradiction with something you said. I'm sure you can provide an example.

caposkia wrote:
that right there is quite an assumption on your part.
 

An informed one, based on people involved in actual cases. The parents of Anneliese Michel, for instance, knew full well the rational explanation for their daughter's illness. They chose to ignore it. 

caposkia wrote:
ooh... is it working yet?
  

Going pretty well so far. Wouldn't be bothering if I didn't think this was worth my time. 

caposkia wrote:
How long do you fail at an attempt before you try something different?  I've failed to convince you that your proof request is not based on reality, so I've basically stopped trying to convince you of that.
 

Again, see above. 

caposkia wrote:
 .. I'm just responding to your rants now.
 

No, you're responding to my answers to your questions, and my reactions to your various assumptions and vague accusations (which nobody asked you to make, btw)

caposkia wrote:
  I am hoping that you're going to soon be willing to try something new instead of using assumptions and redundancies..

The only assumptions I've made have been informed ones, and feel free to show me a redundancy. 

caposkia wrote:
Again ask Brian, he failed as well... he may deny that, but ask him where our conversation went... the correct answer would be nowhere.

You clearly don't care what he would answer, so why ask me to ask him anything ??

"Failed" ? We have this reduced to a reading comprehension problem. How is that failing ? 

caposkia wrote:
She broke her knees by slamming them on the ground repeatedly, your knees don't just shatter by being in a kneeling position.  She also ended up refusing all help including the exorcisms.  Self abuse, sure, not abuse from others.

No, repeated kneeling was part of the exorcism. And is self-abuse then not a problem for you to declare a demonic possession genuine ? 

caposkia wrote:
wow, so you reposted it and you still don't see it?  Ok, lemme explain... the quote you reposted specifically says:  "and of all the possession stories and exorcisms that I'm aware of, TORTURE FROM THE OTHER PEOPLE TO THE POSSESSED PERSON IS NOT PART OF THE PROCESS." 

Yes, and you WERE aware of it. And like I said, the repeated kneeling WAS part of the exorcism. 

caposkia wrote:
That statement is in reference to the process of exorcism and how it should be performed and has nothing to do with the statistics of abuse cases being related to legitimate possessions or not.

I never mentioned "statistics". I'm talking about what happened in this specific case. And again, the repeated kneeling WAS part of the exorcism.

caposkia wrote:
Not all exorcisms are done appropriately  It also specifies the cases that I'm aware of.

Yes, and you WERE aware of this one ! If this was wasn't "done appropriately" according to you, then why did you bring it up ???

caposkia wrote:
Just because torture and abuse is not a part of the appropriate process does not suggest that abuse does not happen in legitimate possession cases...

So now abuse CAN happen in legitimate cases, according to you ???? Again, you are some piece of work.

caposkia wrote:
What is reality?  I'm looking for an objective answer, not what you think it is. 

Anything that isn't imaginary, delusional, (only) in the mind, dreams, abstract, false, or fictional. 

caposkia wrote:
Still answering all my questions?

Yeah, sorry.

If you're looking for more stalling material, you can maybe ask me what the meaning of life is next. Or the sound of one hand clapping.

caposkia wrote:
To answer yours, yes, i do, but we can't get past your proof of fantasy to reality concept.

Since that's been revealed as your reading comprehension problem, oh yes we can. Let's get to it, shall we ? 

caposkia wrote:
now we're getting somewhere, so we can at least agree that claims by themselves cannot make anything true or false right?

Yes, hence the necessity for proof. I'm not entirely sure why you left that out. All will be revealed, I'm sure.

caposkia wrote:
 So lets' get away from the claims excuses then for support.

What "claims excuse" are you referring to ? 

caposkia wrote:
 you still think I'm here defending my faith huh?

You're doing it right now, so yeah.

caposkia wrote:
 I've explained it 100 times in these 5 years.  I'm here with an open mind to have a discussion about truth, whatever that might be.  If anyone has something against my belief, I will research it and discuss it.

That's not even a dodge, that's just rephrasing what I said. 

caposkia wrote:
 Do you still wonder why we haven't gotten anywhere?

Nah, like I said, it's a pretty standard reading comprehension problem. Easy to solve.

caposkia wrote:
puppies in peanutbutter... proves demonic possession... and..... Go! EEH... sorry, I have a hard time not joking in conversations like these.

Considering the weakness of your arguments so far, it wouldn't have surprised me if you were being serious.

caposkia wrote:
He's the only one currrently willing to discuss rationally and with progression.
 

Well duh. You're talking about history, not your supernatural claims. 

caposkia wrote:
 I've discussed with many others in the same manner... you decide how you want the conversation to go.
 

No, it takes two to have a conversation.

caposkia wrote:
I don't just give in to your idea of truth just because you offer one avenue of irrational proof and expect a result.
 

Your failure to grasp why your "irrational proof" excuse is, in fact, an excuse, is entirely dependent on a simple reading comprehension problem, which we will quickly solve in the next reply. Feel free to concentrate solely on that.

caposkia wrote:
If you had research or support behind why that is the only way to prove it, I'm willing to look into it.
 

I already had to explain that I don't need research or support to think of something you can't fake. If you don't understand that, you're going to have to tell me.  

caposkia wrote:
I like honesty.
 

Good. 

caposkia wrote:
you quickly jump on me for not answering you directly and yet you can't give me a simple yes or no for that?

Well, no, because it had nothing to do with what I actually said. I said "cars aren't supernatural creatures", so I have no idea what your question is even referring to. 

caposkia wrote:
After reading what you said, I said the answer is not contingent on what the object or subject is. So yes or no?
 

Tell me what "it" refers to, so I can answer your question. 


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Havoc wrote:i read over a

Havoc wrote:

i read over a lot of these comments and unless i missed it no one has pointed out that atheist are not attacking Jesus Christ but salvationist religion as a whole. I for one argue against it because I believe it's harmful to humanity to follow a god that would create you with basic human desires, condemn you for them, then force you to ask for his forgiveness with threat of an eternity in agony. I believe it was John Lamb Lash who compared this to the victim/perpetrator bond, similar to the relationship between a woman who is beaten by her husband but continues to go back to him because "he loves her"

You're exactly right! This thread's just gotten a little off-topic from the original post. Sticking out tongue

 


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 205
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:isn't it?

caposkia wrote:
isn't it?  Maybe you can explain it better

This sentence is in English, the grammar and syntax are sound, and it clearly communicates a very simple fact. So before anyone can "explain" it to you, you're going to need to be a lot clearer about exactly what you don't understand. 

 

caposkia wrote:
Statistically speaking, I don't think that holds water...  Do you have a study on this?  I'm still under the belief that if someone was to abuse or torture someone else that they'd find any excuse to get away with it including possession, but I'm willing to look into what you have

All of it ? I don't have whole weeks to spend online, and remember, this is on angoing story with no end in sight, but sure, you can start with this :

http://www.saff.ukhq.co.uk/stobart.htm

Hope you have a strong stomach. Let me know when you want some more.

 

caposkia wrote:
Those who know what I believe don't make the same associations you do.

The associations between belief in demons, and abusing and torturing children and sick people, are made by the people who believe in demons. I only notice the results.  

 

caposkia wrote:
I am ashamed for those who present themselves as Christian and yet abuse or torture others in the name of God.  It's appauling! 

Nobody is accusing you of not caring about the victims. What I am saying is that it is shameful to make a bad situation worse, when you could so easily make it better.

 

caposkia wrote:
actually, it does... not that he exists today, rather that he existed in history as a person who gave gifts to homeless children and families with little or no money.

No, actually, it doesn't. Retroactively declaring someone a saint, does not make a fictional character based on his exploits suddenly an actual person. I'm not sure why you would even try this. Why would anyone believe that you don't know that a fictional character is not the same as a living, breathing person ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
to make that point clear

??? But my point was already clear ? Honestly, what are you even going on about ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
do you honestly believe those tragedies would all be avoided if demonic possession or the belief in it was not an aspect?  I believe those people would have found another excuse.

All of them ? Doubtful. But it's even more doubtful that not even one could be avoided if people simply stopped defending this insane idea and treated it with all the ridicule and disgust it so richly deserves. That is MORE than reason enough to feel ashamed for still defending it. 

 

caposkia wrote:
experience and reliable sources with experience.  Understanding and knowledge in the subject matter as well.

Let's test that experience and those sources : Could you link me to a reliable source that reports a case where belief in "demonic possession" led to some positive outcome that could not have been achieved without it ? And that "positive outcome" would of course need to balance out at least one of the many crimes we already discussed.

And if you can't do that, I will have to repeat the same question again. 

 

caposkia wrote:
c'mon, you know the reasoning parallels.  It really doesnt' matter what the subject matter is, it could be carbon monoxide for all I care.

???? Just saying "c'mon, you know" doesn't make "reasoning parallel".

Read this. Read it several times :   http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_analogy

 

caposkia wrote:
ok, then I'm  curious where they get the idea that abuse is the way to rid them of this possession.  It's not the bible

Since when has that ever stopped a christian ?

 

caposkia wrote:
well, with the extremely religious crowds, what about deviant behavior for starters...  doesn't have to be demonic.

No, deviant behavior doesn't give them any of the advantages I just described. In fact, belief in demonic possession offers a safe haven for people who like to indulge in "deviant behaviour"


 

caposkia wrote:
That says it happened during the exorcism.  It says nothing about anyone making her do it.

It was part of the exorcism. This girl didn't get to dictate what that involved. In fact, when she got too weak to kneel, her parents grabbed an arm each and made her move through those ritualistic movements like a rag doll.

 

caposkia wrote:
...and this is where the court case comes in...  I see what you're saying here though...

Then are we agreed there was serious abuse involved in this case ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
It could have been averted... maybe... but if demons are real, what could have been instead?

The effects of this supposed "demon" could have easily been held in check by modern medicine. All her symptoms were treatable. So not "maybe". This certainly could have been averted, if not for belief in demons.

 

caposkia wrote:
I know you're bent on convincing me that they're not,

I am bent on making you think twice about the consequences of supporting, (and even not actively ridiculing) this insane belief in public, or in any way at all.

 

caposkia wrote:
but the only way you're giong to do that is by showing me the convincing research that convinced you.

Then you will be reading extremely depressing real-life (non-supernatural) horror stories for the rest of your life, together with the rest of us.


 

caposkia wrote:
Abuse is not a part of it.
 

So does a case with abuse such as this fit your definition of "demonic possession" ? If not, then I'd have to ask why you brought it up as proof. If it was an honest mistake, just admit it. There is no shame in that. In fact, you can only learn from this to pay closer attention to the facts in future.

 

caposkia wrote:
I see what you were saying above though of not forcing her... however there are laws that say if she can verbally refuse, you can't make her... she was verbally refusing from what I can tell.

yes, deemed mentally ill, someone can override that law, however, then were was everyone else who knew about her condition that could have done something about it?  it wasn't kept secret, doctors were giving her meds for a short time... why no followup? why no intervention on the family?

 

They kept it hidden, which is easy, if you believe you're "helping" your daughter by having those "exorcisms". And it takes a document signed by at least two doctors familiar with the case, to force emergency aid on someone who doesn't want it. What it would take with even the parents refusing to put their daughter in a hospital, I have no idea. All this for the sake of belief in demons.

 

caposkia wrote:
I stick it out... it's interesting to me to see how far people will take it.
 

No, I was referring to you misrepresenting anony's words again, right after I admonished you for it.

 

caposkia wrote:
no, I understand what he's doing.
 

No, you don't even understand what he's saying, no matter how simple and straightforward he makes it. So I'll repeat the question : Do you really not understand that there's nothing "fanatical" about demanding proof for a supernatural claim ?

 

caposkia wrote:
 he's choosing to repeat himself.  i have made my position on it clear
 

No, he has no choice but to repeat himself, since you keep repeating mistakes he already corrected, and accusations which he already pointed out you can't support.

If he lets you get away with that, then you repeatedly ignoring his responses becomes a way for you to win ANY argument without even having one.


 

caposkia wrote:
I'm reading all of it.. I have nothing to go on yet as far as questioning my own belief.
 

That's because you keep blatantly, almost comically misinterpreting what he actually says. Nobody here is going to fall for that one. Not even Mouse.  

 

caposkia wrote:
no, I do not accept all of the uncountable other supernatural claims... we've already agreed that people can make things up.
 

Since none of the "proof" for "demons" is anything of a sort, how do you keep from believing every single supernatural claim ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
 I've made it clear where I stand.  My standard of proof has not been brought to light in these conversations, we've gotten stuck on particulars.
 

It most certainly has been brought up in these conversations. Goes to show how much attention you actually pay to the people who are trying to talk to you. 

 

caposkia wrote:
that was a simple question really
 

No, it was a false analogy. There are no "parallels" between cosmology and fiction.

 

caposkia wrote:
ok... great!  not convincing... but great!
 

If the fact that there is no proof doesn't convince you, then I have to ask again, how do you keep from believing everything ?

As for the exclusive toxicity of your demon belief also not convincing you, well, I still think that's something you should be deeply ashamed of.

 

caposkia wrote:
Awe, not a metalhead?  sorry.  the idea is reality is in your mind.  It can be very subjective.
 

And yet making something up still doesn't make it real.


 

caposkia wrote:
no, you can't let go of yours that easily can you?

Why would I let go of an existing rational explanation, in favor of an exclusively toxic supernatural one that doesn't even begin to make sense ?

You have as yet to come up with any good reason for picking a supernatural explanation when there's a perfectly good rational one. 

"Experience and reliable sources with experience. Understanding and knowledge in the subject matter as well" ? All of that you'd have to take on faith. That is not enough to support such a vile and destructive belief. Especially when the rational explanation is right there.

No excuse. 

 

caposkia wrote:
how about consider what I've said about it and try something different... no... wait... that would to logical

You're not listening. I'll say it again : you KEEP REPEATING THE SAME MISTAKES WE ALREADY CORRECTED. That means we ALREADY considered what you said, corrected your mistake and explained WHY it was a mistake in the first place. 

If all we get after that is the exact same mistake we just patiently corrected for you, well, then you can't honestly blame us for the lack of progress.

 

caposkia wrote:
It's hard to stay focused when the last time the problem question was brought up was so many extensive posts ago.  

Nobody forced you to bite of more than you could chew.

And the arguments put forward aren't exactly rocket science, since belief in "demons" isn't especially hard to debunk when you're not talking to a religious nut.

So just focus on not over-complicating things, and you'll be just fine. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:Re :: ..

danatemporary wrote:
Re :: .. deo dignus vindice nodus (latin) _______________________ {Anonymouse wrote}
Anonymouse wrote:
Which is why you've been defending your insane faith here for, what ? , 5 years or so ?

 

You replied, "..you still think I'm here defending my faith huh? I've explained it 100 times in these 5 years. I'm here with an open mind to have a discussion about truth, whatever that might be."

 

To :: Cap (the good one!!):

 

Makes good sense to be able to use your long standing Thread as a novel model for threads in the future. It is one others have wished to copy (I've witnessed with my own eyes), and was highly intelligent tact for you to (purposefully) 'limit' the conversation. Being topic driven by this indispensable model and approach to broader textual discussions or any future discussions (really). I dont know if you've ever heard that from anyone on the board (before/yet). So I am saying. Although, I may be extending such 'praise', because of having 'suffered' some cheap shots about my age, in some very patronizing behavior and comments, in the clear form of going out of your way to ridicule. I didnt look at my adversary in the eye (so to speak) and replied, “Do you really think that little of me?” Most patronizing people tend to back off quickly when their little game is exposed without rancor. I doubt it applies to actual , factual troll(s), so I not so subtlety went with a different tact w/ him. I am being sincere when I say all of this. I am so very thankful for you, Cap (the good one). You most certainly are not a troll and should be commended for that most highly. The Book of Romans tells us, "to give honor, unto whom honor is due". In your case it is much deserved for the way you carry yourself. Nice to make comparisons between people. ¬ Your (Hoping) 'Friend',

 

D a n a - :

 

Dana, thank you for those sweet up-lifting words.  I don't believe anyone has said something quite like that.  Thank you for the encouragement, GBWY

-cap


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:The

blacklight915 wrote:

The following assumes the 'God' caposkia speaks of is exactly as he describes:

And what about every other scenario, caposkia? Why did your asshole of a God give me depression, huh? And what about the dozen or so people I PERSONALLY KNOW who wish for death on a daily basis? Are those the scenarios where God "works in mysterious ways"? (Granted, such ways are mysterious to me, but that's because I don't think like a sociopath.)

blacklight, I can't answer for everything God does, I'm not God.  Depression could be any number of causes including people, not just God... I dont' know your personal scenario or anyone elses scenario and what events in their life or family history could have led to the imbalances that we define as depression.  

What I do know is understanding is the beginning to recovery for any ailment.  Scientifically speaking, your approach to the subject psychologically and hormonally fuels the fire of depression rather than squelching it.  

blacklight915 wrote:

Self abuse because she was convinced by others she was evil and/or under the control of an evil entity. Children and the mentally ill are far more suggestible and vulnerable than healthy adults.

Sure, I guess that suggests that she definitely couldn't have been then right?

blacklight915 wrote:

I'd be very interested in you detailing your experience, your reliable sources, and your understanding and knowledge on the subject matter of "demons".

all of that huh... that's likely a thread in itself...  Let's start simple... logical answers are key right?

So one spiritual scenario, maybe demons, maybe not is when walking or driving at night, streetlights would go out randomly when I passed under them... The strange phenomena stopped when I talked to a friend of mine who is a prayer warrior and they prayed that if it was not of God for it to stop.  Ironically it stopped from there on out... never to happen again.  Yes, others had witnessed this phenomena when accompanying me.  

What logical explanation do you have for not only the phenomena of lights going out when I pass under them, but that stopping completely once it was prayed about by one who is known to have effective prayer?

blacklight915 wrote:

I generally don't look up or do research to disprove something for which I've never found any credible evidence for. If what you have about demons is actually convincing, then I may look for research that gives alternative and/or more likely explanations.

...and I have a hard time accepting the understanding of an individual or group of people who claim such contrary reasoning with little understanding of the subject.  I think that feeling would logically be mutual here be it that others have stated such as well.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Of

Beyond Saving wrote:

Of course it didn't happen, none of it did because it is all made up.

Ah, that makes sense... good reasoning!  Why didn't I see that before?

Beyond Saving wrote:

But within your little fairy tale, who created satan? God did right? At least that is what I have been told because God created everything. Now me, as a mere mortal am able to control the people who have access to my dog, and if someone is teaching my dog to be aggressive I am going to stop them right away. If I can do so as a mortal, why can't an omnipotent god do the same thing? 

...because as an omnipotent being, you allow those around you to make their own choices and reap the ultimate consequences for those actions.  Satan got thrown out of heaven, what would you do if you found out someone had been doing that behind your back?  They still have choices regardless if you'll eventually stop them or not.  God chooses to let us make our own choices, for an omnipotent being to prevent bad choices is to turn all creation into robots or personal computers.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Do you need a sex ed class? Maybe you have a lot more control than me, but once my sperm comes out I have no control over which one reaches the egg, let alone any ability to determine which genetic material is preferable. It is completely up to random chance, I don't even have control over whether the child is male or female. There may come a time when humans have that kind of detailed control, but certainly not in my lifetime. An omnipotent god on the other had has perfect control over the creation like I have perfect control when I make a leather wallet.

Right, God has perfect control... does that mean he mans it like a puppet?  If so, we wouldn't be talking on here now, you'd be forced against your will to be someone you're not.  Just because you have the ability to do something doesn't mean it's necessary to use that ability.  I have the ability to kill people... I'm not going to use that ability.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Certainly an omnipotent being would, and would also be responsible for the result. If I build an army of robots and give them free will, I am responsible when all those robots decide to annihilate humanity. My creation, my fault. If I decide to build a car without brakes and the result is that I crash into someone, no one is going to find "well I couldn't stop because the car doesn't have brakes, it isn't my fault" as an excuse.  

This goes back to the capability... Every car made has the capability of being completely safe, yet there are 1000's of deadly car crashes every year... how many of those car crashes are actually blamed on the manufacturer?  Most are not unless a manufacturing mistake was found... which then the car did not have the capability of being completely safe... God has instead build his creation without flaw or mistakes... then he put us behind the wheel... are you honestly trying to blame God for your bad driving?

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

...so either he made us all robots and we have no choice in what we do, or we have choice and he's not perfect... something's wrong with this scenario.  

There is a lot wrong with your beliefs. 

I think you misunderstood the statement... I was not self reflecting there.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Because I had this conversation a thousand times so it has become predictable. That is why I was so disappointed that you didn't go another direction.  

I've tried... no one's interested... In my experience at this point, the conversation has become predictable because that's what you have chosen.  I am still just responding to the comments.  I'm following the lead of others here, I'm not leading this conversation... That doesn't mean I'm going to give into irrationalities and ignorance.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why should I have to do the legwork?

because you want to know... With ignorance of math for example, I can tell you 2+2 is 4, but why should you believe me?  In order to actually believe that, you have to do the leg work and learn why.   Same applies here.

Beyond Saving wrote:

YOU are the one making an extreme claim, so if you hold that belief, I assume you already did the legwork and I am simply asking you to provide the results. If you scan through any of my posts in the politics section you will find that when I make a positive claim I provide evidence that supports it. I don't expect everyone to put in the time and effort tracking down the facts when I have them readily available because I already did the research. It would simply be an incredible waste of time to research every bullshit claim made on the internet because 99% of claims on the internet are false. So provide with the evidence that convinced you.   

I've put up links and mentioned examples... apparently though it's not goign to be enough here.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Sure, I need a psychologist if I want a specific diagnoses, but I don't need one to get a general idea about how a particular mental illness works, some general treatment strategies and peer reviewed studies on how various treatment methods work under which conditions. Googling "demonic possession" simply does not turn up similar types of results. 

I've found the contrary.  Each I'm sure has their own experience, but the general basic symptoms are likely the same... I'm sure you'll find erronius pages with random information, but you'll find that with other things as well, you'll just have to search a little harder.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Some illnesses are constant, others can be treated. Unlike possession, mental illnesses are real.

again, very convincing.. I think you've almost got me to doubt here.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 *facepalm*  That wasn't even an attempt at a study. It was a blowhard explanation of why studying it is impossible and a really long way to say "we have no evidence". So do you agree with the article that there is no evidence of demonic possession? Obviously it is distinct from mental illness because mental illnesses exist and demonic possession does not. That is a pretty important distinction. 

...and yet it says so much more... thanks for being clear about your lack of interest in the topic though... it's better to know now instead of going through rants to find the answer.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:...because as

caposkia wrote:

...because as an omnipotent being, you allow those around you to make their own choices and reap the ultimate consequences for those actions.  Satan got thrown out of heaven, what would you do if you found out someone had been doing that behind your back?  They still have choices regardless if you'll eventually stop them or not.  God chooses to let us make our own choices, for an omnipotent being to prevent bad choices is to turn all creation into robots or personal computers.

Well, I have always thought that I would make a terrible father so I don't have kids- but if I did, I certainly wouldn't let my kids hang out around satan. And if I failed and let satan corrupt my kids, I wouldn't punish my grandchildren and great grandchildren for all of eternity. But hey, god works in mysterious ways.  

 

caposkia wrote:

Right, God has perfect control... does that mean he mans it like a puppet?  If so, we wouldn't be talking on here now, you'd be forced against your will to be someone you're not.  Just because you have the ability to do something doesn't mean it's necessary to use that ability.  I have the ability to kill people... I'm not going to use that ability.

My will is not capable of exerting any force over my genetic code. It is not a choice. My physical imperfections, my mental capacity etc. are all the result of genetics that I had no influence over. How would a god making sure my genetic code was perfect be him taking away my free will when I have no free will in that area anyway? You have no choice who you are, you were born you like it or not.   

 

caposkia wrote:

This goes back to the capability... Every car made has the capability of being completely safe, yet there are 1000's of deadly car crashes every year... how many of those car crashes are actually blamed on the manufacturer?  Most are not unless a manufacturing mistake was found... which then the car did not have the capability of being completely safe... God has instead build his creation without flaw or mistakes... then he put us behind the wheel... are you honestly trying to blame God for your bad driving?

Are you claiming that humans are flawless? Absurd. We have hundreds of flaws before you even start talking about our choices.

 

caposkia wrote:

I've tried... no one's interested... In my experience at this point, the conversation has become predictable because that's what you have chosen.  I am still just responding to the comments.  I'm following the lead of others here, I'm not leading this conversation... That doesn't mean I'm going to give into irrationalities and ignorance.

Yet you refuse to answer our questions. Do you have any evidence of demonic possession?

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why should I have to do the legwork?

because you want to know... With ignorance of math for example, I can tell you 2+2 is 4, but why should you believe me?  In order to actually believe that, you have to do the leg work and learn why.   Same applies here.

If you wanted me to help you repair your ignorance in mathematics I would provide you a link that would provide meaningful and detailed information. For example, https://www.khanacademy.org/math/arithmetic/addition-subtraction/basic_addition/v/basic-addition conveniently, on that same site once you have mastered basic addition you can get into some fairly advanced mathematics. Can you provide something similar that provides evidence of demonic possession?

 

caposkia wrote:

I've put up links and mentioned examples... apparently though it's not goign to be enough here.

Your links consist of people like you simply declaring demonic possession exists and talking balderdash. If you can't understand why we are reluctant to accept that as evidence, I can't help you. As I pointed out, the same "evidence" is widespread across the internet for a number of things you dismiss because of lack of evidence. 

 

caposkia wrote:

I've found the contrary.  Each I'm sure has their own experience, but the general basic symptoms are likely the same... I'm sure you'll find erronius pages with random information, but you'll find that with other things as well, you'll just have to search a little harder.

Then why don't you provide to a link where someone has provided a detailed study of demonic possession? I have only asked a few dozen times. If you already know where the "correct" pages are on the net, why do you want me to search for them? Just show me. The last page you sent me to said there was no scientific evidence and that there could be no evidence- do you agree with that? If you do, this whole discussion is pointless because the whole thing has revolved around people asking you to provide evidence or admit there is none. If there is no evidence, just say so. 

 

caposkia wrote:

...and yet it says so much more... thanks for being clear about your lack of interest in the topic though... it's better to know now instead of going through rants to find the answer.

I'm not interested in rants, yours or anyone else's. I am interested in evidence. So do you have any evidence of demonic possession? Do you agree with that link that it is impossible to have scientific evidence of demonic possession? 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X