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. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Unless it's

Anonymouse wrote:

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. 

good job being objective.  How do you expect anyone to buy what you say?

Anonymouse wrote:

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 ! 

yea, I do that a lot with you... you manipulate and change things so much I have to go back and recheck to see what was actually said and/or done.  I'm getting bored with it.

Anonymouse wrote:

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.

Ok, the question was "is it rational for me to decide that to be the only proof I'd accept" in regards to the car theory and only accepting the existence of mercedes by having someone buy it for me.  

#278 was your first run around response.

#282, I reiterated the simple response I was looking for.

#286, you tell me to reread your indirect answer when I thought I had made it clear that it was a simple yes or no.

So in #289, I spell it out for you

...and that leads us to this post...  guess we haven't yet gotten to your magical number 5, yet

Anonymouse wrote:

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 ?

so I left that all up there so that we all can see my drastic mistake of claiming that you were trying to turn proof into reality, rather you're looking for proof to turn fantasy into reality... That's not irrational at all! 

are we talking about finding proof for what was once considered fantasy to make it realized as a reality?  That's different than trying to get proof to turn a fantasy into a reality.  Invention turns fantasy into reality.  If this doesn't put us on the same page, then no, i still don't understand.

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
yes, and I would be surprised too.

And why is that ? 

What your asking for is not based on spiritual reality.  

Anonymouse wrote:

Because something that seemed utterly irrational to me before now has acceptable proof for it's existence. 

Get it now ? Are we finally there ? 

that makes sense, but the specifics of what you're looking for still doesn't.

Anonymouse wrote:

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.

herein is the problem... you're concluding without rationale.  Automatically it's comparing something that doesn't exist with something that does... it's exactly what I was saying, comparing apples with Kangaroos.  fine, Let's prove Kangaroos exist by investigating Tribbles, better?

Anonymouse wrote:

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. 

...and what were you expecting to see assuming demons were real?

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
can you send me a link to that study?
 

Look up any "occurrence". You will find no proof there. 

that's not what I asked.

Anonymouse wrote:

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. 

a...tv show.  ok... and from that show... the proof your asking for is reasonable?

Anonymouse wrote:

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.

I've made it clear that I wouldn't... and when you don't want to answer directly, you bring that "impossible to tell if your kidding" statement up again.

Anonymouse wrote:

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 ?

point and case, thank you

Anonymouse wrote:

That you didn't read what I wrote. And it's not an excuse, it's a fact.

ah yes, when in doubt, blame someone for not reading something... got it.

Anonymouse wrote:

Doing quite fine without excuses, thanks.

 it's not nice to fib

Anonymouse wrote:

I remember quite clearly explaining already why articles don't cut it as acceptable proof for the existence of demons.

...but instead of using them to possibly steer our conversation toward reasoning and evidence, we ignore them altogether... good strategy.

Anonymouse wrote:

You clearly don't care what he would answer, so why ask me to ask him anything ??

I do care what he would answer... I believe he'd say the same thing actually... it's good to get a second opinion from someone who's been there and done that with me.

Anonymouse wrote:

"Failed" ? We have this reduced to a reading comprehension problem. How is that failing ? 

it's all you've got left.  You've turned it from ignorance to misreading despite the clear response without changing words and asking for clarification.  You can only do that so much before people start rolling there yes

Anonymouse wrote:

No, repeated kneeling was part of the exorcism. And is self-abuse then not a problem for you to declare a demonic possession genuine ? 

no... I dont' understand how abuse became contingent on something existing/happening or not...  Mentally ill people are abused every day... ergo, mental illnesses are fantasy... not very logical

Anonymouse wrote:

Yes, and you WERE aware of it. And like I said, the repeated kneeling WAS part of the exorcism. 

a part of it or happened during it?

Anonymouse wrote:

I never mentioned "statistics". 

no, I did... glad we cleared that up

Anonymouse wrote:

So now abuse CAN happen in legitimate cases, according to you ???? Again, you are some piece of work.

wow, so are you now suggesting that i was claiming that if someone was actually possessed that no one would be capable of abusing them?  Just to make it clear, I never claimed that.

Anonymouse wrote:

Anything that isn't imaginary, delusional, (only) in the mind, dreams, abstract, false, or fictional. 

Glad we're on the same page here.  Do you then believe that disbelief can be fantasy?

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Still answering all my questions?

Yeah, sorry.

the correct answer was "no' see above

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 So lets' get away from the claims excuses then for support.

What "claims excuse" are you referring to ? 

I mentioned once a long time ago the random claims around the world consistent with each other... you took that on the run and brought it way beyond to say that false claims disprove stuff as if there's no middle of the road.  It seemed that way anyway... maybe I'm making assumptions again huh.

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 you still think I'm here defending my faith huh?

You're doing it right now, so yeah.

actually I'm challenging your understanding of reality and your reasoning to your conclusion... that's not defending my faith.. 

Anonymouse wrote:

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. 

I must be a prophet... I knew you were going to say that long before I ever talked to you then!!! wow!!! You can see other threads I've been in to confirm that.

Anonymouse wrote:

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.

right, which is why I called this a conversation... Thanks for making sure we're on the same page though.  I am simply allowing you to lead the coversation... Bang up job so far.

Anonymouse wrote:

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. 

the answer is not contingent on the subject... you admit it's not rational, the question is referring directly to your only acceptable proof approach.  I'm glad you can admit it's not rational regardless of the content of the subject..

Anonymouse wrote:

Tell me what "it" refers to, so I can answer your question. 

well, as I've said, the "it" doesn't matter, regardless of the "it" is it rational to decide that one way  is the only way something can be proven.. you clearly answered above, "no" I agree... Something tells me though we're not done yet with this.  The "it" refers to anything we might be talking about


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

Antipatris wrote:

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. 

How to prove a fantasy to make it a reality

Antipatris wrote:

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.

Ok, so this shows that extremists malpractice.. how does this show that the belief leads to abuse? 

I could link you to many sites showing the abuse of others who believe because of their belief by those who do not believe as they do... We could start with voice of martyrs... this I don't believe proves that disbelief leads to abuse, but by your reasoning it would... unless I'm missing something here, please explain.

Antipatris wrote:

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.

Ok, In many countries around the world, if you're found to be a Christian, not only are you tortured to death, but some countries will seek out your family and torture and kill them too for your belief... Therefore (assumptive conclusion based on above reasoning) disbelief causes abuse and torture and are made by people who don't believe in God, I only notice the results.  

Antipatris wrote:
 

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.

I don't think that by me denying what I know is true, abuse is going to stop based on those reasons.  In fact, Christians have educated those who resort to abuse about their misunderstanding and have in turn prevented future abuse cases.  If you're going to ask for references, you'll have to look into world missions stories, i don't have one off the top of my head.

Antipatris wrote:

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 ? 

we're not comparing the fictional santa to the real one, only saying that the great manipulation of the persons deeds does not change the fact that the person existed.  

Antipatris wrote:

??? But my point was already clear ? Honestly, what are you even going on about ? 

covered above

Antipatris wrote:

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. 

I'm glad you'll admit that it doesn't apply to all either way.  I wonder if Christians educating those actually prevents more than trying to convince them that what they believe is false?  I think the education would win out.

Antipatris wrote:

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. 

we can read any number of cases where a person who truly believed they were possessed and were exhibiting serious problems left with a newness in life and no more symptoms, but I'm guessing that's not what you're after.  

What you're asking for is specific cases, we'd have to look into archives and world missions.  I'm not sure where to start with that.  IT's hard to find specific cases online, but this article from Christian Today clearly states the position of the churches... this would be those who likely believe in possession: http://www.christiantoday.com/article/african.churches.in.britain.meet.to.discuss.child.abuse.cases/3406.htm

Antipatris wrote:

???? Just saying "c'mon, you know" doesn't make "reasoning parallel".

...and that's going to justify your case?  I can't believe I'm going to ask this, but... do you honestly believe my "c'mon" was my attempt at making the reasoning parallel?  or could it be that it already is?

Antipatris wrote:

Read this. Read it several times :   http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_analogy

good, Got it... so due to the fact that i'm not comparing objects of similar capacity, it must stand as a good analogy

Antipatris wrote:

Since when has that ever stopped a christian ?

in the majority of the cases.  You only go by what you hear... are you aware that what you hear is typically not the usual standard?

Antipatris wrote:

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"

no, rather using the excuse of demonic posession is a safe haven for people who like to indulge in deviant behavior... They dont' necessarily have to believe in it.

Antipatris wrote:

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.

Ok, maybe i'm missing something in the story then... if what you say is true, then it is a bad example of a legitimate exorcism.  

Antipatris wrote:

Then are we agreed there was serious abuse involved in this case ? 

The question of abuse was neglect and not physical abuse in the case if I remember... its' been a while... but I was not aware of any substantial proof of abuse regardless of what some have perceived.

Antipatris wrote:

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.

so, modern medicine has the capability of suppressing demons... that's a new one for me.

All of her symptoms when associated with a specific disorder are treatable... however, her symptoms were consistent with a laundry list of disorders.. I'm sure we could have drugged her up so much that she would have ended up on a comotose state... if you consider that 'treating' then your case stands.

Antipatris wrote:

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.

I ridicule the abuse... the belief has nothing to do with the abuse... I can completely be in disbelief of demonic possession but still use it as an excuse.

Antipatris wrote:

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.

if it shows me the truth, I'm ok with that... we'd support each other through it all I'm sure

Antipatris wrote:

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.

it likely was actual possession due to the symptoms she exhibited... as far as abuse from others... if it did happen as you said, I can't see how that was a part of the appropriate practice.

Antipatris wrote:

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.

Let's word it this way... let's assume for a moment that the belief in demons is real and that demons actually possess people... could it be true then that more harm could have come to her by ignoring the demon problem and trying to treat it like a mental illness???  And by more harm I mean still alive today yet tortured by the demon, likely strapped to a bed and heavily sedated so as to not injure herself.

Antipatris wrote:

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 ?

I like how you worded it... no, there's nothing fanatical about demanding proof for a supernatural claim... but that's not what he asked for.  He's asking for proof of a fantasy to turn it into reality.

Antipatris wrote:

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.

who turned this into a win/lose scenario?  I'm just trying to get on the same page.  He's making those choices on his own.

Antipatris wrote:

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.  

you act like I'm actually trying to make something he said different... I'm only repeating how it came across... if it was so blatently misinterpreted, He'd be better off restating it in a more understandable way... instead he accuses me repeatedly of taking words out of a statement which ultimately changed it's meaning (according to nony) despite my response with the whole statement in tact... seriously?  nice try... I'm not going to fall for that one

Antipatris wrote:

Since none of the "proof" for "demons" is anything of a sort, how do you keep from believing every single supernatural claim ? 

I don't... never said I did believe every single supernatural claim.

Antipatris wrote:

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 ?

the very thing that seems to be lacking here... rationality and understanding of the subject matter

Antipatris wrote:

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.

wow, never took an abnormal psych class in college huh???  

Antipatris wrote:

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.

 

I don't believe it's me that has bitten off more than he could chew.  

Someone or a few people on this thread have defended themselves with statements like I don't need to understand X or research X to know...  That isn't exactly a smart approach to any subject matter.

 


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

Are you claiming that humans are flawless? Absurd. We have hundreds of flaws before you even start talking about our choices.

...and those flaws can be genetically traced.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yet you refuse to answer our questions. Do you have any evidence of demonic possession?

yea, what are you looking for though?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

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?

I have, you smacked your head and didn't read it thoroughly... you can't tell someone the truth unless they're willing to hear it.

Beyond Saving wrote:

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. 

links that consist of people like me talking and... oh yes balderdash... has nothing to do with maybe some rationale behind it.

Beyond Saving wrote:

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. 

 

recheck those balderdash links,.. lets' discuss them instead of dismissing them.  Maybe you can point out the problems

Beyond Saving wrote:

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? 

scientific evidence?  yes, it says it right in the article and why that's the case without dismissing the understanding that it still happens.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:good job

caposkia wrote:
good job being objective.  How do you expect anyone to buy what you say?

Well, if they read what I actually write, instead of making up their own version, then that should be no problem at all. And if you don't agree the article is irrelevant then explain why it is. Should be easy, since I already told you what acceptable proof is and why.

caposkia wrote:
yea, I do that a lot with you... you manipulate and change things so much I have to go back and recheck to see what was actually said and/or done.  I'm getting bored with it.

For pete's sake, I left your own quote right under mine, so you could read what you did wrong without having to look it up. And you're STILL complaining ? How much easier do I have to make it for you ? 

caposkia wrote:

Ok, the question was "is it rational for me to decide that to be the only proof I'd accept" in regards to the car theory and only accepting the existence of mercedes by having someone buy it for me.  

#278 was your first run around response.

#282, I reiterated the simple response I was looking for.

#286, you tell me to reread your indirect answer when I thought I had made it clear that it was a simple yes or no.

So in #289, I spell it out for you

...and that leads us to this post...  guess we haven't yet gotten to your magical number 5, yet

I addressed your car analogy every single time you made it. I explained why it didn't work, so asking me to draw conclusions from it was nonsense.

Not entirely sure why that hasn't sunk in yet, but okay, if you use it again, I'll explain again.

 

caposkia wrote:
so I left that all up there so that we all can see my drastic mistake of claiming that you were trying to turn proof into reality, rather you're looking for proof to turn fantasy into reality... That's not irrational at all! 

Amazing. Absolutely amazing. You just did it AGAIN !!! THAT. IS. NOT. WHAT. I. WROTE !!!!!

AGAIN : the question was : DO YOU UNDERSTAND, THAT PROOF REQUIRED TO TURN FANTASY INTO REALITY, IS GOING TO SEEM IRRATIONAL BEFORE SOMEONE PRODUCES IT ?

THAT is what I wrote ! Not what you keep turning it into ! 

caposkia wrote:
are we talking about finding proof for what was once considered fantasy to make it realized as a reality?  

Close enough ! I'll take it !

caposkia wrote:
That's different than trying to get proof to turn a fantasy into a reality.  Invention turns fantasy into reality.

Which would make it proof required to turn fantasy into reality ! We're here ! Yay !

NOW : DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT IS GOING TO SEEM IRRATIONAL BEFORE SOMEONE PRODUCES IT ?

caposkia wrote:
If this doesn't put us on the same page, then no, i still don't understand.

Rejoice for we have arrived. 

Just to be sure, though : You now DO understand that proof required to turn fantasy into reality is going to seem irrational before someone produces it ? 

(Man, getting you to admit such a simple truth is HARD work !)

caposkia wrote:
What your asking for is not based on spiritual reality.

?? 

caposkia wrote:
that makes sense, but the specifics of what you're looking for still doesn't.

What do you mean ? You were going on and on about how the proof I asked for was "irrational", and now you've been forced to admit it is no such thing.

So what's the problem now ? 

caposkia wrote:
herein is the problem... you're concluding without rationale.  Automatically it's comparing something that doesn't exist with something that does... it's exactly what I was saying, comparing apples with Kangaroos.  fine, Let's prove Kangaroos exist by investigating Tribbles, better?

I noticed someone already gave you the link to the false analogy wiki. Saves me the trouble of explaining just who is "concluding without rationale" here. If you like analogies so much, why not write fiction ? 

caposkia wrote:
...and what were you expecting to see assuming demons were real?

I'm not supposed to make assumptions. So I just looked. No demons. 

caposkia wrote:
that's not what I asked.

And yet it's an answer to your question. Research what's there and make your own study. You will find nothing.

caposkia wrote:
a...tv show.  ok... and from that show... the proof your asking for is reasonable?

Yup, tv-show. They played it absolutely straight. Only came clean the next day, admitting it was all made-up. And what do you mean "the proof you're asking for is reasonable" ? You asked me for examples of "faked proof". You want some more examples than the "demon voices" ? They also had telekinesis and levitation, if you like that sort of thing.

caposkia wrote:
I've made it clear that I wouldn't... and when you don't want to answer directly, you bring that "impossible to tell if your kidding" statement up again.

But what you're asking is ridiculous ! But okay, you leave me no choice but to assume that you don't understand that it doesn't take research to figure out things you can't fake. 

I'll explain the bleeding obvious once again then : You are not a wizard (there is, in fact, no such thing, but yeah, like I said "the bleeding obvious once again" )  , so you can't just magically produce these imaginary creatures. You can't just stick one together with papier-maché, and you can't just point at at CGI demon and go "look ! there's one !". 

caposkia wrote:
point and case, thank you

Nope, just going "point and case, thank you" doesn't mean a goshdarned thing. What actually happened was that you again didn't read what I wrote, I pointed out the nonsensical nature of your comment, and got ignored yet again.

If there's a "point" being made here, it's that you simply don't listen.

caposkia wrote:
ah yes, when in doubt, blame someone for not reading something... got it.

That's the neat thing about these forums. I don't need to "blame" or "doubt", I can just point to what I actually wrote  : "you tried to weasel out of having to come up with evidence in the first place", and then what you wrote in reply : "I try to weasel out of all of it huh... wouldn't the easier way out be to just... walk away?"

caposkia wrote:
 it's not nice to fib

It's not nice to make accusations you can't back up with facts. Adding a smiley face doesn't make it right.

caposkia wrote:
...but instead of using them to possibly steer our conversation toward reasoning and evidence, we ignore them altogether... good strategy.

Since it was already explained why articles don't cut it as proof for the existence of supernatural creatures, yeah, good strategy. (More like a "well duh!" strategy)

caposkia wrote:
I do care what he would answer... I believe he'd say the same thing actually... it's good to get a second opinion from someone who's been there and done that with me.

I don't understand what the use would be of Brian telling me conversations with you don't go anywhere. I disagree. I think we made some pretty amazing progress.

caposkia wrote:
it's all you've got left.  You've turned it from ignorance to misreading despite the clear response without changing words and asking for clarification.  You can only do that so much before people start rolling there yes

Wrong yet again ! Sticking with it payed of ! You had to drop your "irrational proof" excuse. We can finally move on now. 

caposkia wrote:
no... I dont' understand how abuse became contingent on something existing/happening or not...Mentally ill people are abused every day... ergo, mental illnesses are fantasy... not very logical
 

Um...you're the one who insisted that abuse was never a part of a "real" demonic possession case, and you put this case forward as proof. I guess you don't understand yourself anymore now. 

caposkia wrote:
a part of it or happened during it?
 

Are you actually suggesting that a repeated religious gesture that only happened during a religious ritual was not part of it ????

caposkia wrote:
no, I did... glad we cleared that up
 

?????? Now you're just confusing people with non-sequiturs.

caposkia wrote:
wow, so are you now suggesting that i was claiming that if someone was actually possessed that no one would be capable of abusing them?  Just to make it clear, I never claimed that.
 

???? Where the heck did that even come from ??? How does that even tie in to anything I actually said ??? I know precisely what you said, because I have to keep repeating it because YOU keep conveniently forgetting it !

caposkia wrote:
Glad we're on the same page here.  Do you then believe that disbelief can be fantasy?
 

Depends on how you define it.  I'd define it as not believing that anything imaginary, delusional, (only) in the mind, dreams, abstract, false, or fictional is true. And no, I don't believe that could be fantasy.  

caposkia wrote:
the correct answer was "no' see above
 

Wrong again, the correct answer was "yeah, sorry", and you really should be careful about drawing conclusions about anything before you read my replies. 

caposkia wrote:
I mentioned once a long time ago the random claims around the world consistent with each other... you took that on the run and brought it way beyond to say that false claims disprove stuff as if there's no middle of the road.  It seemed that way anyway... maybe I'm making assumptions again huh.
 

Well duh. 

caposkia wrote:
actually I'm challenging your understanding of reality and your reasoning to your conclusion... that's not defending my faith.. 
 

My understanding of reality and my reasoning to my conclusion haven't been challenged, so we still don't know what you're actually doing here, or why. How very mysterious.

caposkia wrote:
I must be a prophet... I knew you were going to say that long before I ever talked to you then!!! wow!!! You can see other threads I've been in to confirm that.
 

What's prophetic about you trying the same tired old trick over and over again, and people always catching you doing it ?

caposkia wrote:
right, which is why I called this a conversation... Thanks for making sure we're on the same page though.  I am simply allowing you to lead the coversation... Bang up job so far.

For someone who's "leading a conversation", I seem to be spending a lot of time fending of weird accusations and silly assumptions, and repeating and explaining painfully simple facts. 

caposkia wrote:
the answer is not contingent on the subject... you admit it's not rational, the question is referring directly to your only acceptable proof approach.  I'm glad you can admit it's not rational regardless of the content of the subject..

Wrong again, I admit no such thing, and I have no idea what you're even talking about. You should know by now what a false analogy is, and why it doesn't even matter. In case you missed it, we just cracked the whole "irrational proof" excuse.

Like I said, progress !

(Yeah, my cynical side suspects you'll try to find some way out of that again, but that's okay, there is no way out, but you're free to try)

caposkia wrote:
well, as I've said, the "it" doesn't matter, regardless of the "it" is it rational to decide that one way  is the only way something can be proven.. you clearly answered above, "no" I agree... Something tells me though we're not done yet with this.  The "it" refers to anything we might be talking about
 

You seem to be over-complicating something, but I can't even guess what.  Still no worries, the "irrational proof" excuse has ceased to be. 

Can't wait for the new one.

(I hope it's the "spiritual reality" excuse. That one's gonna be easy)


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

caposkia wrote:

...and those flaws can be genetically traced.

And who is responsible for creating the rather imperfect method of transmitting genes that lead to all those flaws?

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yet you refuse to answer our questions. Do you have any evidence of demonic possession?

yea, what are you looking for though?  

Well since I asked if you had evidence of demonic possession a person might infer that I am looking for evidence of demonic possession. Anything that doesn't consist of me having to take your word (or someone else's) for it.

 

caposkia wrote:

I have, you smacked your head and didn't read it thoroughly... you can't tell someone the truth unless they're willing to hear it.

No you didn't, you provided me a link of someone talking. I want evidence, not speech or rhetoric. I want videos, MRI's, blood tests, I want double blind studies where people who are possessed are broken into separate groups, some treated with exorcisms and others with traditional psych meds, I want you to give me some plausible reason to believe that there is some type of non-material parasite in the brain. 

 

caposkia wrote:

links that consist of people like me talking and... oh yes balderdash... has nothing to do with maybe some rationale behind it.

I can provide you links of people talking about the little green aliens that probed them last night. Yet you don't believe there are little green men visiting our planet. Why do you believe in demons, but not aliens? Oh yeah, you have not seen any evidence of aliens, well I have not seen any evidence of demonic possession. So give me something that would convince you if it was aliens that were the issue. I am quite sure if I just link to http://www.doaliensexist.org/ that you are not suddenly going to buy it. (At least I hope not) 

 

caposkia wrote:

recheck those balderdash links,.. lets' discuss them instead of dismissing them.  Maybe you can point out the problems

For starters, it is nothing but a series of naked assertions. The only sources it links to are itself. It declares what demons are, it declares the properties of demons but does nothing to prove they really exist any more than the snarfwargle that is sitting next to me. It doesn't even bother doing a decent case study. 

 

caposkia wrote:

scientific evidence?  yes, it says it right in the article and why that's the case without dismissing the understanding that it still happens.

So you believe something that has absolutely no evidence. At least we got you to almost admit it. Now you have a problem, if demonic possession were real it would leave evidence. The claim is that demonic possession manifests itself in very material ways through the person that is possessed. Why can't anyone do a scientific study of people who are possessed and various exorcism techniques and compare those results to regular psychologists? (The places I have seen can't even agree which exorcism techniques work and which don't). It is perfectly possible to do a scientific study even when the main object of the study can't be observed directly. 

For example, your story

caposkia wrote:

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?

 

Ok, we have something physical that can be proven/disproven. The streetlights are going out, all of them? Or just sometimes? Because you know, lights do go out sometimes. Indeed, many street lights have this nifty feature that they detect movement and only turn on when they detect movement and then turn off. But I will assume that you already considered such pedestrian explanations. Lights go out when you get close to them, why is your first response to pray? Why isn't your first call maybe to the city and say "hey, your street lights are going wacky"? Why didn't you go to the doctor and say, "Hey Doc, I'm possessed watch this!" Was it just streetlights or your house lights too? Perhaps after you prayed the city utilities fixed their electric problem.

Maybe it was aliens. Why do you assume demons? Maybe the government planted a small emp type weapon on you to test it out. Irrational? Yep, but not any more than concluding it was demonic possession.

I had a car that was possessed once. It needed a jump and so I hooked it up and without turning the keys the car immediately started up, ran 30 seconds and turned off, sat 30 seconds and turned back on. Apparently, my car had been doing that all night (hence why it needed a jump). Making things more freaky, it just so happened to be Halloween. Being the skeptic I am, my first reaction was to take it to my mechanic because I had no clue. He looked at me like I was crazy when I explained the problem and turning the car off, I took out the key and it started the cycle again. I probably should have tried praying the demon away because it took the mechanic about four hours to find the problem and cost me several hundred even after he gave me a decent discount. Of course, the car was not possessed, it turned out that the remote car starter had gone on the fritz and was having an issue with the anti-theft system. Electricity can do odd things and create odd intermittent problems that are difficult to track down.      

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


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

caposkia wrote:
How to prove a fantasy to make it a reality

No, that is not what he said. You know that is not what he said, so I can't even imagine what you're trying to pull here. Very strange.

 

caposkia wrote:
Ok, so this shows that extremists malpractice..how does this show that the belief leads to abuse?

What makes you call them "extremists" ? Those people are the so-called "experts". You wouldn't call them "extremists" if their crime had been covered up. 

 

caposkia wrote:
how does this show that the belief leads to abuse? 

Because this is all there is that even amounts to anything ! One case of "demonic possession" abuse after another with no end in sight. There ARE NO cases where an actual "demon" shows up and gets vanquished by the "power of christ". 

But what, you ask, about the cases where the "possessed" person doesn't get abused ? Then the best you could hope for is that they laugh it off, and hold no ill will toward the people who put them through it. In short, nothing of any real consequence would have happened. 

So that's all there is, nothing at all (if you're lucky)  , or a place in the sad, ongoing list of torture victims you just browsed through.

 

caposkia wrote:
I could link you to many sites showing the abuse of others who believe because of their belief by those who do not believe as they do... We could start with voice of martyrs... this I don't believe proves that disbelief leads to abuse, but by your reasoning it would...  

Would this be about people with conflicting religious beliefs, by any chance ? 2 or more competing supernatural beliefs ? Then the problem is still belief in the supernatural. And yes, those beliefs need to disappear as well.

 

caposkia wrote:
unless I'm missing something here, please explain. 

I'm guessing here, but I think you don't realize that a belief that only leads to tragedy or absolutely nothing, is something people need to leave behind.

 

caposkia wrote:
Ok, In many countries around the world, if you're found to be a Christian, not only are you tortured to death, but some countries will seek out your family and torture and kill them too for your belief... Therefore (assumptive conclusion based on above reasoning) disbelief causes abuse and torture and are made by people who don't believe in God, I only notice the results.
 

If you're talking about china, I think you'll find it's not "disbelief" that inspires the abuse and torture. 

 

caposkia wrote:
I don't think that by me denying what I know is true, abuse is going to stop based on those reasons.
  

But you don't know that it's true. It's a belief that you could shed whenever you felt like it. It wouldn't cost you anything, and it would most certainly make a difference. Unless you'd like to argue that openly and vocally supporting your faith doesn't affect the real world in any way at all ? 

I'll make it even easier for you : You can keep believing in demons as much as your heart desires. Just don't openly admit to it. And if it comes up in conversation, give it all the ridicule you can muster. That way any risk that your "pure, real belief" in demons might get "corrupted" by someone looking for an excuse, someone who just needs that extra little "nudge", someone who might just go that little bit too far, or even someone who'll settle for emotional abuse, will forever be gone. And if all you "real" believers in demons do that, eventually, you'll be only ones left who believe. It might be less "fun" if you can't talk about it, but that's a small price to pay.

 

caposkia wrote:
In fact, Christians have educated those who resort to abuse about their misunderstanding and have in turn prevented future abuse cases.  If you're going to ask for references, you'll have to look into world missions stories, i don't have one off the top of my head
 

In actual fact,  I have references that show the exact opposite happening. It was on the page I linked. What "christians" actually did was invite one of the vilest and most successful advocates of the "demon children" myth over to america, to preach in one of their churches and promote her book. Future cases are assured.

 

caposkia wrote:
we're not comparing the fictional santa to the real one, only saying that the great manipulation of the persons deeds does not change the fact that the person existed.

"the great manipulation of the persons deeds" ?? No, I'm sorry, I have no idea what you mean or how that's even relevant to anything we discussed. 

 

caposkia wrote:
covered above

No, absolutely not. You are an extremely confusing fellow.

 

caposkia wrote:
I'm glad you'll admit that it doesn't apply to all either way.

You might be less glad once I explain why : I was referring to the possibility that unscrupulous people could assign the label of "demonic possession" to a case after an unrelated crime was already committed. Unlikely, but certainly possible. All the rest of the cases would most certainly never have happened, if not for the whole "demon" nonsense.

 

caposkia wrote:
I wonder if Christians educating those actually prevents more than trying to convince them that what they believe is false?  I think the education would win out.

Christian education INCLUDES a belief in demons, which is where the whole problem starts. There are, however, christians who don't believe in this demon nonsense, and who get justifiably angry with people who do. 

How about we let THEM deal with the education ?

 

caposkia wrote:
we can read any number of cases where a person who truly believed they were possessed and were exhibiting serious problems left with a newness in life and no more symptoms, but I'm guessing that's not what you're after.  

No. Anyone recovering from a delusion would experience those feelings.

 

caposkia wrote:
What you're asking for is specific cases, we'd have to look into archives and world missions.  I'm not sure where to start with that.  IT's hard to find specific cases online, but this article from Christian Today clearly states the position of the churches... this would be those who likely believe in possession: http://www.christiantoday.com/article/african.churches.in.britain.meet.to.discuss.child.abuse.cases/3406.htm 

I'm sorry, I don't understand. I clearly asked for 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. You link me to an article that speaks of religious lip-service from clerical officials who just had one of the many "demonic possession" tragedies shoved in their complacent faces. They did nothing before they were called to order by people who don't believe in this crap, and they're STILL doing nothing ! It's STILL going on ! Check the list on the page I linked you to ! People are actually making money and achieving political power from spreading this toxic belief ! How many more insane tragedies do you need ??

 

caposkia wrote:
...and that's going to justify your case?  I can't believe I'm going to ask this, but... do you honestly believe my "c'mon" was my attempt at making the reasoning parallel?  or could it be that it already is?

"or could it be that it already is" is just as "strong" an argument as "c'mon".

Seriously, does that ever work on anyone ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
good, Got it... so due to the fact that i'm not comparing objects of similar capacity, it must stand as a good analogy

Incredible. It's like you didn't even bother to read the whole first sentence. 

Read it again.

 

caposkia wrote:
in the majority of the cases.  You only go by what you hear... are you aware that what you hear is typically not the usual standard?

Actually, there is support in the bible for mistreating children. Link that to the passages about "demonic possession", and there you go.

And the "usual standard" is a meaningless term, since you still haven't solved the "true christian" problem.

 

caposkia wrote:
no, rather using the excuse of demonic posession is a safe haven for people who like to indulge in deviant behavior... They dont' necessarily have to believe in it.

If they say they do, then how do you know they don't ? Like I already said, if they managed to cover up their crime, you and them could have a serious discussion about "demonology" and agree about everything.

 

caposkia wrote:
Ok, maybe i'm missing something in the story then... if what you say is true, then it is a bad example of a legitimate exorcism.

You brought it up as a case that held proof for "demonic possession", which according to you, did not include abuse. And there is no such thing as a "legitimate exorcism". 

 

caposkia wrote:
The question of abuse was neglect and not physical abuse in the case if I remember... its' been a while... but I was not aware of any substantial proof of abuse regardless of what some have perceived.

"It's been a while" ? I just linked you to a short description of the facts a few days ago ! The abuse happened ! It's an undisputed fact ! Would you like to read another account that confirms it ? And if there is an account of the facts that omits it, would it be any chance be linked to the hollywood movie "inspired" by the events ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
so, modern medicine has the capability of suppressing demons... that's a new one for me.

Well, yes, of course. Not a single one of the reported symptoms are beyond the capability of modern medicine. That's another unfortunate fact that makes the whole "demon" business so ridiculous, and people who believe in it so utterly clueless. 

 

caposkia wrote:
All of her symptoms when associated with a specific disorder are treatable... however, her symptoms were consistent with a laundry list of disorders.. I'm sure we could have drugged her up so much that she would have ended up on a comotose state... if you consider that 'treating' then your case stands.

Modern medicine is a little more advanced than that. So yes, my case stands. Yours never even showed up.


 

caposkia wrote:
I ridicule the abuse...

I don't think that's what you meant to say. When confronted with the abuse, empathy is a better choice than ridicule, I should think.

 

caposkia wrote:
the belief has nothing to do with the abuse...

The belief provides the excuse for the abuse. The link is there. Denying it serves no purpose.

 

caposkia wrote:
I can completely be in disbelief of demonic possession but still use it as an excuse.

Why provide people who would do that with an excuse in the first place ?

 

caposkia wrote:
if it shows me the truth, I'm ok with that... we'd support each other through it all I'm sure

I have a better idea, more productive idea : Why don't we all talk to as many individual believers in "demons" as we can stomach, and try to convince them, using the as yet never-ending supply of facts available, to make them abandon their toxic belief ? 

Makes more sense than reading about the next tragedy and just going "Oh, if only he'd done the exorcism right.."

 

caposkia wrote:
it likely was actual possession due to the symptoms she exhibited... as far as abuse from others... if it did happen as you said, I can't see how that was a part of the appropriate practice.

I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand. This has noting to do with "as I said". I gave you the link, even quoted the relevant sentence. I didn't just pull this fact out of thin air. 

Also, I'm getting increasingly confused as to what you consider a "real" case of "demonic possession" or not. These rules seem to be almost absurdly flexible. 

 

caposkia wrote:
Let's word it this way... let's assume for a moment that the belief in demons is real and that demons actually possess people... could it be true then that more harm could have come to her by ignoring the demon problem and trying to treat it like a mental illness???  And by more harm I mean still alive today yet tortured by the demon, likely strapped to a bed and heavily sedated so as to not injure herself.

What you are describing there is a fantasy, not a reasonable argument ! You really need to start making that distinction. 

 

caposkia wrote:
I like how you worded it..

?? What is that supposed to mean ? I quoted verbatim the question he had to repeat several times !

 

caposkia wrote:
no, there's nothing fanatical about demanding proof for a supernatural claim... but that's not what he asked for.

That is factually untrue. He asked that question more than once. 

And if there's nothing fanatical about demanding proof, then why did you keep going on about "fanatical proof" ???

 

caposkia wrote:
He's asking for proof of a fantasy to turn it into reality.

He asked you a simple, straightforward question. You just kept picking words out of it to form your own sentence and quoted that back at him !

 

caposkia wrote:
who turned this into a win/lose scenario? I'm just trying to get on the same page.  He's making those choices on his own.

If you allow people to lie, everybody always loses something. Even if it's just respect for the person you're talking to.

 

caposkia wrote:
you act like I'm actually trying to make something he said different...

That is literally what you did !!!

 

caposkia wrote:
I'm only repeating how it came across...

You didn't "repeat", you deleted words and formed another sentence ! How could you possibly hope to get away with that ?? 

 

caposkia wrote:
f it was so blatently misinterpreted, He'd be better off restating it in a more understandable way... instead he accuses me repeatedly of taking words out of a statement which ultimately changed it's meaning (according to nony) despite my response with the whole statement in tact... seriously?  nice try... I'm not going to fall for that one

He "accused" you of something you literally did !! "Not going to fall for that one" ??? How does that even make sense ??

Are you seriously even believing yourself right now ? That would make you almost heroically dishonest, so I'm going to opt for a serious case of cognitive dissonance here. 

 

caposkia wrote:
I don't... never said I did believe every single supernatural claim.

Then why believe in "demons", which has just as much proof to support it as pretty much any popular fantasy concept you can think of ?


 

caposkia wrote:
the very thing that seems to be lacking here... rationality and understanding of the subject matter

What do you mean, "lacking here" ? Please don't make any more vague and nonsensical allegations. 

Rationality would demand proof, which "demonic possession" doesn't have, and if "understanding of the subject matter" makes you believe something is real, then AGAIN, how can you possible keep from believing everything ?

 

caposkia wrote:
wow, never took an abnormal psych class in college huh???  

I repeat, making something up doesn't make it real. Also, preceding your sentence with "wow", doesn't make it relevant.


 

caposkia wrote:
I don't believe it's me that has bitten off more than he could chew.

Then why go so far as to repeatedly rearrange and delete words from a simple sentence, just to ignore the even simpler truth it communicates ? I mean, why would anyone even try that ??? 

 

caposkia wrote:
Someone or a few people on this thread have defended themselves with statements like I don't need to understand X or research X to know...  That isn't exactly a smart approach to any subject matter.

And now you're making even more vague accusations. Please just stop doing that.

His argument is extremely simple (since he's dealing with a simple fantasy), so just stop running away from it, and stop trying to distract him and other people with irrelevant attempts at being condescending.

Just the facts, please. Thank you. 


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

caposkia wrote:

People seem to agree that God is all knowing, but to what degree.

How is there a degree to being all knowing? You either know everything, or you don't know everything. I think the real discussion would be about what the word "know" means for God.

 

caposkia wrote:

Scientifically speaking, your approach to the subject psychologically and hormonally fuels the fire of depression rather than squelching it.

Yes, I tend to get pissed off when people tell me they worship the being who (according to them) created me fucked-up on purpose.

 

caposkia wrote:

Sure, I guess that suggests that she definitely couldn't have been then right?

Could she herself have been evil? No.   Could she have been under the control of a malevolent disembodied consciousness? While I really doubt it, I suppose it's possible...

 

caposkia wrote:

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?

I do not recall saying I wanted to hear your evidence so I could try to dispute it. I meant it when I said I was interested in hearing about your experiences, sources, and knowledge.

While I have no idea how a disembodied consciousness could interact with a streetlight, I do find your story quite interesting. I'm being serious, by the way--I really do think that story is interesting and I'd definitely like to hear more.

I've never heard of a "prayer warrior" before; what does it mean/entail, exactly?

 

caposkia wrote:

...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.

I never said demons definitely aren't real--I just said I've never seen enough credible evidence to think they are.

 


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

caposkia wrote:

I could link you to many sites showing the abuse of others who believe because of their belief by those who do not believe as they do... We could start with voice of martyrs... this I don't believe proves that disbelief leads to abuse, but by your reasoning it would... unless I'm missing something here, please explain.

Ok, In many countries around the world, if you're found to be a Christian, not only are you tortured to death, but some countries will seek out your family and torture and kill them too for your belief... Therefore (assumptive conclusion based on above reasoning) disbelief causes abuse and torture and are made by people who don't believe in God, I only notice the results. 

I'd very interested in those links. Especially since I'm almost certain it's not people who lack a belief in god(s) who are performing this abuse, but people who believe in a different God or gods who are.

 


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 205
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Could

blacklight915 wrote:
Could she have been under the control of a malevolent disembodied consciousness? While I really doubt it, I suppose it's possible...
 

How ?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:For pete's

Anonymouse wrote:

For pete's sake, I left your own quote right under mine, so you could read what you did wrong without having to look it up. And you're STILL complaining ? How much easier do I have to make it for you ? 

stop manipulating and changing things so I don't have to keep looking back to see what was actually said... that would suffice... oh, and the blame game's getting old. 

Anonymouse wrote:

I addressed your car analogy every single time you made it. I explained why it didn't work, so asking me to draw conclusions from it was nonsense.

Not entirely sure why that hasn't sunk in yet, but okay, if you use it again, I'll explain again.

...and all i wanted from that question was a simple yes or no... took a few, but you got it

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
That's different than trying to get proof to turn a fantasy into a reality.  Invention turns fantasy into reality.

Which would make it proof required to turn fantasy into reality ! We're here ! Yay !

NOW : DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT IS GOING TO SEEM IRRATIONAL BEFORE SOMEONE PRODUCES IT ?

it wouldn't seem irrational if it was possible and there were logical grounds for that approach... do you have logical grounds?

Why couldn't you have just said that in the first place... repetition wasted a lot of time here... had to play a guessing game

Anonymouse wrote:

Just to be sure, though : You now DO understand that proof required to turn fantasy into reality is going to seem irrational before someone produces it ? 

I can see how it can... still doesn't explain your approach. it doesn't even stand on the basic grounds of spiritual interaction.

Anonymouse wrote:

(Man, getting you to admit such a simple truth is HARD work !)

maybe trying different words next time would be less work... you know, like I had been asking you to for a while now

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:

What your asking for is not based on spiritual reality.

?? 

what, now you're confused?  I've only been telling you this since the beginning

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
...and what were you expecting to see assuming demons were real?

I'm not supposed to make assumptions. So I just looked. No demons. 

exactly... you did assume though.. you assumed that when I said look around, I was telling you to look for a manifestation of demons... Again, how can you ask for evidence if you don't even know what to look for?  I asked you a while ago thinking you maybe did have a realistic idea of what to at least look for.

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
that's not what I asked.

And yet it's an answer to your question. Research what's there and make your own study. You will find nothing.

*slam* (head hit keyboard)  k, um... if you answered a question, it's not what I asked... therefore its not an answer to my question.

Anonymouse wrote:

Yup, tv-show. They played it absolutely straight. Only came clean the next day, admitting it was all made-up. And what do you mean "the proof you're asking for is reasonable" ? You asked me for examples of "faked proof". You want some more examples than the "demon voices" ? They also had telekinesis and levitation, if you like that sort of thing.

oh, I think we ended up talking about 2 different things here... I was assuming you were referencing that as your reasonable approach to your expected proof.

Anonymouse wrote:

I'll explain the bleeding obvious once again then : You are not a wizard (there is, in fact, no such thing, but yeah, like I said "the bleeding obvious once again" )  , so you can't just magically produce these imaginary creatures. You can't just stick one together with papier-maché, and you can't just point at at CGI demon and go "look ! there's one !". 

you finally get it!!!! woah!! after all this time I thought you weren't listening.  K, so if we can agree there, then how about we revamp the proof you would accept.

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Glad we're on the same page here.  Do you then believe that disbelief can be fantasy?
 

Depends on how you define it.  I'd define it as not believing that anything imaginary, delusional, (only) in the mind, dreams, abstract, false, or fictional is true. And no, I don't believe that could be fantasy.  

how about disbelief in something that actually exists?  Could that be fantasy?

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
the correct answer was "no' see above
 

Wrong again, the correct answer was "yeah, sorry", and you really should be careful about drawing conclusions about anything before you read my replies. 

I did, was based on your failure to answer yes or no to a yes or no question... I can retype the list of posts again.

Anonymouse wrote:

My understanding of reality and my reasoning to my conclusion haven't been challenged, so we still don't know what you're actually doing here, or why. How very mysterious.

refusing to acknowledge the challenge and having them challenged are 2 different things.  We have had why I'm here explained now a few times.  

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I must be a prophet... I knew you were going to say that long before I ever talked to you then!!! wow!!! You can see other threads I've been in to confirm that.
 

What's prophetic about you trying the same tired old trick over and over again, and people always catching you doing it ?

that was in reference to me explaining why I'm here.  You still think I've been trying tricks?  I've been trying to get you to see your own delusion and the fact that we haven't made progress..  I believe the tricks are in your head.  It's a typical excuse from those who have no grounds on what they're talking about.  I get that from religious sects, not rationally thinking minds.

Anonymouse wrote:

For someone who's "leading a conversation", I seem to be spending a lot of time fending of weird accusations and silly assumptions, and repeating and explaining painfully simple facts. 

think about that for a moment.

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
the answer is not contingent on the subject... you admit it's not rational, the question is referring directly to your only acceptable proof approach.  I'm glad you can admit it's not rational regardless of the content of the subject..

Wrong again, I admit no such thing, and I have no idea what you're even talking about. You should know by now what a false analogy is, and why it doesn't even matter. In case you missed it, we just cracked the whole "irrational proof" excuse.

Like I said, progress !

I knew you couldn't answer that strait.  If you did, you also know it would defeat everything you've tried to avoid up till now.  I know I know, you won't admit that either, you'll come up with another excuse as to how I'm not making sense or I'm not reading something you wrote.  

It's over Anonymouse... stop running and lets' just face the issues... I'm willing to start over here and actually talk rationally about the subject now

Anonymouse wrote:

(Yeah, my cynical side suspects you'll try to find some way out of that again, but that's okay, there is no way out, but you're free to try)

You wanted me to be strait with you... I really dont' know what you think I'm trying to find my way out of.  

Anonymouse wrote:


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

...and those flaws can be genetically traced.

And who is responsible for creating the rather imperfect method of transmitting genes that lead to all those flaws?

oh no, that's the problem... though there are some erronius genes here and there that can change on their own... as far as we know, those genes aren't changed significantly and don't typically lead to major disorders, rather they're usally flukes that don't get transmitted into the next generation... seems like smart design to me. 

I'm referring to the genes that were transmitted perfectly, but were slowly changed over generations into what they have become... which is flawed..

The erronius genes idea is for another thread another time, but that has to do wtih God creating everything with a design to run and reproduce on its own, again adapting to changes that need to be made... Again long convo for a different thread.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well since I asked if you had evidence of demonic possession a person might infer that I am looking for evidence of demonic possession. Anything that doesn't consist of me having to take your word (or someone else's) for it.

like??...... um personal experience, records, unrelated scenarios with congruencies, conversation with an expert? 

Beyond Saving wrote:

No you didn't, you provided me a link of someone talking. I want evidence, not speech or rhetoric. I want videos, MRI's, blood tests, I want double blind studies where people who are possessed are broken into separate groups, some treated with exorcisms and others with traditional psych meds, I want you to give me some plausible reason to believe that there is some type of non-material parasite in the brain. 

ok, it is understood that the average mental hospital likely has 1 or more possessed persons mistaken to have a mental disorder... those being treated have not responded well to treatment which is why they're admitted to a mental hospital.  Others who are treated with exorcisms... proper ones, typically are rid of the possession within 30 miinutes or so... check the mental hospitals for patient records and symptom lists, then check with churches who have people trained in exorcism... they likely are doing them often.  

Simply put, I think you're on the right track... I don't have the means to set up such a study and run it for you.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

For starters, it is nothing but a series of naked assertions. The only sources it links to are itself. It declares what demons are, it declares the properties of demons but does nothing to prove they really exist any more than the snarfwargle that is sitting next to me. It doesn't even bother doing a decent case study. 

maybe because that particular study doesn't think they exist outside the mind... Might want to read it more carefully... i didn't post those links because they defended my position, they only shed some light on a scientific approach to it.

Beyond Saving wrote:

So you believe something that has absolutely no evidence.

um... no... just because science can't find a physical manifestation of it, and/or hasn't defined it as a mental disorder doesn't suggest that there's no evidence. These particular studies talk about lab tests... they go on to explain that the problem with science is its limit is the physical.

Beyond Saving wrote:

At least we got you to almost admit it. Now you have a problem, if demonic possession were real it would leave evidence. The claim is that demonic possession manifests itself in very material ways through the person that is possessed. Why can't anyone do a scientific study of people who are possessed and various exorcism techniques and compare those results to regular psychologists? (The places I have seen can't even agree which exorcism techniques work and which don't). It is perfectly possible to do a scientific study even when the main object of the study can't be observed directly. 

For example, your story

for a place that would agree on exorcism techniques, we might want to start looking at a place that actually teaches it... that's information we're likely not going to find in full detail online... not convenience rather, it's dangerous to put it online and assume that someone would read it and think they could do it on their own.

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Ok, we have something physical that can be proven/disproven. The streetlights are going out, all of them? Or just sometimes? Because you know, lights do go out sometimes. Indeed, many street lights have this nifty feature that they detect movement and only turn on when they detect movement and then turn off. But I will assume that you already considered such pedestrian explanations. Lights go out when you get close to them, why is your first response to pray? Why isn't your first call maybe to the city and say "hey, your street lights are going wacky"? Why didn't you go to the doctor and say, "Hey Doc, I'm possessed watch this!" Was it just streetlights or your house lights too? Perhaps after you prayed the city utilities fixed their electric problem.

ok, yes it happened with house lights too... didn't always pray when it was first happening and it happend more often than not... they would turn back on once I got far enough away... trust me, i messed around with it for a bit to see if i was going crazy.    A doctor isn't going to know what to do with lights turning out around me... and I didn't choose to have certain ones go out, it was random, but more common than not.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Maybe it was aliens. Why do you assume demons? Maybe the government planted a small emp type weapon on you to test it out. Irrational? Yep, but not any more than concluding it was demonic possession.

well, in my explanation.. I thought I said it could be demons or maybe not.., either way, none of it explains why it stopped when my friend prayed about it.  Sure aliens then, but no report has ever suggested aliens responding to prayer... I didn't associate it with demons until after the prayer and it stopped.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I had a car that was possessed once. It needed a jump and so I hooked it up and without turning the keys the car immediately started up, ran 30 seconds and turned off, sat 30 seconds and turned back on. Apparently, my car had been doing that all night (hence why it needed a jump). Making things more freaky, it just so happened to be Halloween. Being the skeptic I am, my first reaction was to take it to my mechanic because I had no clue. He looked at me like I was crazy when I explained the problem and turning the car off, I took out the key and it started the cycle again. I probably should have tried praying the demon away because it took the mechanic about four hours to find the problem and cost me several hundred even after he gave me a decent discount. Of course, the car was not possessed, it turned out that the remote car starter had gone on the fritz and was having an issue with the anti-theft system. Electricity can do odd things and create odd intermittent problems that are difficult to track down.

hmmm. a remote car starter is installed and your car was starting automatically... sorry, my first assumption would have been that my car starter was on the fritz.  

The problem with mine still hasn't been explained... lights that I had no control over nor anyone else remotely for that matter individually shut off when I went under them.  prayer from a friend caused it to stop  


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:oh no, that's

caposkia wrote:

oh no, that's the problem... though there are some erronius genes here and there that can change on their own... as far as we know, those genes aren't changed significantly and don't typically lead to major disorders, rather they're usally flukes that don't get transmitted into the next generation... seems like smart design to me. 

All sorts of bad genes are regularly transmitted to the next generation. The human body in general is hardly an example of incredible workmanship. We are flawed beings, even ignoring the various genetic mutations that can lead to significant abnormalities.  

caposkia wrote:

I'm referring to the genes that were transmitted perfectly, but were slowly changed over generations into what they have become... which is flawed..

The erronius genes idea is for another thread another time, but that has to do wtih God creating everything with a design to run and reproduce on its own, again adapting to changes that need to be made... Again long convo for a different thread.

There is no such thing as genes that are transmitted perfectly. The transmission is imperfect, a perfect transmission of genes would be the abnormality. If someone designed the world to operate on its own, they did a piss poor job. 

 

caposkia wrote:

like??...... um personal experience, records, unrelated scenarios with congruencies, conversation with an expert? 

Records, videos and studies conducted by people actually looking for answers. 

 

caposkia wrote:

ok, it is understood that the average mental hospital likely has 1 or more possessed persons mistaken to have a mental disorder... those being treated have not responded well to treatment which is why they're admitted to a mental hospital.  Others who are treated with exorcisms... proper ones, typically are rid of the possession within 30 miinutes or so... check the mental hospitals for patient records and symptom lists, then check with churches who have people trained in exorcism... they likely are doing them often.  

Simply put, I think you're on the right track... I don't have the means to set up such a study and run it for you.

Well you said there were "experts" on demons so I imagine one of these experts have already conducted this test right? I'm just asking you to point me to the expert who has already done so. If no one has, then I don't see how you have a basis to call demonic possession anything other than an untested hypothesis.

 

caposkia wrote:

maybe because that particular study doesn't think they exist outside the mind... Might want to read it more carefully... i didn't post those links because they defended my position, they only shed some light on a scientific approach to it.

Well it wasn't even an attempt at a scientific approach, it was an explanation on why demonology can't be science. (Hint: if you see the prefix "para" that means the rest is bullshit)

 

caposkia wrote:

um... no... just because science can't find a physical manifestation of it, and/or hasn't defined it as a mental disorder doesn't suggest that there's no evidence. These particular studies talk about lab tests... they go on to explain that the problem with science is its limit is the physical.

Yet I offered a perfectly scientific test that could be done to at least test the effectiveness of exorcisms. If there are material manifestations science can study it, even if we can't identify the exact cause. Dark matter is a good example of how science can study something even when we don't know what it is and currently cannot study it directly. However, for some reason, none of these so called experts have bothered to conduct similar studies on demons.

 

caposkia wrote:

for a place that would agree on exorcism techniques, we might want to start looking at a place that actually teaches it... that's information we're likely not going to find in full detail online... not convenience rather, it's dangerous to put it online and assume that someone would read it and think they could do it on their own.

Why? Are they worried about the torture lawsuits? 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

ok, yes it happened with house lights too... didn't always pray when it was first happening and it happend more often than not... they would turn back on once I got far enough away... trust me, i messed around with it for a bit to see if i was going crazy.    A doctor isn't going to know what to do with lights turning out around me... and I didn't choose to have certain ones go out, it was random, but more common than not.

Well I would call an electrician first. I just suggested a doctor after you determined it was a demon. Really, you could have been the first person in the world to have a demon studied by a medical professional. Then you would actually have some evidence because when the doctor wrote an article in a medical journal on your case it would certainly have become a major case studied by all sorts of smart people trying to figure out what was happening to you.  

 

caposkia wrote:

well, in my explanation.. I thought I said it could be demons or maybe not.., either way, none of it explains why it stopped when my friend prayed about it.  Sure aliens then, but no report has ever suggested aliens responding to prayer... I didn't associate it with demons until after the prayer and it stopped.

You don't even know how it started, so why do you pretend to know how it stopped? Do your friends prayers work 100% of the time? My point is that you can pull any explanation out of your ass, and that is all it is, an explanation out of your ass that is most likely completely wrong. Simply admitting you don't know what happened is a far more effective starting point to determining what really happened rather than making up something. You don't know, so look for evidence and attempt to figure out what is wrong with the electric. Boeing has had a problem with their 787's that some of the most experienced electrical people in the world haven't figured out for over a month. Is it because demons hate Boeing? Of course not, it is some electrical design flaw that they will figure out and repair sooner or later. (Sooner rather than later I hope)  

People used to believe that various illnesses we can identify and treat today were the result of bad spirits. They went to witch doctors and it either got better (as many illnesses do) or they died. If they got better the stupid witch doctor got the credit, if they died it was because of the bad spirits. You are doing the same thing. Something you can't explain happened, so you assign a supernatural cause to it and it happened to stop so you credit the prayer. Sad that after thousands of years humans keep making the same mistakes over and over.  

 

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
Antipatris wrote:caposkia

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
How to prove a fantasy to make it a reality

No, that is not what he said. You know that is not what he said, so I can't even imagine what you're trying to pull here. Very strange.

After his most recent post I can see that's not what he was saying... had to play a guessing game, but to be honest, that's what was coming across though he refused to modify his wording for so long.  

I think interesting your knee jerk response is me trying to pull something... even still

Antipatris wrote:

What makes you call them "extremists" ? Those people are the so-called "experts". You wouldn't call them "extremists" if their crime had been covered up. 

the article defined them as extremists... and for lack of a better term, they are

Antipatris wrote:

Because this is all there is that even amounts to anything ! One case of "demonic possession" abuse after another with no end in sight. There ARE NO cases where an actual "demon" shows up and gets vanquished by the "power of christ". 

in possession cases, demons don't just manifest outside the body, they're in a person, hence the term possession.  

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I could link you to many sites showing the abuse of others who believe because of their belief by those who do not believe as they do... We could start with voice of martyrs... this I don't believe proves that disbelief leads to abuse, but by your reasoning it would...  

Would this be about people with conflicting religious beliefs, by any chance ? 2 or more competing supernatural beliefs ? Then the problem is still belief in the supernatural. And yes, those beliefs need to disappear as well.

many are conflicting beliefs, but North Korea for example isn't.

Antipatris wrote:

I'm guessing here, but I think you don't realize that a belief that only leads to tragedy or absolutely nothing, is something people need to leave behind.

ok, now just like you, i can't take your word on it... examples of abuse happening don't work either because abuse happens in and out of belief systems... What basis do you have for that understanding?

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I don't think that by me denying what I know is true, abuse is going to stop based on those reasons.
  

But you don't know that it's true. It's a belief that you could shed whenever you felt like it. It wouldn't cost you anything, and it would most certainly make a difference. Unless you'd like to argue that openly and vocally supporting your faith doesn't affect the real world in any way at all ? 

sure it affects the real world, but you seem to assume my belief automatically affects it negatively...  I've never been a part of an abuse case and none of those I'm with who follow the belief I follow have either.  If my belief is real, there's a serious cost for shedding it.  

Antipatris wrote:

I'll make it even easier for you : You can keep believing in demons as much as your heart desires. Just don't openly admit to it. And if it comes up in conversation, give it all the ridicule you can muster. That way any risk that your "pure, real belief" in demons might get "corrupted" by someone looking for an excuse, someone who just needs that extra little "nudge", someone who might just go that little bit too far, or even someone who'll settle for emotional abuse, will forever be gone. And if all you "real" believers in demons do that, eventually, you'll be only ones left who believe. It might be less "fun" if you can't talk about it, but that's a small price to pay.

...and what if by doing that, they see there's nothing to worry about and decide that becasue there's no demons or no God that they can get away with abuse as long as no one finds out?  Same hypothetical as yours.

Antipatris wrote:

In actual fact,  I have references that show the exact opposite happening. It was on the page I linked. What "christians" actually did was invite one of the vilest and most successful advocates of the "demon children" myth over to america, to preach in one of their churches and promote her book. Future cases are assured.

there are stories for both sides obviously... if you found one, you can find the other most likely

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
we're not comparing the fictional santa to the real one, only saying that the great manipulation of the persons deeds does not change the fact that the person existed.

"the great manipulation of the persons deeds" ?? No, I'm sorry, I have no idea what you mean or how that's even relevant to anything we discussed. 

Santa... This Saint Nicholas character was just a generous guy with a big heart for children who suffered in poverty... that's all... his deeds were manipulated to this fantastic story of a fat red guy flying around in a slay and sliding down chimneys giving toys to greedy kids.  

Antipatris wrote:

Christian education INCLUDES a belief in demons, which is where the whole problem starts. There are, however, christians who don't believe in this demon nonsense, and who get justifiably angry with people who do. 

How about we let THEM deal with the education ?

They likely wouldn't be teaching from the Bible... not very Christian

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
we can read any number of cases where a person who truly believed they were possessed and were exhibiting serious problems left with a newness in life and no more symptoms, but I'm guessing that's not what you're after.  

No. Anyone recovering from a delusion would experience those feelings.

including no more symptoms??? that's not entirely true

Antipatris wrote:

I'm sorry, I don't understand. I clearly asked for 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. You link me to an article that speaks of religious lip-service from clerical officials who just had one of the many "demonic possession" tragedies shoved in their complacent faces. They did nothing before they were called to order by people who don't believe in this crap, and they're STILL doing nothing ! It's STILL going on ! Check the list on the page I linked you to ! People are actually making money and achieving political power from spreading this toxic belief ! How many more insane tragedies do you need ??

more than there are abuses unrelated to belief would be a start... we're a long way away from that number

Antipatris wrote:

Actually, there is support in the bible for mistreating children. Link that to the passages about "demonic possession", and there you go.

And the "usual standard" is a meaningless term, since you still haven't solved the "true christian" problem.

Can you reference that please?

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
no, rather using the excuse of demonic posession is a safe haven for people who like to indulge in deviant behavior... They dont' necessarily have to believe in it.

If they say they do, then how do you know they don't ? Like I already said, if they managed to cover up their crime, you and them could have a serious discussion about "demonology" and agree about everything.

well, you can't really know what a person believes unless they tell you, and if they're commonly dishonest, i guess you might never know.. the point was, regardless of belief, they can still use it as an excuse if they know others will buy it.... 

problem with your case, I believe, but I dont' buy it

Antipatris wrote:

"It's been a while" ? I just linked you to a short description of the facts a few days ago ! The abuse happened ! It's an undisputed fact ! Would you like to read another account that confirms it ? And if there is an account of the facts that omits it, would it be any chance be linked to the hollywood movie "inspired" by the events ? 

I read the links and I quoted the german passage to saying nothing about implementing abuse onto someone.  Nothing has described ill action by the people involved, rather what she had done to herself...so it seemed.  Again, if what yo say is true, then it's a bad example... I'll leave it at that.

Antipatris wrote:

Modern medicine is a little more advanced than that. So yes, my case stands. Yours never even showed up.

advanced or not, there still as far as I know is no one medicine to treat all the mental disorders she could have been diagnosed with... she'd still ahve to be comotose and tied to a bed.

Antipatris wrote:

The belief provides the excuse for the abuse. The link is there. Denying it serves no purpose.

among many other excuses for abuse.. you're using belief as an excuse as if the majority of cases has to do with belief.. which they don't.

Antipatris wrote:

Why provide people who would do that with an excuse in the first place ?

I don't, but by what you believe, you're telling them I do

Antipatris wrote:

I have a better idea, more productive idea : Why don't we all talk to as many individual believers in "demons" as we can stomach, and try to convince them, using the as yet never-ending supply of facts available, to make them abandon their toxic belief ? 

that's great...however you'd better have a better approach than what you'er trying to use on me... you won't get far at all with your abuse excuse...  Also, its' hard for me to do that when i believe in it myself.

Antipatris wrote:

Makes more sense than reading about the next tragedy and just going "Oh, if only he'd done the exorcism right.."

no, it's more like, who thought he should do an exorcism, it's obvious he's clueless

Antipatris wrote:

I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand. This has noting to do with "as I said". I gave you the link, even quoted the relevant sentence. I didn't just pull this fact out of thin air. 

Also, I'm getting increasingly confused as to what you consider a "real" case of "demonic possession" or not. These rules seem to be almost absurdly flexible. 

not at all, but they can include a number of symptoms... like the common cold:  headaches, fever, sore throat, cough, nausia and vomiting, exhaustion, etc.  however any one of those symptoms or any number of them can show up in one person, but the opposite in another, yet they both can be diagnosed with the typical common cold.  Same with possession.

Antipatris wrote:

What you are describing there is a fantasy, not a reasonable argument ! You really need to start making that distinction. 

not any more fantasy than your scenario.  You gave me one side of it, i gave the other... either both of us described a fantasy, or both of us described a realistic possibility

Antipatris wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
I like how you worded it..

?? What is that supposed to mean ? I quoted verbatim the question he had to repeat several times !

the way you worded it made sense... he did not word it that way.

Antipatris wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
no, there's nothing fanatical about demanding proof for a supernatural claim... but that's not what he asked for.

That is factually untrue. He asked that question more than once. 

And if there's nothing fanatical about demanding proof, then why did you keep going on about "fanatical proof" ???

what I understood him to be asking for was fanatical proof

Antipatris wrote:

He asked you a simple, straightforward question. You just kept picking words out of it to form your own sentence and quoted that back at him !

just to clarify for you, I was quoting back what I was understanding from him... if it was wrong, instead of all the excuses, just explain it differently... saves everyone a lot of time

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I'm only repeating how it came across...

You didn't "repeat", you deleted words and formed another sentence ! How could you possibly hope to get away with that ?? 

I did that at first thinkign the part about how I'd feel about it wouldnt' matter in the quote... it apparently did so I replied again with teh whole phrase in tact.. every single word... you and him still got stuck on that despite the literal quote with nothing taken out... give it up

Antipatris wrote:

Then why believe in "demons", which has just as much proof to support it as pretty much any popular fantasy concept you can think of ?

maybe there's more to it than that... it's clear you both dont' know much about the topic except for what the comic books say

Antipatris wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
the very thing that seems to be lacking here... rationality and understanding of the subject matter

What do you mean, "lacking here" ? Please don't make any more vague and nonsensical allegations. 

I thought I made that pretty clear... you and nony don't understand the subject matter

Antipatris wrote:

Rationality would demand proof, which "demonic possession" doesn't have, and if "understanding of the subject matter" makes you believe something is real, then AGAIN, how can you possible keep from believing everything ?

by... understanding the... subject matter ... which btw, doesn't necessarily make you believe something is real

Antipatris wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
wow, never took an abnormal psych class in college huh???  

I repeat, making something up doesn't make it real. Also, preceding your sentence with "wow", doesn't make it relevant.

abnormal psych is an actual college level course... not made up, same with the topic of origin for that statement, which is why the course was mentioned.

Antipatris wrote:


 

caposkia wrote:
I don't believe it's me that has bitten off more than he could chew.

Then why go so far as to repeatedly rearrange and delete words from a simple sentence, just to ignore the even simpler truth it communicates ? I mean, why would anyone even try that ??? 

When I did it, I didn't realize that nony and you would think I rearranged and deleted words to ignore anything... which is why i reposted with the whole quote, nothing taken out... 

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Someone or a few people on this thread have defended themselves with statements like I don't need to understand X or research X to know...  That isn't exactly a smart approach to any subject matter.

And now you're making even more vague accusations. Please just stop doing that.

what's vague about it?  it's what you and nony have been doing

Antipatris wrote:

His argument is extremely simple (since he's dealing with a simple fantasy), so just stop running away from it, and stop trying to distract him and other people with irrelevant attempts at being condescending.

Just the facts, please. Thank you. 

Whenever you're ready... I've been head first in this conversation.  I've called nony out on all his running around and he's still trying to get away from that... I know you're trying to defend him, but I think you're smarter than that.  I never once meant to be condescending in any of my replies btw, I'm sorry if you felt that way toward you or anyone else on this thread


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

blacklight915 wrote:

How is there a degree to being all knowing? You either know everything, or you don't know everything. I think the real discussion would be about what the word "know" means for God.

maybe that's the better angle... you seem to understand what I'm saying then.

blacklight915 wrote:

Yes, I tend to get pissed off when people tell me they worship the being who (according to them) created me fucked-up on purpose.

 

well, as i said, maybe, but I didn't say that because its' just as likely he didn't create you like that on purpose, but allowed genetics to evolve through your bloodline...  I can't make the call because I dont' know your situation

blacklight915 wrote:

Could she herself have been evil? No.   Could she have been under the control of a malevolent disembodied consciousness? While I really doubt it, I suppose it's possible...

 

no, that's not what I meant, but controlled by another consciousness.  

blacklight915 wrote:

I do not recall saying I wanted to hear your evidence so I could try to dispute it. I meant it when I said I was interested in hearing about your experiences, sources, and knowledge.

While I have no idea how a disembodied consciousness could interact with a streetlight, I do find your story quite interesting. I'm being serious, by the way--I really do think that story is interesting and I'd definitely like to hear more.

I've never heard of a "prayer warrior" before; what does it mean/entail, exactly?

Sorry if you didn't ask... I likely got it mixed up with the other conversations... sorry.  I may have accidentally pasted it.

Prayer warriors are those who have a gift in prayer... in other words, what they pray for will have usually immediate results... not everyone who prays gets immediate results and/or results that they wanted, but prayer warriors have this special connection that allows them for some reason to get typically obvious results.

blacklight915 wrote:

I never said demons definitely aren't real--I just said I've never seen enough credible evidence to think they are.

That is a good approach to have.  I always ask, what would be credible evidence for you... I understand if you're not sure.


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

blacklight915 wrote:

caposkia wrote:

I could link you to many sites showing the abuse of others who believe because of their belief by those who do not believe as they do... We could start with voice of martyrs... this I don't believe proves that disbelief leads to abuse, but by your reasoning it would... unless I'm missing something here, please explain.

Ok, In many countries around the world, if you're found to be a Christian, not only are you tortured to death, but some countries will seek out your family and torture and kill them too for your belief... Therefore (assumptive conclusion based on above reasoning) disbelief causes abuse and torture and are made by people who don't believe in God, I only notice the results. 

I'd very interested in those links. Especially since I'm almost certain it's not people who lack a belief in god(s) who are performing this abuse, but people who believe in a different God or gods who are.

 

Start with the Voice of Martyrs; http://www.persecution.com.  A lot of the coutries are of other faiths, but typically it's governments and law enforcement that target Christians in communist etc countries... North Korea is a perfect example of a country lacking any belief in any god other than their president and through the government orders, Chrsitians and their families are tortured and killed.

 


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well you said there were "experts" on demons so I imagine one of these experts have already conducted this test right? I'm just asking you to point me to the expert who has already done so. If no one has, then I don't see how you have a basis to call demonic possession anything other than an untested hypothesis.

well, indirectly yes... none of them that I know of have actually tried to take it to the level of a full blown study as you suggest... instead, they've waited for conventional methods to fail before attempting exorcisms.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well it wasn't even an attempt at a scientific approach, it was an explanation on why demonology can't be science. (Hint: if you see the prefix "para" that means the rest is bullshit)

good thing I've never gone sky diving Eye-wink

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

for a place that would agree on exorcism techniques, we might want to start looking at a place that actually teaches it... that's information we're likely not going to find in full detail online... not convenience rather, it's dangerous to put it online and assume that someone would read it and think they could do it on their own.

Why? Are they worried about the torture lawsuits? 

hah, no, I think they're more worried about people thinking they can do it on their own without the proper training and understanding... like those abuse cases that have been brought up

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Well I would call an electrician first. I just suggested a doctor after you determined it was a demon. Really, you could have been the first person in the world to have a demon studied by a medical professional. Then you would actually have some evidence because when the doctor wrote an article in a medical journal on your case it would certainly have become a major case studied by all sorts of smart people trying to figure out what was happening to you.  

or they would do what they typically do with those cases and just medicate and if that fails, put them in a mental hospital.

Beyond Saving wrote:

You don't even know how it started, so why do you pretend to know how it stopped?

after happening for 2 years strait, it ironically stops after I talk to my friend about it?  I call him up later to find out he prayed about it... a little too ironic, don't you think???

Beyond Saving wrote:

Do your friends prayers work 100% of the time? My point is that you can pull any explanation out of your ass, and that is all it is, an explanation out of your ass that is most likely completely wrong. Simply admitting you don't know what happened is a far more effective starting point to determining what really happened rather than making up something. You don't know, so look for evidence and attempt to figure out what is wrong with the electric. Boeing has had a problem with their 787's that some of the most experienced electrical people in the world haven't figured out for over a month. Is it because demons hate Boeing? Of course not, it is some electrical design flaw that they will figure out and repair sooner or later. (Sooner rather than later I hope)  

Sure, an electrical problem... that happens only right when i walk under the light... It'd be more logical to conclude I was on candid camera first.

Beyond Saving wrote:

People used to believe that various illnesses we can identify and treat today were the result of bad spirits. They went to witch doctors and it either got better (as many illnesses do) or they died. If they got better the stupid witch doctor got the credit, if they died it was because of the bad spirits. You are doing the same thing. Something you can't explain happened, so you assign a supernatural cause to it and it happened to stop so you credit the prayer. Sad that after thousands of years humans keep making the same mistakes over and over.  

I didn't assign a supernatural cause to it for over a year... then I started wondering, but still claimed I didn't know... I talked to my friend only because it came up in conversation and I mentioned something strange that I couldnt' explain.  The rest was determined in hind sight.  


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

caposkia wrote:
stop manipulating and changing things so I don't have to keep looking back to see what was actually said... that would suffice... oh, and the blame game's getting old.

Then stop doing it ! All I did was state a fact you're desperate to ignore.

caposkia wrote:
...and all i wanted from that question was a simple yes or no... took a few, but you got it

What question ? Reference what you're talking about.

anonymouse wrote:
Which would make it proof required to turn fantasy into reality ! We're here ! Yay !

NOW : DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT IS GOING TO SEEM IRRATIONAL BEFORE SOMEONE PRODUCES IT ?

caposkia wrote:
it wouldn't seem irrational if it was possible and there were logical grounds for that approach... do you have logical grounds?

READ THE QUESTION : "....BEFORE SOMEONE PRODUCES IT !!!!!" BEFORE ! You can only say it was possible AFTER it gets produced ! And YOU're the one who claims there's proof ! NOT ME !

In-bloody-credible. You STILL didn't answer the question and asked me one instead !

Oh wait, you answer it later. Awesome.

caposkia wrote:
Why couldn't you have just said that in the first place... repetition wasted a lot of time here... had to play a guessing game

WTF ??? YOU HAD TO TAKE WORDS AND VERBS OUT THE SENTENCE AND REARRANGE IT BEFORE YOU COULD EVEN MISS THE POINT !!!!!!! AND THAT'S SOMEHOW MY FAULT ?? THAT'S A GUESSING GAME ?????

That really is one amazing set of brass balls you have there.  

anonymouse wrote:
Just to be sure, though : You now DO understand that proof required to turn fantasy into reality is going to seem irrational before someone produces it ? 

caposkia wrote:
I can see how it can...

Yeah, I'm framing that one. Okay ! Phew ! Man, that took some doing. 

caposkia wrote:
still doesn't explain your approach.

You just admitted there is nothing wrong with my "approach". Produce the proof or admit there is none. 

caposkia wrote:
it doesn't even stand on the basic grounds of spiritual interaction.

I have already explained, time and time again, that you can't explain nonsense with more nonsense. If you don't understand that, then tell me. 

caposkia wrote:
maybe trying different words next time would be less work... you know, like I had been asking you to for a while now

You got it eventually, and I didn't even have to change a single word, so what are you even talking about ? 

caposkia wrote:
what, now you're confused?  I've only been telling you this since the beginning

Again, you can't back up nonsense with more nonsense. I told you what proof would be acceptable, and we just destroyed your "irrational proof" excuse. 

So I'm not as much confused as happily surprised you would try the exact same thing again. 

caposkia wrote:
exactly... you did assume though.. you assumed that when I said look around,

This is fantastic. You're actually assuming that I was assuming something. Amazing.

caposkia wrote:
I was telling you to look for a manifestation of demons... Again, how can you ask for evidence if you don't even know what to look for?  I asked you a while ago thinking you maybe did have a realistic idea of what to at least look for.

Since you didn't specify, I looked for anything. I hope you're not suggesting that I should have asked you first what to look for, and then me spotting that would have somehow counted as "proof for demons". Because that would just be too funny. And too easy.

Oh, and you can drop the word "realistic", when talking about "demons". We just established and agreed that proof for demons is going to seem irrational before someone produces it. 

caposkia wrote:
*slam* (head hit keyboard)  k, um...

Yeah, that also doesn't count as an argument. Sorry.

caposkia wrote:
if you answered a question, it's not what I asked... therefore its not an answer to my question.

I adequately explained why it does answer your question. All you did in reply was slam your head against you keyboard. Therefore my answers stand and you have a sore head.

caposkia wrote:
oh, I think we ended up talking about 2 different things here... I was assuming you were referencing that as your reasonable approach to your expected proof.

If you were to quit assuming stuff, we could seriously limit the length of these replies, methinks.

caposkia wrote:
you finally get it!!!! woah!! after all this time I thought you weren't listening.  K, so if we can agree there, then how about we revamp the proof you would accept.

Sorry to burst your bubble again, but no, that was me explaining why you can't fake the proof I asked for. And as we just agreed (I framed it !) the proof I asked for is only going to SEEM IRRATIONAL BEFORE SOMEONE (that would be you, not me) PRODUCES IT.

More please, I'm having fun now.

caposkia wrote:
how about disbelief in something that actually exists?  Could that be fantasy?

According to my definition, that wouldn't be disbelief. 

caposkia wrote:
I did, was based on your failure to answer yes or no to a yes or no question... I can retype the list of posts again.

Then be sure to include the sentence where you specify the questions as such. 

caposkia wrote:
refusing to acknowledge the challenge and having them challenged are 2 different things.

So are your claims about me and truth. So we're back where we started 

caposkia wrote:
We have had why I'm here explained now a few times.

Like I said, back where we started, so nope. Guess we'd better ask Brian what you're doing here.

caposkia wrote:
that was in reference to me explaining why I'm here.  You still think I've been trying tricks?  

Dude, AGAIN, you actually deleted words and verbs from a question I asked you, rearranged them in a totally new sentence, and then tried to pretend it was the same thing !

And lets try to forget how many times you tried to justify nonsense by adding on even more of it. Heck, you tried that in this post ! 

caposkia wrote:
I've been trying to get you to see your own delusion and the fact that we haven't made progress..

Wrong again. You've been throwing pejoratives at me like "fanatical" and now "delusion", hoping it would stick or distract me. Sorry, not gonna happen.

And we most certainly have made progress. I will happily drag you the rest of the way. Short trip, so no worries.

caposkia wrote:
 I believe the tricks are in your head.

Another belief ? Boy, you have lots. They just seem to pop up whenever you need 'em.  Meanwhile, I can just point at what you actually wrote.

caposkia wrote:
  It's a typical excuse from those who have no grounds on what they're talking about.

Who needs an excuse ? I mean, I'll bet you're cooking up another one of those half-baked insults right now...Yup, here it comes

caposkia wrote:
 I get that from religious sects, not rationally thinking minds.

Aaand here's that little trick again : "Let's accuse the person I'm talking to of something really stupid. Maybe he'll get mad enough so I can derail the conversation even further from the facts I'm trying to avoid."

This is about, what, the third time you tried the "sects" thing ? 

Still not working. Sorry.

caposkia wrote:
think about that for a moment.

I did, and you know what, I think I summarized the situation very well. 

caposkia wrote:
I knew you couldn't answer that strait.
 

You noticed that wasn't a question, right ? You just made some conclusion about me not admitting something. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to "answer" that.

caposkia wrote:
If you did, you also know it would defeat everything you've tried to avoid up till now.
 

It would ? Absolutely fantastic ! Then all you have to do is reproduce said magical question as simply and succinctly as you know how, and you'll be sitting pretty.

Bring it on. 

caposkia wrote:
I know I know, you won't admit that either, you'll come up with another excuse as to how I'm not making sense or I'm not reading something you wrote.
  

See, the thing is that we can easily check if you're making sense or not, and we can even more easily ascertain if you're reading what I wrote, or what you wrote. 

So yeah, sorry, that won't work as an excuse for not producing your magic question, if it exists, so bring it. 

caposkia wrote:
It's over Anonymouse..
 

We're pretty close, yeah, and there's no way back for you. But I don't wanna kick you over the finish line. I'd prefer it if you took the step yourself.

Produce the proof, or admit there isn't any proof for demons. ("irrational proof" excuse, dealt with)

caposkia wrote:
stop running and lets' just face the issues...

Excellent suggestion. Let's do that : Produce the proof, or admit there's no proof for demons. ("irrational proof" excuse dealt with)

caposkia wrote:
 I'm willing to start over here and actually talk rationally about the subject now

Oh, I'll just bet you want to start over. No need. We'd only end up in the same spot, as you would eventually with anyone here who discussed this with you. I just took a short-cut.

And btw, we have been talking rationally about this. I suspect that might be your problem here. 

caposkia wrote:
You wanted me to be strait with you... I really dont' know what you think I'm trying to find my way out of.
 

Providing acceptable proof for demons, or admitting there isn't any. ("irrational proof" excuse dealt with)



 

 


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Antipatris wrote:How?I have

Antipatris wrote:

How?

I have no idea how. But, I also don't know enough to declare it literally impossible.

 

caposkia wrote:

but I didn't say that because its' just as likely he didn't create you like that on purpose, but allowed genetics to evolve through your bloodline...

Those two possibilities are identical unless God knows only what MAY happen in the future (rather than what WILL happen).

 

caposkia wrote:

I always ask, what would be credible evidence for you... I understand if you're not sure.

I already said I'd be interested in hearing about your experiences, sources, and knowledge on the topic of demons. Also, I'm pretty sure the standard for "credible evidence" is supposed to be the same (or at least very similar) for everyone.

 

caposkia wrote:

no, that's not what I meant, but controlled by another consciousness

You told me earlier demons are spirits, and spirits can be understood as consciousnesses without bodies. Therefore, I think "malevolent disembodied consciousness" is a perfect description of what you're calling "demons". Wait, were you objecting to my description of a demon? Or to something else?

 

caposkia wrote:

North Korea is a perfect example of a country lacking any belief in any god other than their president and through the government orders, Christians and their families are tortured and killed.

    I think I worded my statement poorly. This is what I really wanted to know: Are there any examples on those sites of people who are motivated specifically by their lack of belief in god(s) to physically injure those who believe in god(s)?

 


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 205
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:After his

caposkia wrote:
After his most recent post I can see that's not what he was saying... had to play a guessing game, but to be honest, that's what was coming across though he refused to modify his wording for so long.  

Again, it was a perfectly simply and short sentence with sound grammar and syntax, expressing an even more simple notion. What "guessing game" you were playing is a complete mystery to anyone but yourself.

 

caposkia wrote:
I think interesting your knee jerk response is me trying to pull something... even still 

No, what's interesting is that this is only your second sentence and you're assuming things about me already. That was not a "knee jerk" response. 

 

caposkia wrote:
the article defined them as extremists... and for lack of a better term, they are

"Article" ? That page linked to more source material than you could read in a week. It wasn't a single "article", and you are the one who's defining them as "extremists". That word isn't even used. These people are pastors, priests, bishops and even cardinals.

 

caposkia wrote:
in possession cases, demons don't just manifest outside the body, they're in a person, hence the term possession.
 

You cannot prove "demons" or "posssession" even exist, so what you just said is pure fiction.

 

caposkia wrote:
many are conflicting beliefs, but North Korea for example isn't.
 

Then explain the problem. 

 

caposkia wrote:
ok, now just like you, i can't take your word on it...
 

Absolutely, and you don't need to. You can simply read all the cases on the linked-together sites I gave you, and then you can remember your failure when I asked you last time to provide even a single example of something good resulting from a belief in demons.

 

caposkia wrote:
examples of abuse happening don't work either because abuse happens in and out of belief systems... What basis do you have for that understanding?
 

And none of these use a belief in the supernatural as justification for their vile actions. If they do, I have exactly the same problem with them, so yes, the examples of abuse do most certainly "work". The "basis for that understanding" are the facts I already stated.

 

caposkia wrote:
sure it affects the real world, but you seem to assume my belief automatically affects it negatively...
 

The facts show that this "belief" has an exclusively negative effect. 

 

caposkia wrote:
 I've never been a part of an abuse case and none of those I'm with who follow the belief I follow have either.
 

You don't have to be part of one to influence a person who is. In fact, in the Anneliese Michel case, the whole "demon possession" thing was first suggested by a christian friend, who later wasn't involved in the "exorcisms".

 

caposkia wrote:
If my belief is real, there's a serious cost for shedding it.
  

No, the cost would be just as imaginary as the belief itself. 

 

caposkia wrote:
...and what if by doing that, they see there's nothing to worry about and decide that becasue there's no demons or no God that they can get away with abuse as long as no one finds out?  Same hypothetical as yours.
  

No, you would still have your belief in "demons" and "god", only nobody would pay the price for it, and you would still have the "supernatural protection" against just going out and abusing people that you apparently need.

It's a win-win, really, so please explain why you don't want to do it. 

 

caposkia wrote:
there are stories for both sides obviously... if you found one, you can find the other most likely

Then find me the story for the "other side", whatever that may be. What I told you is a fact. A fact so disturbing that I really can't imagine what the "other side" might even be. Show me.

 

caposkia wrote:
Santa... This Saint Nicholas character was just a generous guy with a big heart for children who suffered in poverty... that's all... his deeds were manipulated to this fantastic story of a fat red guy flying around in a slay and sliding down chimneys giving toys to greedy kids.

Yes, and that does not make the fictional character any more real.  

 

caposkia wrote:
They likely wouldn't be teaching from the Bible... not very Christian

The bible is wide open to interpretation. Doesn't get more "christian" than that. It would be a less vile, less destructive interpretation. The christian religion can use some of those.

 

caposkia wrote:
including no more symptoms??? that's not entirely true

No, that is entirely true. When a disease has run it's course, the symptoms will abate.

 

caposkia wrote:
more than there are abuses unrelated to belief would be a start... we're a long way away from that number

So you don't want to do anything about one cause of abuse until it equals the number of abuses from all other all other causes combined ??????????

 

caposkia wrote:
Can you reference that please?

I already did. The passages are referenced on the page I linked you. 

 

caposkia wrote:
well, you can't really know what a person believes unless they tell you, and if they're commonly dishonest, i guess you might never know.. the point was, regardless of belief, they can still use it as an excuse if they know others will buy it.... 

Again, why even hand such people an excuse like that ?

 

caposkia wrote:
problem with your case, I believe, but I dont' buy it

A problem with my case but you don't buy it ? I'm sorry, what problem, and just exactly what don't you buy ? Like I said, if the crime was covered up, of course you would "buy it".

 

caposkia wrote:
I read the links and I quoted the german passage to saying nothing about implementing abuse onto someone.  Nothing has described ill action by the people involved, rather what she had done to herself...so it seemed.  Again, if what yo say is true, then it's a bad example... I'll leave it at that.

Why ? I can just give you a link to a page that mentions the parents' direct involvement in her injuries, and then you can simply admit the mistake you made in bringing this forward and declaring it a case of "real demonic possession", and not researching it properly. Like I said, there is no shame in that. You can, and should, only learn from your mistakes.

http://www.theologe.de/theologe9.htm

 

caposkia wrote:
advanced or not, there still as far as I know is no one medicine to treat all the mental disorders she could have been diagnosed with... she'd still ahve to be comotose and tied to a bed.

No, you are forgetting she died from dehydration and starvation. That would never have happened in care, so she would have had a chance.

 

caposkia wrote:
among many other excuses for abuse.. you're using belief as an excuse as if the majority of cases has to do with belief.. which they don't.

Again, this is very strange. Why would the number of abuse cases inspired by "demonic possession" need to be greater than the combined number of cases from all other causes, before you drop this toxic belief ??? 

 

caposkia wrote:
I don't, but by what you believe, you're telling them I do

No, all I am doing is showing you the facts : These abuse cases happen frequently, and belief in "demonic possession" has exclusively negative consequences. So yes, by supporting this belief in "demonic possession" you are most certainly part of the problem, as the Anneliese Michel case also shows.

 

caposkia wrote:
that's great...however you'd better have a better approach than what you'er trying to use on me...

What's better than facts ? Tell me and I'll use it.

 

caposkia wrote:
you won't get far at all with your abuse excuse...

This just keeps getting stranger. Again, those weren't "excuses", every single case is a collection of undeniable facts. 

 

caposkia wrote:
Also, its' hard for me to do that when i believe in it myself.

Well, yes. You would obviously be the person who believes in demons in this scenario.

 

caposkia wrote:
no, it's more like, who thought he should do an exorcism, it's obvious he's clueless

Same problem. It would be an idiotic thing to say, seeing as how you still support the central idea that even inspired him to try in the first place.

 

caposkia wrote:
not at all,

Most certainly yes. Those rules even seem to change depending who you're talking to.

 

caposkia wrote:
but they can include a number of symptoms... like the common cold:  headaches, fever, sore throat, cough, nausia and vomiting, exhaustion, etc.  however any one of those symptoms or any number of them can show up in one person, but the opposite in another, yet they both can be diagnosed with the typical common cold.  Same with possession.

That makes the whole "demon possession" notion even more obviously fake. Apart from stubborn religious delusions, there is now no explanation left for your belief.

 

caposkia wrote:
not any more fantasy than your scenario.  You gave me one side of it, i gave the other... either both of us described a fantasy, or both of us described a realistic possibility

What scenario ? I supported my claim with facts. Many more than you bothered to read, it appears.

 

caposkia wrote:
the way you worded it made sense... he did not word it that way.

I quoted what he said verbatim ! That means I used his exact words !

 

caposkia wrote:
 what I understood him to be asking for was fanatical proof

But you just agreed there's nothing "fanatical" about asking for proof for a supernatural claim !! So why keep going on about "fanatical" proof ??????

 

caposkia wrote:
just to clarify for you, I was quoting back what I was understanding from him...

But how could ANYONE claim to "misunderstand" a sentence when they first altered it themselves ???????? To even try something like that is absurdly dishonest !

 

caposkia wrote:
if it was wrong, instead of all the excuses, just explain it differently... saves everyone a lot of time.

He asked you to read what he wrote, instead of just changing it into something it wasn't ! On what planet is that "an excuse" ???

 

caposkia wrote:
I did that at first thinkign the part about how I'd feel about it wouldnt' matter in the quote...

Do you really think you can just decide what does and doesn't matter in another person's sentence that's addressed to you ? If that were true than how can anyone even communicate with you, once you decide there's something you just don't want to hear ??

 

caposkia wrote:
it apparently did so I replied again with teh whole phrase in tact.. every single word... you and him still got stuck on that despite the literal quote with nothing taken out..

You did that eventually, yes, but you still tried to change it about 3 times ! Do you really not realize how amazingly absurd that was ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
give it up

Give what up ? Confronting you with what you did ? Why, when you seem incapable of even admitting how incredibly strange and absurd it was ?

So do you promise never to do that again ? If so, I will happily "give up" mentioning it.

 

caposkia wrote:
maybe there's more to it than that... it's clear you both dont' know much about the topic except for what the comic books say

"Maybe" is not proof. If there's more to it than comic books, you seem strangely reluctant to produce the proof that can't be matched by any other "comic book" concept. So again, why then believe in demons ? 

 Meanwhile you seem quite happy to ignore the actual facts that expose your belief as entirely toxic. And that does not make any sense whatsoever.
 

caposkia wrote:
I thought I made that pretty clear... you and nony don't understand the subject matter

No, and please learn this : "You don't understand the subject matter" is not proof either. "Subject matter" can be produced for ANYTHING.

 

caposkia wrote:
by... understanding the... subject matter ...

No, and again, please learn this : "Subject matter" can be produced for ANY supernatural concept. 

 

caposkia wrote:
which btw, doesn't necessarily make you believe something is real

If it doesn't then how can it keep you from believing everything ? And if it doesn't, THEN WHAT DOES ??


 

caposkia wrote:
abnormal psych is an actual college level course... not made up,, same with the topic of origin for that statement, which is why the course was mentioned.

I never said you made it up. I simply repeated my statement from before since your reply wasn't relevant to it, and still isn't. 


 

caposkia wrote:
When I did it, I didn't realize that nony and you would think I rearranged and deleted words to ignore anything...

Are you ever going to explain how ANYONE could think that taking out words from a sentence and rearranging what's left, would somehow not affect the meaning ?? Because that would be quite something to hear.

 

caposkia wrote:
which is why i reposted with the whole quote, nothing taken out...
 

Eventually, After trying it a couple more times, sure. But it looks like he finally got what he was after. Not that you had any choice but to give it to him. 

 

caposkia wrote:
what's vague about it?
 

Using X and X instead of actual words, that's what.

 

caposkia wrote:
 it's what you and nony have been doing

Untrue. I gave you more facts than you have bothered to read so far. As for Mouse, you made it so easy for him that he doesn't even need to do research. Not his fault.

 

caposkia wrote:
Whenever you're ready... I've been head first in this conversation.

Then read the facts I have provided, remember your failure to provide any facts that support your "side of it", and draw the only conclusion that is left to you. 

 

caposkia wrote:
 I've called nony out on all his running around and he's still trying to get away from that..

The problem with your accusations is that you can't back them up with facts. He can. 

 

caposkia wrote:
 I know you're trying to defend him, but I think you're smarter than that.

"I think you're smarter than that...", "I think we both know that...",..

Seriously, does anyone EVER fall for that ?

 

caposkia wrote:
 I never once meant to be condescending in any of my replies btw, I'm sorry if you felt that way toward you or anyone else on this thread

Oh no, don't worry, I said "attempts". They failed completely, so unless they were simply meant to waste time, it's maybe best to stop trying.

Facts simply make discussions like this go smoother, so just those, thank you. 


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 205
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:I have

blacklight915 wrote:
I have no idea how. But, I also don't know enough to declare it literally impossible.
 

But using that standard, is there even anything you could declare "literally impossible" ? Wouldn't that make the whole concept kinda meaningless ? 


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Antipatris wrote:But using

EDIT: repeat post


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Antipatris wrote:But using

EDIT: repeat post

 


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Antipatris wrote:But using

Antipatris wrote:

But using that standard, is there even anything you could declare "literally impossible" ? Wouldn't that make the whole concept kinda meaningless ?

Yes. Did you not notice how I said Emily Rose herself couldn't be evil? I meant that it is literally impossible for her to be accurately described by the word evil because of how said word is defined.

Entering the phrase "logically impossible" into an internet search engine should provide you with plenty more examples of what I'm talking about.

 


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

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well you said there were "experts" on demons so I imagine one of these experts have already conducted this test right? I'm just asking you to point me to the expert who has already done so. If no one has, then I don't see how you have a basis to call demonic possession anything other than an untested hypothesis.

well, indirectly yes... none of them that I know of have actually tried to take it to the level of a full blown study as you suggest... instead, they've waited for conventional methods to fail before attempting exorcisms.

How can one claim to be an expert on anything when no one has apparently gone through the effort to really study the subject? If someone does a study and comes up with results that demonstrate that for some reason exorcisms have a great success rate, then you have some basis for your hypothesis. I find it rather suspicious that none of these so called experts have attempted to do this and the cynic in me suspects that they do not do any kind of comparative study because they know that it would show exorcisms don't work. 

 

caposkia wrote:

for a place that would agree on exorcism techniques, we might want to start looking at a place that actually teaches it... that's information we're likely not going to find in full detail online... not convenience rather, it's dangerous to put it online and assume that someone would read it and think they could do it on their own.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why? Are they worried about the torture lawsuits? 

hah, no, I think they're more worried about people thinking they can do it on their own without the proper training and understanding... like those abuse cases that have been brought up

Perhaps if they were not so secretive about it, more people would know the proper exorcism techniques and wouldn't try torture. Didn't you say in an earlier post that a proper exorcism doesn't include torture? Is a proper exorcism dangerous?

 

caposkia wrote:

or they would do what they typically do with those cases and just medicate and if that fails, put them in a mental hospital.

If the lights were not really turning off so it was all completely in your head they might do that. However, if they are observing that lights behave oddly around you, I imagine they would be quite intrigued. There is nothing that gets a scientist more excited than an observable phenomenon that they cannot explain.   

 

caposkia wrote:

after happening for 2 years strait, it ironically stops after I talk to my friend about it?  I call him up later to find out he prayed about it... a little too ironic, don't you think???

Coincidences happen every day. Unless you can demonstrate that prayer works on some consistent basis it is meaningless, and that is a subject on which many studies have been conducted and none have shown that prayers come true any more often than random chance. The problem with prayers is that they are often subject to confirmation bias. If it comes true, wow the prayer worked! and it is remembered. If it doesn't come true, well that just wasn't part of God's plan. Suppose there is a God, and there are demons, do you really think that God is going to worry about getting rid of a demon that turns off lights while billions of people suffer in this world everyday and are praying for important things like food? Sounds like God has some fucked up priorities to me. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Sure, an electrical problem... that happens only right when i walk under the light... It'd be more logical to conclude I was on candid camera first.

How do you know it wasn't happening when you were not around?

 

caposkia wrote:

I didn't assign a supernatural cause to it for over a year... then I started wondering, but still claimed I didn't know... I talked to my friend only because it came up in conversation and I mentioned something strange that I couldnt' explain.  The rest was determined in hind sight.  

As it turns out you are not the only person to experience "street light interference". 

http://io9.com/street-light-interference/

 

Quote:

 

There have been few studies done on SLIders, and none have returned any measurable results. Most likely, people who notice it often are just a combination of people who take long walks at night, and people who pay enough attention to notice that it's happening. There is one thing that might cause certain people to claim SLIder status - living in a place that doesn't regularly replace its sodium vapor lamp bulbs. This leads to a phenomenon called cycling.

 

Sodium vapor lamps work pretty simply. They're a glass tube filled with a gas, and sprinkled with sodium and sometimes with a few other materials like mercury. Electrical current passes through the gas, which heats up and vaporizes the other materials. The gas ionizes, and some of the electrons knock into the sodium, heating it up so it it glows. Sodium is an element that reacts readily with many different materials, and it can grab hold of the aluminum oxide that is used in the material for the lamp. This extra oxygen forms more gas inside the tube, and the pressure builds up, especially as the lamp gets hotter. As the pressure gets higher, more voltage is required to keep the electrical current going, and eventually the streetlight kicks out. When it cools down sufficiently, the gas condenses and the voltage is sufficient once more. The streetlight turns on, only to turn off again when it heats too much. So if you live in an area where the lamps bulbs are not kept fresh, you are more likely to be a SLIder.

 

This is apparently the most common explanation. However, there are several other things that can cause the same effect including faulty connections, a blocked photocell on a solar sensitive light (which can be influenced to be turned off by reflected light from a nearby house, car headlights, security lights etc), the timing mechanism may be corroded which causes it to be very sensitive to vibrations nearby so when you are close to it the mechanism trips and the light turns on or off, lights can similarly be sensitive to vibrations if the connection terminals are not tight or are corroded or any number of other problems that can go wrong with lights. I learned all of this in one search on google and five minutes. All sound a lot more plausible than demons since we know all of these things can and do happen. 

And if you think that you are causing it, you are more likely to notice when lights go off around you because you are watching for it, while most of us just blithely go about our lives not noticing or caring. Most likely it stopped happening for you because you community finally got around to replacing all the light bulbs/updating the wiring in their lights. Don't worry, in a few years when they start deteriorating it will start happening again. 

 

 

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


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

caposkia wrote:

Sure, an electrical problem... that happens only right when i walk under the light... It'd be more logical to conclude I was on candid camera first.

 

I find it interesting that you quickly dismiss the idea of an electrical problem but quickly accept the idea of a demon. The reality is that when wires become loose or frayed and connections become corroded that lights become very sensitive to vibrations caused by you walking or driving near them. I didn't think of it at first as my electrical experience is limited to being able to do basic wiring in my house, but it makes perfect sense that if the circuit is failing that even the slightest vibration could cause it to come and go. Any DIY site where they answer peoples electrical problems confirms that such vibration sensitive issues are not uncommon. 

 

http://ask.metafilter.com/103788/Randomly-extinguishing-light-fixture

http://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/what-would-cause-a-bathroom-light-to-turn-off-during-operation

 

Oddly, none of the electricians suggested that demons might be the cause. You would think that electricians should be experts in demons that like to mess with electricity, since most of us call them when the lights act funky and we can't find the problem. Imagine the money that electricians could make referring customers with demon problems to exorcists...

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


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Oddly,

Beyond Saving wrote:

Oddly, none of the electricians suggested that demons might be the cause. You would think that electricians should be experts in demons that like to mess with electricity, since most of us call them when the lights act funky and we can't find the problem. Imagine the money that electricians could make referring customers with demon problems to exorcists...

lol

I'm also quite interested in how a disembodied consciousness is able to interact with lightbulbs.

 


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

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
...and all i wanted from that question was a simple yes or no... took a few, but you got it

What question ? Reference what you're talking about.

it had been referenced many times... whether it was rational to pick one avenue as the only means for proof when there are many... specifically regarding the mercedes analogy... it's over, you finally had answered it, not without commentary however.

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
it doesn't even stand on the basic grounds of spiritual interaction.

I have already explained, time and time again, that you can't explain nonsense with more nonsense. If you don't understand that, then tell me. 

What I don't understand is how you can say that, then turn around and ask me to explain nonsense.  I get your irrational proof concept... it makes sense, but your angle of expectant proof is just like mine for only accepting that cars exist if someone buys me a mercedes... not rational.  You said so youself after a bit

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
exactly... you did assume though.. you assumed that when I said look around,

This is fantastic. You're actually assuming that I was assuming something. Amazing.

no, you said it strait out... "I did look around.. no demons"  

Anonymouse wrote:

Since you didn't specify, I looked for anything. I hope you're not suggesting that I should have asked you first what to look for, and then me spotting that would have somehow counted as "proof for demons". Because that would just be too funny. And too easy.

it basically proves my point that if you don't know what to look for, you're never going to find it.  

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
how about disbelief in something that actually exists?  Could that be fantasy?

According to my definition, that wouldn't be disbelief. 

How do you define disbelief in something that actually exists?

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I did, was based on your failure to answer yes or no to a yes or no question... I can retype the list of posts again.

Then be sure to include the sentence where you specify the questions as such. 

K  

Post #289 gives us the basis of the back and forth with the question where I asked:

caposkia wrote:

...so are you saying it's irrational?

 

Where you reply with the same answer as before:

Why not read what I write ? I said "cars aren't supernatural creatures".

Post # 294, after we've gone back and forth so much that you had forgotten what the question was I said:

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?
You answered:

 

Tell me what "it" refers to, so I can answer your question. 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 I get that from religious sects, not rationally thinking minds.

Aaand here's that little trick again : "Let's accuse the person I'm talking to of something really stupid. Maybe he'll get mad enough so I can derail the conversation even further from the facts I'm trying to avoid."

that "trick" isn't supposed to derail you, in fact, it's suppose to put you on track... I say that because your approach to the subject is just like what they do in the sects... which is why you can never convince people in sects why what they think they know is wrong

Anonymouse wrote:

This is about, what, the third time you tried the "sects" thing ? 

Still not working. Sorry.

I've noticed... Might you consider that if it's a trick, i'd likely try it no more than once... a good magician never does a trick more than once, someone might figure him out... also, if I've done it 3 times by now... maybe it's not me that's missing something or trying to avoid

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I knew you couldn't answer that strait.
 

You noticed that wasn't a question, right ? You just made some conclusion about me not admitting something. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to "answer" that.

Strait, without the runaround... if I was wrong... tell me strait and explain yourself becasue that would mean that i'm misinterpreting something from you

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
If you did, you also know it would defeat everything you've tried to avoid up till now.
 

It would ? Absolutely fantastic ! Then all you have to do is reproduce said magical question as simply and succinctly as you know how, and you'll be sitting pretty.

Bring it on.

do you even know what that statement is referring to?  By your answer I would guess you haven't a clue.  About the car thing being rational.

Anonymouse wrote:
 

Excellent suggestion. Let's do that : Produce the proof, or admit there's no proof for demons. ("irrational proof" excuse dealt with)

yes, but you ran from the statement that claimed yours still wasn't based on rational grounds.. and there's a very clear explanation on why.  You can keep pointing fingers at me and redirecting the focus... I'll just keep refocusing the conversation to the very first post.  Once we can get past that, then we might step over your finish line.

Anonymouse wrote:

Oh, I'll just bet you want to start over. No need. We'd only end up in the same spot, as you would eventually with anyone here who discussed this with you. I just took a short-cut.

Good to know.  thanks for being honest.  I'll just keep reposting my reply to your first post.  I'm sure it'll get boring after a while, but that's where we've been stuck.  I know you don't want to see it, but irrational proof is different than the proof seeming irrational until it is given.  

Anonymouse wrote:

And btw, we have been talking rationally about this. I suspect that might be your problem here. 

Really?  why can't you accept strait answers from me then?  I finally understood what you were saying about proof seeming irrational, but then you ran from the point that your avenue of proof didn't sit on the grounds of spiritual Law.  


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

blacklight915 wrote:

caposkia wrote:

but I didn't say that because its' just as likely he didn't create you like that on purpose, but allowed genetics to evolve through your bloodline...

Those two possibilities are identical unless God knows only what MAY happen in the future (rather than what WILL happen).

Alright, I see your point.. let's put it this way...  Let's assume he made you this way on purpose.. In church today we happened to be talking about the book of Romans, and these verses popped out at me and I thought it fit perfectly with the subject in questino, namely why God would intentionally create you with depression.  I will put them from the beginning of the chapter for context;

"Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into his grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.  And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; and perseverance, proven character; and proven character hope."  Rom 5:1-4

Putting that in context with God creating you with depression (a tribulation) through the depression he has strengthened your character... with that strength, someone like me who has not delt with that feeling day in and day out might have an onset of depression... I would be weaker than you in dealing with that feeling and so would need someone like you to give me hope that it is possible to persevere through such tribulation through your proven ability to do so.  With the strength God has built in you, you are able to give others hope by your understanding of how to work through it and stay strong. 

Does that make more sense?

blacklight915 wrote:

I already said I'd be interested in hearing about your experiences, sources, and knowledge on the topic of demons. Also, I'm pretty sure the standard for "credible evidence" is supposed to be the same (or at least very similar) for everyone.

it's supposed to be, but it's contingent on one's understanding.  I've mentioned the light thing, but the experiences also include for me, influences vs possession.  Demons are good at manipulating minds and if your mind is weak at any given moment, they may take advantage.  It's those situations where one could reflect and claim; "I wasn't thinking clearly in that moment."

blacklight915 wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

no, that's not what I meant, but controlled by another consciousness

You told me earlier demons are spirits, and spirits can be understood as consciousnesses without bodies. Therefore, I think "malevolent disembodied consciousness" is a perfect description of what you're calling "demons". Wait, were you objecting to my description of a demon? Or to something else?

I was only saying I meant something else, I was not objecting to your description.  I think your description is good.

blacklight915 wrote:

    I think I worded my statement poorly. This is what I really wanted to know: Are there any examples on those sites of people who are motivated specifically by their lack of belief in god(s) to physically injure those who believe in god(s)?

 

I would say that North Korea would be the place... due to their lack of belief in God or gods, they allow a person to control their every moment and manipulate and neglect them to the extreme.  As far as following any God, it is punishable by torture in a concentration camp and death... The leaders motivation?  to keep control over the people of North Korea and see that they only follow him and his every will without question.  

If that's not an example of physical injury due to lack of belief in a God or gods, then I don't know what is.   I'm sure if you search the site, there'll be stories from there.


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

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
After his most recent post I can see that's not what he was saying... had to play a guessing game, but to be honest, that's what was coming across though he refused to modify his wording for so long.  

Again, it was a perfectly simply and short sentence with sound grammar and syntax, expressing an even more simple notion. What "guessing game" you were playing is a complete mystery to anyone but yourself.

I think it was very obvious that I was not understanding what he was saying, yet instead of trying to help, he started pointing fingers, blaming me for playing avoidance games among other rants.

Antipatris wrote:

"Article" ? That page linked to more source material than you could read in a week. It wasn't a single "article", and you are the one who's defining them as "extremists". That word isn't even used. These people are pastors, priests, bishops and even cardinals.

my apologies... I must have been thinking of a different link... sorry

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
many are conflicting beliefs, but North Korea for example isn't.
 

Then explain the problem. 

really?  It's a leader that wants everyone to do exactly as he wishes and when they get out of line, they're tortured and killed... what's to explain?

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
sure it affects the real world, but you seem to assume my belief automatically affects it negatively...
 

The facts show that this "belief" has an exclusively negative effect. 

tell that to everyone who supports the Salvation Army

Antipatris wrote:

No, the cost would be just as imaginary as the belief itself. 

only if it's not real

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
...and what if by doing that, they see there's nothing to worry about and decide that becasue there's no demons or no God that they can get away with abuse as long as no one finds out?  Same hypothetical as yours.
  

No, you would still have your belief in "demons" and "god", only nobody would pay the price for it, and you would still have the "supernatural protection" against just going out and abusing people that you apparently need.

It's a win-win, really, so please explain why you don't want to do it. 

The scenario I present is just as real... no God, no consequences if you can hide it.    I don't want to do it for the same reasons why you can't accept it

Antipatris wrote:

Then find me the story for the "other side", whatever that may be. What I told you is a fact. A fact so disturbing that I really can't imagine what the "other side" might even be. Show me.

Just to be clear before I do, am I showing you a positive outcome for belief?  or a positive result of exorcism?

Antipatris wrote:

The bible is wide open to interpretation. Doesn't get more "christian" than that. It would be a less vile, less destructive interpretation. The christian religion can use some of those.

until you actually start looking at it in context.  

Antipatris wrote:

So you don't want to do anything about one cause of abuse until it equals the number of abuses from all other all other causes combined ??????????

is that what I said?  How about what I was trying to say is why not start with the real problem first... that being those people who will use any excuse that works.... then tackle the individual excuses... E.g.  wouldn't you want to tackle the most common excuse for abuse, which is mismanagement of child behavior?

Antipatris wrote:

A problem with my case but you don't buy it ? I'm sorry, what problem, and just exactly what don't you buy ? Like I said, if the crime was covered up, of course you would "buy it".

the belief as an excuse.  The abuse happens yes, but it is a minority when compared to the number of possession cases around the world... just as much as mental disorders and behavior issues.

Antipatris wrote:

Why ? I can just give you a link to a page that mentions the parents' direct involvement in her injuries, and then you can simply admit the mistake you made in bringing this forward and declaring it a case of "real demonic possession", and not researching it properly. Like I said, there is no shame in that. You can, and should, only learn from your mistakes.

http://www.theologe.de/theologe9.htm

I skimmed the link, but you'll have to point me to where in that extensive article they talked about physical abuse by others... I see where she abused herself and I also saw how the Catholic church misunderstood proper exorcism techniques... which might explain why it was so extensive... all in all, it looks like a drug overdose that the coroner said killed her.  I thought they had prevented her from getting drugs.  

Antipatris wrote:

Again, this is very strange. Why would the number of abuse cases inspired by "demonic possession" need to be greater than the combined number of cases from all other causes, before you drop this toxic belief ??? 

you're associating the belief with the abuse when there would be a much much greater number of abuse cases if your conclusion was true.  What you're asking me to do is drop a belief in something I believe is real.  Why stop believing the grass is green when it is?  Some people might get abused becasue someone else doesn't want them to think that way, but that's not an excuse for ignoring reality

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
that's great...however you'd better have a better approach than what you'er trying to use on me...

What's better than facts ? Tell me and I'll use it.

logic and reasoning within context of facts

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
but they can include a number of symptoms... like the common cold:  headaches, fever, sore throat, cough, nausia and vomiting, exhaustion, etc.  however any one of those symptoms or any number of them can show up in one person, but the opposite in another, yet they both can be diagnosed with the typical common cold.  Same with possession.

That makes the whole "demon possession" notion even more obviously fake. Apart from stubborn religious delusions, there is now no explanation left for your belief.

 

by that conclusion, then colds are fake as well... people just need to suck it up and stop believing they're sick

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
the way you worded it made sense... he did not word it that way.

I quoted what he said verbatim ! That means I used his exact words !

then i must have missed it or forgotten that I had read it amidst his banter.

Antipatris wrote:

But you just agreed there's nothing "fanatical" about asking for proof for a supernatural claim !! So why keep going on about "fanatical" proof ??????

its' what you're asking for... that's fanatical.  It's like me asking you to prove to me cars are real by showing me a flying car... cars don't fly so it's fanatical.  

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I did that at first thinkign the part about how I'd feel about it wouldnt' matter in the quote...

Do you really think you can just decide what does and doesn't matter in another person's sentence that's addressed to you ? If that were true than how can anyone even communicate with you, once you decide there's something you just don't want to hear ??

the part in question was making an assumption of how I'd react to it and not a part directed.. regardless I did reply still with everything in tact... and here you are still trying to blame me for changing it... that boat has long since sailed.

Antipatris wrote:

Give what up ? Confronting you with what you did ? Why, when you seem incapable of even admitting how incredibly strange and absurd it was ?

So do you promise never to do that again ? If so, I will happily "give up" mentioning it.

Give up the redundant excuses and deterrents from the topic... The whole conversation is incredibly strange and absurd.
 

Antipatris wrote:

 Meanwhile you seem quite happy to ignore the actual facts that expose your belief as entirely toxic. And that does not make any sense whatsoever.

what facts???? the abuse stories?  Are you suggesting we should get rid of everything that can be associated with abuse?  Do you realize what you're proposing?

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
which btw, doesn't necessarily make you believe something is real

If it doesn't then how can it keep you from believing everything ? And if it doesn't, THEN WHAT DOES ??

logic and reason

Antipatris wrote:

Are you ever going to explain how ANYONE could think that taking out words from a sentence and rearranging what's left, would somehow not affect the meaning ?? Because that would be quite something to hear.

one word.. notating... a college technique... btw.. I realize what is being said just now... I did take words out... words that only had to do with how I felt about it, but I never rearranged the words, i put them exactly the way they were... I challenge you to show me how I changed them.  I challenge you to show everyone how the words I took out could change teh whole meaning of the statement in question... I want to see this, it's obvious you're not letting it go, so let's bring it out in the open. 

Antipatris wrote:

The problem with your accusations is that you can't back them up with facts. He can. 

he hasn't presented any facts.. what facts are you talking about?

Antipatris wrote:

Seriously, does anyone EVER fall for that ?

fall for what?  facts are facts... isn't that what we're discussing here?

Antipatris wrote:

 


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

How can one claim to be an expert on anything when no one has apparently gone through the effort to really study the subject? If someone does a study and comes up with results that demonstrate that for some reason exorcisms have a great success rate, then you have some basis for your hypothesis. I find it rather suspicious that none of these so called experts have attempted to do this and the cynic in me suspects that they do not do any kind of comparative study because they know that it would show exorcisms don't work. 

you can really study a subject without labtests.  I'm saying no one has taken it to that level, not to say they haven't waited to see what would happen individually.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Perhaps if they were not so secretive about it, more people would know the proper exorcism techniques and wouldn't try torture. Didn't you say in an earlier post that a proper exorcism doesn't include torture? Is a proper exorcism dangerous?

maybe as dangerous as a firefighter trying to put a fire out... it's only dangerous for the person performing an exorcism if they dont' know what they're doing... Those who are allegedly possessed can be a danger to themselves and others, but that is not a typical case.... usually a person has more control.  Also from what I understand, someone performing an exorcism can in the name of Jesus, bind a demon so as to prevent it from acting out during an exorcism... this would be by verbal means alone.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

If the lights were not really turning off so it was all completely in your head they might do that. However, if they are observing that lights behave oddly around you, I imagine they would be quite intrigued. There is nothing that gets a scientist more excited than an observable phenomenon that they cannot explain.   

true... guess i didn't think of it on that level when it was happening

Beyond Saving wrote:

Coincidences happen every day. Unless you can demonstrate that prayer works on some consistent basis it is meaningless, and that is a subject on which many studies have been conducted and none have shown that prayers come true any more often than random chance. The problem with prayers is that they are often subject to confirmation bias. If it comes true, wow the prayer worked! and it is remembered. If it doesn't come true, well that just wasn't part of God's plan. Suppose there is a God, and there are demons, do you really think that God is going to worry about getting rid of a demon that turns off lights while billions of people suffer in this world everyday and are praying for important things like food? Sounds like God has some fucked up priorities to me. 

speaking of priorities, how do you not associate demons with those bigger problems?  God has provided us all with everything we need... food?  studies show that if everyone who was capable offered even a miniscule amount of help to those starving, hunger would no longer be a problem.    What is preventing us from helping those in need?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

How do you know it wasn't happening when you were not around?

I guess I have no way of knowing for sure, but be it that it wasn't just in one particular area, I would have eventually expected a news broadcast on the behvior of the streetlights if it was happening when I'm not around.

Beyond Saving wrote:

As it turns out you are not the only person to experience "street light interference". 

http://io9.com/street-light-interference/

Ok, that's interesting... I had ruled out cycling.  It was my first assumption to the phenomena... and that still doesn't explain why it stopped instantaniously when it did, but it's a step in the right direction I think.

Beyond Saving wrote:

This is apparently the most common explanation. However, there are several other things that can cause the same effect including faulty connections, a blocked photocell on a solar sensitive light (which can be influenced to be turned off by reflected light from a nearby house, car headlights, security lights etc), the timing mechanism may be corroded which causes it to be very sensitive to vibrations nearby so when you are close to it the mechanism trips and the light turns on or off, lights can similarly be sensitive to vibrations if the connection terminals are not tight or are corroded or any number of other problems that can go wrong with lights. I learned all of this in one search on google and five minutes. All sound a lot more plausible than demons since we know all of these things can and do happen. 

And if you think that you are causing it, you are more likely to notice when lights go off around you because you are watching for it, while most of us just blithely go about our lives not noticing or caring. Most likely it stopped happening for you because you community finally got around to replacing all the light bulbs/updating the wiring in their lights. Don't worry, in a few years when they start deteriorating it will start happening again. 

This happened over 5 years ago and was in any community that I happened to be in.  It was not a select location... like I said, this is a start, but still leaves a lot of unanswered questions.  I'd be interested in further investigation, especially seeing as tests have not come back wtih any significant results... that leads me to believe that they're doing more guessing as to the likely cause rather than a conclusion as to why it happens to those people in particular.


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

I find it interesting that you quickly dismiss the idea of an electrical problem but quickly accept the idea of a demon. The reality is that when wires become loose or frayed and connections become corroded that lights become very sensitive to vibrations caused by you walking or driving near them. I didn't think of it at first as my electrical experience is limited to being able to do basic wiring in my house, but it makes perfect sense that if the circuit is failing that even the slightest vibration could cause it to come and go. Any DIY site where they answer peoples electrical problems confirms that such vibration sensitive issues are not uncommon. 

 

http://ask.metafilter.com/103788/Randomly-extinguishing-light-fixture

http://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/12175/what-would-cause-a-bathroom-light-to-turn-off-during-operation

if you remember I had said that i did not quickly conclude it was demons... it was hind sight.  I had taken into consideration also the cycling and the possibility of faulty wiring.  that works for maybe 2 or 3 in the same area night after night, but doesn't account for the rest

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Oddly, none of the electricians suggested that demons might be the cause. You would think that electricians should be experts in demons that like to mess with electricity, since most of us call them when the lights act funky and we can't find the problem. Imagine the money that electricians could make referring customers with demon problems to exorcists...

since when was an electrician a demonologist?  why not call a plumber up next time my car breaks down while I'm at it


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

blacklight915 wrote:

lol

I'm also quite interested in how a disembodied consciousness is able to interact with lightbulbs.

 

that would be the easiest thing for them to interact with... a soul in the physical world at best has been associated with electronic disturbances in the air... I'm still up in the air about that association, but it makes sense... if that's so, then it woudl make perfect sense that they could interact wtih lightbulbs.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:it had been

caposkia wrote:
it had been referenced many times... whether it was rational to pick one avenue as the only means for proof when there are many... specifically regarding the mercedes analogy

How many times ??? Not only was that a false analogy, it was trying to defend an argument you already gave up ! 

caposkia wrote:
... it's over

Well duh !

caposkia wrote:
, you finally had answered it, not without commentary however.

Yeah, somewhere in this reply, I'm going to have to explain the bleeding obvious yet again, aren't I ? Okay then, if you insist.

caposkia wrote:
What I don't understand is how you can say that, then turn around and ask me to explain nonsense.

So now you're trying to substitute "irrational" with "nonsense". Sorry, not going to work. You already admitted you can see that, say it with me now, how proof required to turn fantasy into reality is going to seem irrational before someone produces it.

So of course, it's also going to seem like nonsense before someone produces it. 

So produce it, or admit there is no proof.

caposkia wrote:
I get your irrational proof concept... it makes sense, but your angle of expectant proof is just like mine for only accepting that cars exist if someone buys me a mercedes... not rational.  You said so youself after a bit

Again, you're using a textbook false analogy ! We're not talking about cars ! We're talking about supernatural creatures that YOU believe in !

caposkia wrote:
it basically proves my point that if you don't know what to look for, you're never going to find it.  

It wouldn't be acceptable evidence. We've been through this many times already.

caposkia wrote:
How do you define disbelief in something that actually exists? 

That would depend on the "something that actually exists".

caposkia wrote:
K  

Post #289 gives us the basis of the back and forth with the question where I asked:

 

caposkia wrote:
...so are you saying it's irrational?

 

Where you reply with the same answer as before:

Why not read what I write ? I said "cars aren't supernatural creatures".

Post # 294, after we've gone back and forth so much that you had forgotten what the question was I said:

 

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?

You answered:
 

 

Tell me what "it" refers to, so I can answer your question. 

 

 

?? How could I even know it really was a "yes or no" question when I forgot what you were even going on about ?

And this AGAIN is about that false analogy ! 

caposkia wrote:
that "trick" isn't supposed to derail you, in fact, it's suppose to put you on track... I say that because your approach to the subject is just like what they do in the sects... which is why you can never convince people in sects why what they think they know is wrong

You just pulled exactly the same trick again. I could make exactly the same idiotic comment about you.

Also, you're assuming I'm "off track".

caposkia wrote:
I've noticed... Might you consider that if it's a trick, i'd likely try it no more than once... a good magician never does a trick more than once, someone might figure him out... also, if I've done it 3 times by now... maybe it's not me that's missing something or trying to avoid

At this point, tricks are all you have, so you might as well keep 'em coming. And it's 4 times now, I guess. Meh, not really worth counting.

caposkia wrote:
Strait, without the runaround... if I was wrong... tell me strait and explain yourself becasue that would mean that i'm misinterpreting something from you

Fine, but promise you'll listen, okay ? Because this has been repeated almost as much as the "irrational proof" thing.

Capitals ? Yeah, capitals : YOUR CARS ANALOGY IS A FALSE ANALOGY.

"Strait" enough for you ? 

caposkia wrote:
do you even know what that statement is referring to?  By your answer I would guess you haven't a clue.  About the car thing being rational.

False analogy ! And you already admitted what your false analogy was trying to deny ! 

caposkia wrote:
yes, but you ran from the statement that claimed yours still wasn't based on rational grounds..

What "statement" ? I hope this isn't still about your false analogy, because I'd like something new to debunk, please. 

caposkia wrote:
and there's a very clear explanation on why.  You can keep pointing fingers at me and redirecting the focus... I'll just keep refocusing the conversation to the very first post.  Once we can get past that, then we might step over your finish line.

If there's something in "the very first post" that I haven't already dealt with repeatedly, then tell me what it is, instead of just referencing it.

caposkia wrote:
Good to know.  thanks for being honest.  I'll just keep reposting my reply to your first post.  I'm sure it'll get boring after a while, but that's where we've been stuck.

But your reply to my first post doesn't even address the point where we ended up, which is here :

You admitting that you can see how proof required to turn fantasy into reality would seem "irrational", which was your entire problem with my acceptable proof.

So we're not really stuck anymore. We're just waiting for you to produce the proof (which you admitted only seems irrational, because it hasn't been produced yet), or admit there isn't any.

Because that's what "getting stuck" at this point would mean.

caposkia wrote:
I know you don't want to see it, but irrational proof is different than the proof seeming irrational until it is given. 

And what we're dealing with here is proof you haven't given us yet, so that's all we have.

caposkia wrote:
Really?  why can't you accept strait answers from me then?  

Because your answers don't always make sense, and I've explained why.

caposkia wrote:
 I finally understood what you were saying about proof seeming irrational 

Thanks again for that. Hope you're not regretting it too much.

caposkia wrote:
, but then you ran from the point that your avenue of proof didn't sit on the grounds of spiritual Law.  

Nope, did no such thing. I explained why invoking "spiritual law" doesn't work. It would be trying to justify nonsense with even more nonsense.

 

So.....any acceptable proof coming soon, or are you ready to admit there is none ? 

 


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 205
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I think it

caposkia wrote:
I think it was very obvious that I was not understanding what he was saying, yet instead of trying to help, he started pointing fingers, blaming me for playing avoidance games among other rants.

Wondering aloud why a seemingly normal person suddenly develops an extremely strange reading comprehension problem is not "ranting". 

 

caposkia wrote:
my apologies... I must have been thinking of a different link... sorry

Apology accepted.

 

caposkia wrote:
really?  It's a leader that wants everyone to do exactly as he wishes and when they get out of line, they're tortured and killed... what's to explain?

And now you know why "disbelief" doesn't even enter into it.

 

caposkia wrote:
tell that to everyone who supports the Salvation Army

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

Excuse me, what ? Do a lot of exorcisms, do they ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
only if it's not real

No, even if it's real, there would still be no cost, since there is no symptom of "demonic possession" that can't be handled by modern medicine. You have absolutely no excuse whatsoever.

 

caposkia wrote:
The scenario I present is just as real... no God, no consequences if you can hide it.

You didn't read or understand what I wrote. Your scenario is covered in mine. You would get to keep your faith, only other people wouldn't pay the price for it. Win-win. You have no rational reason to refuse this. 

 

caposkia wrote:
I don't want to do it for the same reasons why you can't accept it

But that makes no sense. I have reasons for not accepting that nonsense, and you have so far not been able to come up with even one to accept it.

 

caposkia wrote:
Just to be clear before I do, am I showing you a positive outcome for belief?  or a positive result of exorcism?

I will repeat : a reliable source that relates a factual occurrence where a belief in demons lead to something positive that could not have occurred without it. Preferably in the same decade as the latest "exorcism" scandal, but let's see what you can find.

 

caposkia wrote:
until you actually start looking at it in context.

Which is also open to interpretation. 

 

caposkia wrote:
is that what I said?

This is what you said :

caposkia wrote:
more than there are abuses unrelated to belief would be a start... we're a long way away from that number

So the question had to be asked.

 

caposkia wrote:
How about what I was trying to say is why not start with the real problem first... that being those people who will use any excuse that works.

And the easiest way to do that, would be not handing them the excuse in the first place. Again, you simply have no excuse.

 

caposkia wrote:
... then tackle the individual excuses... E.g.  wouldn't you want to tackle the most common excuse for abuse, which is mismanagement of child behavior?

False analogy. We're talking about an insane belief in supernatural creatures.

 

caposkia wrote:
the belief as an excuse.

You wouldn't buy the belief as an excuse ? But you do !! You believe in demons and possession ! If someone subjected a sick person to such an insipid ritual, you WOULD take their demon belief as an excuse !

 

caposkia wrote:
 The abuse happens yes, but it is a minority when compared to the number of possession cases around the world.

But none of those cases have a positive result that couldn't have been achieved without that silly ritual. Which makes the sum total of your ridiculous belief a mountain of dead bodies and some severely emotionally damaged people.

 

caposkia wrote:
.. just as much as mental disorders and behavior issues.

Another false analogy. I'm going to repeat my request that you stop doing that.

 

caposkia wrote:
I skimmed the link, but you'll have to point me to where in that extensive article they talked about physical abuse by others... I see where she abused herself and I also saw how the Catholic church misunderstood proper exorcism techniques... which might explain why it was so extensive... all in all, it looks like a drug overdose that the coroner said killed her.  I thought they had prevented her from getting drugs.  

The part where her parents make her kneel repeatedly is in the chapter dealing with her death. And her self-abuse was inspired by this demon belief, which makes any support given to it an act of abuse in itself. 

And her cause of death has been repeated more than enough. It was starvation and dehydration. 

The chapter about her youth in this religious household is also very revealing.

 

caposkia wrote:
you're associating the belief with the abuse when there would be a much much greater number of abuse cases if your conclusion was true.

False. First of all, none of us have any idea how many there are, only how many have been reported. People who only suffered mental abuse will mostly not report it. People who survived such an ordeal, would have been part of a deeply religious community to begin with, so there would be little or no chance of those events even being reported. 

And second, once again, the connection is there, I don't need to make it. 

 

caposkia wrote:
 What you're asking me to do is drop a belief in something I believe is real.

I also offered you an option that allowed you to keep your precious "beliefs". You did not take it. It seems you are not happy until your "beliefs" actually influence people. And since the influence of this particular belief is entirely negative, you have no good reason not to. 

So yes, I am asking you to stop doing something that only negatively influences others.

If you have a good reason not to do that, you still haven't told me. 

 

caposkia wrote:
Why stop believing the grass is green when it is?
 

Again, false analogy. Please, no more.

 

caposkia wrote:
Some people might get abused becasue someone else doesn't want them to think that way,
 

But what we are talking about here is people being abused because of a belief in "demons" and "possession". 

 

caposkia wrote:
but that's not an excuse for ignoring reality
 

What I am asking you to do is to STOP ignoring reality. 

 

caposkia wrote:
logic and reasoning within context of facts
 

Simply suggesting that I am not being reasonable or logical does not count as an argument.

 

 

caposkia wrote:
by that conclusion, then colds are fake as well... people just need to suck it up and stop believing they're sick
 

False analogy AGAIN ! Please, I'm begging you, stop doing this !

Look, didn't the wiki explain that fallacy clearly enough ? Stop trying to draw parallels between what's real and what's imaginary !

 

caposkia wrote:
then i must have missed it or forgotten that I had read it amidst his banter.
 

Thank you for admitting that. And again, it is not "banter" to express one's surprise and astonishment at what you did.

 

caposkia wrote:
its' what you're asking for... that's fanatical.  It's like me asking you to prove to me cars are real by showing me a flying car... cars don't fly so it's fanatical.
 

False analogy again, so no, you'll need to come up with a real explanation as to why you used the word "fanatical", since it doesn't apply.

 

caposkia wrote:
the part in question was making an assumption of how I'd react to it and not a part directed..
 

It was a question without an assumption before you changed it ! And I have no idea what you mean by "and not a part directed".

 

caposkia wrote:
regardless I did reply still with everything in tact... and here you are still trying to blame me for changing it... that boat has long since sailed.
 

?????????????? "Blame" you ? But you DID change it ! Why would I have to "blame" you for something you actually did ??!!

 

caposkia wrote:
Give up the redundant excuses and deterrents from the topic
 

What "redundant excuses" ?? What "deterrents" from the topic ? This is about the horrible crimes committed by people who believe in demons and possession, and your refusal to give up this horrendous fiction, even though you have no reason not to do so ! 

 

caposkia wrote:
... The whole conversation is incredibly strange and absurd.
 

The only strange and absurd part is your behavior in your conversation with Mouse, for which you still have not provided an explanation.

And of course your belief in "demons" and "possession", for which you have no excuse.
 

caposkia wrote:
what facts???? the abuse stories?

Yes. Read through all of them yet ? Ready for a pop quiz ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
 Are you suggesting we should get rid of everything that can be associated with abuse?  Do you realize what you're proposing?

I realize you just tried to put quite a collection of words in my mouth. Please don't try that again. I already gave you my actual suggestions.

 

caposkia wrote:
logic and reason

Logic and reason would demand proof, of which you have none, so no, you are not using logic and reason.

So again : How do you keep from believing everything ? 

caposkia wrote:
one word.. notating... a college technique... btw.. I realize what is being said just now... I did take words out... words that only had to do with how I felt about it, but I never rearranged the words, i put them exactly the way they were... I challenge you to show me how I changed them.  I challenge you to show everyone how the words I took out could change teh whole meaning of the statement in question... I want to see this, it's obvious you're not letting it go, so let's bring it out in the open. 

It already is in the open ! Mouse even underlined it for you in #294 !!

 

caposkia wrote:
he hasn't presented any facts.. what facts are you talking about? 

He most certainly has : Your own words. That's all he needed to confront you with the utter irrationality of your insipid "demons". Like I said, you made it easy for him.

 

caposkia wrote:
fall for what?  facts are facts... isn't that what we're discussing here?

Preceding a sentence with "we both know that..", doesn't make what follows automatically true. That's what nobody falls for.

I am eagerly awaiting any facts you choose to bring, though. Better late than never.


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

caposkia wrote:

you can really study a subject without labtests.  I'm saying no one has taken it to that level, not to say they haven't waited to see what would happen individually.

And yet exorcisms have been around for an extraordinarily long time. Why do you suppose that no one has conducted any kind of structured test to determine which techniques work and those that do not? 

 

caposkia wrote:

maybe as dangerous as a firefighter trying to put a fire out... it's only dangerous for the person performing an exorcism if they dont' know what they're doing... Those who are allegedly possessed can be a danger to themselves and others, but that is not a typical case.... usually a person has more control.  Also from what I understand, someone performing an exorcism can in the name of Jesus, bind a demon so as to prevent it from acting out during an exorcism... this would be by verbal means alone.

Do you have any cases where the person performing the exorcism was injured? I have seen hundreds where the person being victimized by the exorcism was injured or died. If anyone attempted to perform an exorcism on me, I promise you they would be severely injured if I was physically capable. When you torture people they have a tendency to get violent.

http://whatstheharm.net/exorcisms.html  

But I am sure all of those people were "doing it wrong". Which brings me back to my two questions, why can't you find the "right" way online and why haven't any of these so called experts conducted a study to determine which methods of exorcism work and which don't? I can find studies on which torture techniques work online, I can find studies on which firefighting methods work best online, but I can't find anyone doing a comparative analysis of exorcisms. I find a thousand different methods and the vast majority of them lead to prolonged suffering from the victim and everything ranging from minor injuries to death. 

 

caposkia wrote:

speaking of priorities, how do you not associate demons with those bigger problems?  God has provided us all with everything we need... food?  studies show that if everyone who was capable offered even a miniscule amount of help to those starving, hunger would no longer be a problem.    What is preventing us from helping those in need?

Why should I associate demons with them when there are perfectly provable rational explanations? Whether or not I eat tonight has nothing to do with a demon, it has to do with whether or not I can obtain, cook and consume food. God gave us food????? Are you fucking serious? You do know that food doesn't magically appear in the grocery store right? A lot of people spend their whole lives doing nothing but creating food and distributing it to your local grocer.

Our recent situation of surplus food is very modern, and due to something called the industrial revolution which led to great technology like tractors that allow one person's labor to produce substantial amounts of food. The other 1900 years since Christ supposedly saved humanity consisted of regular food shortages, consistent malnutrition and extreme difficulty for most people to feed themselves. Until recently, there was not enough food to feed everyone in the world. Today, we have enough, but we still have significant distribution problems, particularly in countries that do not enjoy our level of technology.

I am someone who hunts and slaughters almost all of my protein. I can assure you that all the time I have spent in the woods, God never helped. The schmuck wasn't there to help me track, stalk or shoot. He even skipped out on the field dressing, carrying and butchering later on. The deadbeat isn't even there when I cook it. Rather than thanking God for your food, perhaps you should take a little time to thank all the people who raise the animals, plant the crops and generally bust their ass doing jobs that are not exactly pleasant just so you can eat without having to put a significant amount of your own time into it.   

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

How do you know it wasn't happening when you were not around?

I guess I have no way of knowing for sure, but be it that it wasn't just in one particular area, I would have eventually expected a news broadcast on the behvior of the streetlights if it was happening when I'm not around.

Why would the news report on it? As I pointed out, streetlights going out is a frequent occurrence that happens every single day to millions of streetlights. It would be like the news reporting on batteries dying (which btw has nothing to do with demons either). 

 

caposkia wrote:

This happened over 5 years ago and was in any community that I happened to be in.  It was not a select location... like I said, this is a start, but still leaves a lot of unanswered questions.  I'd be interested in further investigation, especially seeing as tests have not come back wtih any significant results... that leads me to believe that they're doing more guessing as to the likely cause rather than a conclusion as to why it happens to those people in particular.

Well since it happens everywhere that there are streetlights it is not a surprise that you saw it in various locations. The point is that it doesn't happen to those people in particular. It happens to everyone. Just most of us don't pay any attention because it is not all that remarkable. It is not uncommon that people adjust to regular disturbances in their environment to the point where they no longer notice them, such as lights that go out and come back on, sounds, smells, etc. What is uncommon is noticing such things and attributing the responsibility to demons.

 

caposkia wrote:

if you remember I had said that i did not quickly conclude it was demons... it was hind sight.  I had taken into consideration also the cycling and the possibility of faulty wiring.  that works for maybe 2 or 3 in the same area night after night, but doesn't account for the rest

Did you call an electrician?

 

caposkia wrote:

since when was an electrician a demonologist?  why not call a plumber up next time my car breaks down while I'm at it

When your electricity doesn't work you call an electrician, so I imagine that electricians would recognize that it is not in fact an electrical problem and refer you to an exorcist, just like an electrician might refer you to an exterminator if the electrical problem is being caused by an infestation of mice. Their job is to fix the electricity regardless of what is causing the problem, or at least be capable of referring you to someone who can fix the problem. 

 

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:So produce

Anonymouse wrote:

So produce it, or admit there is no proof.

actually, you're the one who is asking for seemingly irrational... or nonsensical proof, so I think I need you to show me how that would be possible if in fact demons were real... This is something new I'm asking, so repetition isn't going to work and ignoring it isn't going to work either.  Let's get this out there now... By your philosophy, If I were the one claiming that it was the means to prove it, then It would be on me to show you, however you're the one claiming that it is the only way.  

Anonymouse wrote:

It wouldn't be acceptable evidence. We've been through this many times already.

yes we have, acceptable to you.  yet you don't know what to look for so isn't it possible that all acceptable evidence may not be acceptable to you?  I'm starting to believe that.

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
How do you define disbelief in something that actually exists? 

That would depend on the "something that actually exists".

k, this is where I lose you again... How does what it is change the answer here?  

Anonymouse wrote:

?? How could I even know it really was a "yes or no" question when I forgot what you were even going on about ?

that's a very good question... if you answered it with a yes or no to begin with you wouldn't have had that problem

Anonymouse wrote:

And this AGAIN is about that false analogy!

I'm sorry, that's not an excuse. 

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Strait, without the runaround... if I was wrong... tell me strait and explain yourself becasue that would mean that i'm misinterpreting something from you

Fine, but promise you'll listen, okay ? Because this has been repeated almost as much as the "irrational proof" thing.

Capitals ? Yeah, capitals : YOUR CARS ANALOGY IS A FALSE ANALOGY.

"Strait" enough for you ? 

yea, however the analogy isn't comparing cars to demons, it's comparing one way proof to one way proof.  Therefore, the analogy remains true.  The only way your false analogy excuse works is if i was actually trying to compare cars to demons which... just in case you missed it... i"m not.  

Anonymouse wrote:

If there's something in "the very first post" that I haven't already dealt with repeatedly, then tell me what it is, instead of just referencing it.

how about the response that specifically says "it doesn't work that way"... a proper response to that response might be "how does it work then?"  which is different than calling it irrational, which would have been my mistake. 

Anonymouse wrote:

But your reply to my first post doesn't even address the point where we ended up, which is here :

You admitting that you can see how proof required to turn fantasy into reality would seem "irrational", which was your entire problem with my acceptable proof.

So we're not really stuck anymore. We're just waiting for you to produce the proof (which you admitted only seems irrational, because it hasn't been produced yet), or admit there isn't any.

Because that's what "getting stuck" at this point would mean.

ah, so we're just stuck on you thinking you have justified your request for proof... it still doesn't work that way... regardless if it could seem irrational... The problem with your arguement here is that though some things can SEEM irrational before they're produced, other things actually are... like those things that actually can't happen.  

Also, I will say again, be it that I'm not the one claiming that that particular avenue of proof is a way to prove the existence of demons, it's on you to explain how it's rational using the means of spirituality.  Maybe that way I can better figure out how to produce this proof you're looking for.  

Anonymouse wrote:

And what we're dealing with here is proof you haven't given us yet, so that's all we have.

that's all you've given us to work with.  

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 I finally understood what you were saying about proof seeming irrational 

Thanks again for that. Hope you're not regretting it too much.

what's to regret?

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
, but then you ran from the point that your avenue of proof didn't sit on the grounds of spiritual Law.  

Nope, did no such thing. I explained why invoking "spiritual law" doesn't work. It would be trying to justify nonsense with even more nonsense.

 

So.....any acceptable proof coming soon, or are you ready to admit there is none ? 

 

If you're actually expecting proof if demons are real, then "spiritual law" would have to be a part of that proof... it's like the law of physics... can't do a physics experiment unless it falls in the lines of scientific law.  It is impossible to make something work outside of that law... it's why it's called "LAW".  Spiritual Law works the same way.

Again, you can't see the evidence if you don't know what you're looking for... I think we really need to start talking about what to look for


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

caposkia wrote:

yea, however the analogy isn't comparing cars to demons, it's comparing one way proof to one way proof.  Therefore, the analogy remains true.  The only way your false analogy excuse works is if i was actually trying to compare cars to demons which... just in case you missed it... i"m not.  

If all it takes is a car, I will buy you a car in exchange for equally tangible and equally unquestionable proof of demons. Your analogy utterly fails, because I can purchase you a car, the only question is whether I am willing to do so- which I would consider indisputable proof of demons well worth the value of a car. Exactly what evidence of demons could you provide us that would be the equivalent of me purchasing you that car? 

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
Antipatris wrote:Wondering

Antipatris wrote:

Wondering aloud why a seemingly normal person suddenly develops an extremely strange reading comprehension problem is not "ranting". 

suddenly develops?? I don't remember ever understanding exactly what he was saying

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
really?  It's a leader that wants everyone to do exactly as he wishes and when they get out of line, they're tortured and killed... what's to explain?

And now you know why "disbelief" doesn't even enter into it.

actually, if belief had any part in that culture, the leader wouldn't have nearly as much control.  The god or gods would trump a leader who claims they're god and they would eventually be overthrown.  The proof of this is in history.    Disbelief is the reason for it.

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
tell that to everyone who supports the Salvation Army

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

Excuse me, what ? Do a lot of exorcisms, do they ? 

I don't know actually, but what I do know is they do the complete opposite of what you were claiming belief does

Antipatris wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
only if it's not real

No, even if it's real, there would still be no cost, since there is no symptom of "demonic possession" that can't be handled by modern medicine. You have absolutely no excuse whatsoever.

ok, this I truly dont' understand... knowing what possession is (even fictionally)  how can you be so sure modern medicine could "handle" demons?  How could you claim there's no cost when pretty much every religious writing out there claims to the contrary for not following their god?

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
The scenario I present is just as real... no God, no consequences if you can hide it.

You didn't read or understand what I wrote. Your scenario is covered in mine. You would get to keep your faith, only other people wouldn't pay the price for it. Win-win. You have no rational reason to refuse this. 

except dishonesty... which goes against my faith... and against the sheer purpose of Christ's coming

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I don't want to do it for the same reasons why you can't accept it

But that makes no sense. I have reasons for not accepting that nonsense, and you have so far not been able to come up with even one to accept it.

of course not, we've been stuck on demon controlling devices for the last few pages

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Just to be clear before I do, am I showing you a positive outcome for belief?  or a positive result of exorcism?

I will repeat : a reliable source that relates a factual occurrence where a belief in demons lead to something positive that could not have occurred without it. Preferably in the same decade as the latest "exorcism" scandal, but let's see what you can find.

Ok, just the belief alone.  I know a few people who were dangerous people, who wouldn't think twice but to leave you inches from death in an alley come to follow Jesus Christ.  Their following of Christ has changed their lives so dramatically that now you would never know they were such dangerous people only a decade ago.  They are now some of the nicest people you would ever meet and they don't hurt or abuse people anymore.   It started with their sincere belief in the existence of demons.  

Now if you think I'm lying... you can google testimony's and likely find something.  I know comdian Jeff Allen was a violent drunk who beat his 6 month old in the crib.  I'm not sure of his stance on demons, but He changed just as dramatically coming to belief in Jesus Christ.  He's someone you can google.  

If none of these are reliable sources, then I need you to define for me what a reliable source is.

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
until you actually start looking at it in context.

Which is also open to interpretation. 

context is context... you can try to interpret it in your own way... and you will be shut down by anyone who is knowledgeable.  

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
... then tackle the individual excuses... E.g.  wouldn't you want to tackle the most common excuse for abuse, which is mismanagement of child behavior?

False analogy. We're talking about an insane belief in supernatural creatures.

it wasn't even an analogy... nice try... we're actually talking about abuse... Based on that we seem to be referring to belief being the main cause for abuse

Antipatris wrote:

You wouldn't buy the belief as an excuse ? But you do !! You believe in demons and possession ! If someone subjected a sick person to such an insipid ritual, you WOULD take their demon belief as an excuse !

not if it included abuse.  I also would know if they're making the right decision.

Antipatris wrote:

But none of those cases have a positive result that couldn't have been achieved without that silly ritual. Which makes the sum total of your ridiculous belief a mountain of dead bodies and some severely emotionally damaged people.

I have to see sources for this claim

Antipatris wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
.. just as much as mental disorders and behavior issues.

Another false analogy. I'm going to repeat my request that you stop doing that.

every time you make a false claim, I am going to correct you.  sorry.  

Antipatris wrote:

The part where her parents make her kneel repeatedly is in the chapter dealing with her death. And her self-abuse was inspired by this demon belief, which makes any support given to it an act of abuse in itself. 

I read that part... did it say to the point of shattering her knees?  

Also... here I'm going to take a neutral approach.  You claim her self-abuse was inspired by this demon belief... a believer would say her self-abuse was caused by the demon.. who do I believe?  is it the belief in the demon or the demon itself?  

I know where you stand, but considering the possibility for a moment that both could be true, how can we be sure what you say is true?  One can not believe in demons and if they're real, they'll still cause people to self-abuse.

Antipatris wrote:

And her cause of death has been repeated more than enough. It was starvation and dehydration. 

The chapter about her youth in this religious household is also very revealing.

yes, she apparently had some issues in childhood.  The starvation and dehydration was deemed by this article to be self inflicted as well.... unless I missed a part

Antipatris wrote:

I also offered you an option that allowed you to keep your precious "beliefs". You did not take it. It seems you are not happy until your "beliefs" actually influence people. And since the influence of this particular belief is entirely negative, you have no good reason not to. 

So yes, I am asking you to stop doing something that only negatively influences others.

If you have a good reason not to do that, you still haven't told me. 

I believe I did this time, but to add to it, I have yet to see any negative results from my personal belief... no one that I'm aware of has abused someone else due to the belief I share with them.  Actually, some have turned away from that kind of behavior because of what i've shared as I mentioned earlier

Antipatris wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
Why stop believing the grass is green when it is?
 

Again, false analogy. Please, no more.

false analogies are comparing things that aren't comparable.  I'm comparing the idea of something being what it is to something being what it is.   I am not comparing grass to demons.  Nice try though.

Antipatris wrote:

But what we are talking about here is people being abused because of a belief in "demons" and "possession". 

ok, so why start here?  that was my original question to you.  why not start with the behavior issues first?  That's statistically where the majority of childhood abuse at least starts

Antipatris wrote:

What I am asking you to do is to STOP ignoring reality. 

I have.  do you see where this is going yet?

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
logic and reasoning within context of facts
 

Simply suggesting that I am not being reasonable or logical does not count as an argument.

I never said it did... just making a point

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
by that conclusion, then colds are fake as well... people just need to suck it up and stop believing they're sick
 

False analogy AGAIN ! Please, I'm begging you, stop doing this !

you've  failed with the false analogy excuse... It's my turn to ask you to stop

Antipatris wrote:

Look, didn't the wiki explain that fallacy clearly enough ? Stop trying to draw parallels between what's real and what's imaginary !

you're assuming I'm paralleling between reality and imaginary.  As far as I remember, we have not concluded that the subject is imaginary... unless you're holding out on us... what sources do you have that you're not telling us about?

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 Are you suggesting we should get rid of everything that can be associated with abuse?  Do you realize what you're proposing?

I realize you just tried to put quite a collection of words in my mouth. Please don't try that again. I already gave you my actual suggestions.

I asked you a question... was that your answer?  

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
logic and reason

Logic and reason would demand proof, of which you have none, so no, you are not using logic and reason.

it would demand proof... you present your case the way you do and wonder why I'm still a believer?  Who's not using logic and reasoning?

Antipatris wrote:

So again : How do you keep from believing everything ? 

people lack to give me sound reasoning for their perspective.

Antipatris wrote:

It already is in the open ! Mouse even underlined it for you in #294 !!

What the "seems irrational until someone produces it"?  yea, that's reasonable... except it didn't do much for his request for proof as you'll notice in my last response to him

Antipatris wrote:

He most certainly has : Your own words. That's all he needed to confront you with the utter irrationality of your insipid "demons". Like I said, you made it easy for him.

you say that as if I was trying to make things hard for him.  I asked him a simple question.  he gave me an answer, I told him it doesn't work that way... then a bunch of fluff and randomness and here we are.  I made it easy for him and gave him a shortcut, he chose to take the highway.

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
fall for what?  facts are facts... isn't that what we're discussing here?

Preceding a sentence with "we both know that..", doesn't make what follows automatically true. That's what nobody falls for.

ah. didn't know people "fall" for common knowledge.  That seems like an odd statement to me.

Antipatris wrote:

I am eagerly awaiting any facts you choose to bring, though. Better late than never.

I have brought a few avenues of discussion for facts on spiritual discussion.  You've been so distracted by nony's excuses you've obviously missed them.


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

And yet exorcisms have been around for an extraordinarily long time. Why do you suppose that no one has conducted any kind of structured test to determine which techniques work and those that do not? 

I guess I dont' know for sure... I'm just not aware of any.  Are you suggesting you have something?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Do you have any cases where the person performing the exorcism was injured? I have seen hundreds where the person being victimized by the exorcism was injured or died. If anyone attempted to perform an exorcism on me, I promise you they would be severely injured if I was physically capable. When you torture people they have a tendency to get violent.

http://whatstheharm.net/exorcisms.html  

But I am sure all of those people were "doing it wrong". Which brings me back to my two questions, why can't you find the "right" way online and why haven't any of these so called experts conducted a study to determine which methods of exorcism work and which don't? I can find studies on which torture techniques work online, I can find studies on which firefighting methods work best online, but I can't find anyone doing a comparative analysis of exorcisms. I find a thousand different methods and the vast majority of them lead to prolonged suffering from the victim and everything ranging from minor injuries to death. 

Probably the same reason why you can't find "the right way" to do at home brain surgury online.  As you said, exorcisms have been around for centuries.  I believe the methods are tried and true... not to say many are ignorant of those ways.  We are aware of the publicized cases... why were they publicized?  Because something went wrong... othewise, there's not much of a story to tell huh.  What's the fun in covering a story on a successful case?

Torture techniques are not appropriate.  Read the Bible.  Jesus exorcised demons from people... this would be a very simple direct explanation of how to do a proper exorcism.  Yes, it's really that simple if you are in the right spirit and knowledge from what I understand.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why should I associate demons with them when there are perfectly provable rational explanations? Whether or not I eat tonight has nothing to do with a demon, it has to do with whether or not I can obtain, cook and consume food. God gave us food????? Are you fucking serious? You do know that food doesn't magically appear in the grocery store right? A lot of people spend their whole lives doing nothing but creating food and distributing it to your local grocer.

Seriously?  i think you're smart, so you'll likely understand this... just because something has a rational explanation doesn't mean that explanation is the cause.  The most common reason is not always the right reason.  There are sometimes many factors involved.

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

 

Our recent situation of surplus food is very modern, and due to something called the industrial revolution which led to great technology like tractors that allow one person's labor to produce substantial amounts of food. The other 1900 years since Christ supposedly saved humanity consisted of regular food shortages, consistent malnutrition and extreme difficulty for most people to feed themselves. Until recently, there was not enough food to feed everyone in the world. Today, we have enough, but we still have significant distribution problems, particularly in countries that do not enjoy our level of technology.

I am someone who hunts and slaughters almost all of my protein. I can assure you that all the time I have spent in the woods, God never helped. The schmuck wasn't there to help me track, stalk or shoot. He even skipped out on the field dressing, carrying and butchering later on. The deadbeat isn't even there when I cook it. Rather than thanking God for your food, perhaps you should take a little time to thank all the people who raise the animals, plant the crops and generally bust their ass doing jobs that are not exactly pleasant just so you can eat without having to put a significant amount of your own time into it.   

God is not anywhere He's not invited to be.  and I always am thankful for all those people who provide my food... including my uncle who has given us meat, my wife who bakes the bread, the local farmers who provide us with produce etc.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why would the news report on it? As I pointed out, streetlights going out is a frequent occurrence that happens every single day to millions of streetlights. It would be like the news reporting on batteries dying (which btw has nothing to do with demons either). 

this would be to the extreme of them not working appropriately.  yes, they go out, but if it happened as mentioned to everyone, we'd have quite a light show to watch.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well since it happens everywhere that there are streetlights it is not a surprise that you saw it in various locations. The point is that it doesn't happen to those people in particular. It happens to everyone. Just most of us don't pay any attention because it is not all that remarkable. It is not uncommon that people adjust to regular disturbances in their environment to the point where they no longer notice them, such as lights that go out and come back on, sounds, smells, etc. What is uncommon is noticing such things and attributing the responsibility to demons.

are you suggesting then that I all of a sudden stopped paying attention... when my friend prayed about it?  I haven't noticed it since... other than the typical streetlight blinkout that I see maybe once or twice a year.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Did you call an electrician?

about streetlights on a random street?  I figured if it was an issue beyond just happenign to me, the residents of that street would call them.

Beyond Saving wrote:

When your electricity doesn't work you call an electrician, so I imagine that electricians would recognize that it is not in fact an electrical problem and refer you to an exorcist, just like an electrician might refer you to an exterminator if the electrical problem is being caused by an infestation of mice. Their job is to fix the electricity regardless of what is causing the problem, or at least be capable of referring you to someone who can fix the problem. 

 

In my experience, if they come and find nothing wrong, they will say; "I can't find anything wrong".. charge me a fortune and leave... if they found evidence of chewed wires, I'm sure they'd have grounds to tell me to hire an exterminator... Demons as far as I am aware dont' chew wires.  


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

yea, however the analogy isn't comparing cars to demons, it's comparing one way proof to one way proof.  Therefore, the analogy remains true.  The only way your false analogy excuse works is if i was actually trying to compare cars to demons which... just in case you missed it... i"m not.  

If all it takes is a car, I will buy you a car in exchange for equally tangible and equally unquestionable proof of demons. Your analogy utterly fails, because I can purchase you a car, the only question is whether I am willing to do so- which I would consider indisputable proof of demons well worth the value of a car. Exactly what evidence of demons could you provide us that would be the equivalent of me purchasing you that car? 

That's great, i would love a new car.. however it's not about a car, it's about me saying that's the only way you can prove to me that they exist... it's not logical or rational.  Despite the excuses that "it sounds irrational until it's proven", this car scenario will never sound rational.  Same with nony's proof... and I've said it's because it doesn't work that way..  Be it that I'm one who claims to understand this concept, one would think you'd trust me when I say that... if you don't.  I expect a good reason to why and that tired excuse isn't a good reason.. if it doesn't work, it doesn't work, rational or not.  

As far as evidence of demons, I'm guessing seeing a possessed person isn't going to work for you.  would documentation of experiences work?  Would sources claiming to deal with them work?  Considering a Biblical understanding of how demons work, what would be evidence to you?  Be honest, if it's none of it, just say so.  Would save both of us a lot of time.


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

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

And yet exorcisms have been around for an extraordinarily long time. Why do you suppose that no one has conducted any kind of structured test to determine which techniques work and those that do not? 

I guess I dont' know for sure... I'm just not aware of any.  Are you suggesting you have something?

I am suggesting that your excuse the reason they don't have information on exorcism techniques online is because exorcisms are dangerous is bullshit. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Probably the same reason why you can't find "the right way" to do at home brain surgury online.

Except I can. http://journals.lww.com/neurosurgery/pages/default.aspx I can find brain surgery techniques, their success rates and often including detailed pictures and videos. Many of them are available for free, some of the newer articles I would have to pay a few bucks for. And this is just one of several neurosurgery professional journals available online where neurosurgeons share their techniques, describe them in detail and evaluate how well they work. Where is similar information on exorcisms available? Is there a professional exorcism journal somewhere? 

 

caposkia wrote:

 As you said, exorcisms have been around for centuries.  I believe the methods are tried and true... not to say many are ignorant of those ways.  We are aware of the publicized cases... why were they publicized?  Because something went wrong... othewise, there's not much of a story to tell huh.  What's the fun in covering a story on a successful case?

Ok, well show me a case where it was done "correctly" and show me someone who has gone through the effort to compare exorcism techniques for effectiveness.

 

caposkia wrote:

Seriously?  i think you're smart, so you'll likely understand this... just because something has a rational explanation doesn't mean that explanation is the cause.  The most common reason is not always the right reason.  There are sometimes many factors involved.

Why create an explanation that has no evidence supporting it when there is a perfectly mundane explanation? I imagine you assume that I am typing to you right now using a keyboard and you have no reason to suspect otherwise because me using a keyboard is a perfectly rational explanation of how I am communicating so there is no reason to believe that I have a demon possessing me and I am interacting with the computer through a demon. If I claimed that I had found a way to interact directly with my computer using only my mind, without touching a keyboard, you would be rational to be skeptical until I furnished some proof that I did in fact invent that technology. Until you have evidence that suggests otherwise, there is no rational reason for you to believe anything other than the mundane explanation that I am using a keyboard. 

 

caposkia wrote:

God is not anywhere He's not invited to be.  and I always am thankful for all those people who provide my food... including my uncle who has given us meat, my wife who bakes the bread, the local farmers who provide us with produce etc.

So what did God have to do with it? People who don't invite God also get meat, bake bread and grow crops. People who believe in God do not have more than people who do not.

  

caposkia wrote:

are you suggesting then that I all of a sudden stopped paying attention... when my friend prayed about it?  I haven't noticed it since... other than the typical streetlight blinkout that I see maybe once or twice a year.

Maybe your luck changed. It is a random event and you went through a period where you witnessed a random event more frequently than expected, so what? One of my hobbies is playing poker and it was raining today so I went to the casino. I played for about 9 hours and was dealt the hand Ace King 8+ times. The odds of getting that hand are 1 in 82 so on average I should have expected to see it twice the entire day, instead I saw it far more frequently. It happens. Next time I play I might not see that hand the whole day, or who knows maybe my "luck" might continue. There is no reason to imagine that some demon was influencing the cards (and yes it would be a demon because I lost with AK every time except once) Probability is just a mathematical estimation, not a guarantee. That is why some people might win the big lottery multiple times in their life, even though the odds are that any person is unlikely to win a big lottery even once in their lives. 

 

caposkia wrote:

about streetlights on a random street?  I figured if it was an issue beyond just happenign to me, the residents of that street would call them.

Maybe they did. How would you know? You said you ruled out electrical problems. How do you rule out electrical problems without calling someone to check it? I imagine you didn't climb up and disassemble it yourself to take a look. 

 

caposkia wrote:

In my experience, if they come and find nothing wrong, they will say; "I can't find anything wrong".. charge me a fortune and leave... if they found evidence of chewed wires, I'm sure they'd have grounds to tell me to hire an exterminator... Demons as far as I am aware dont' chew wires.  

If I had a problem with my electricity and they didn't fix it I wouldn't pay them and hire a new electrician. I have never witnessed an electrical problem where the problem couldn't be found. Do you have evidence of any significant number of electrical problems that electricians can't solve?

 

caposkia wrote:

That's great, i would love a new car.. however it's not about a car, it's about me saying that's the only way you can prove to me that they exist... it's not logical or rational.  Despite the excuses that "it sounds irrational until it's proven", this car scenario will never sound rational.  Same with nony's proof... and I've said it's because it doesn't work that way..  Be it that I'm one who claims to understand this concept, one would think you'd trust me when I say that... if you don't.  I expect a good reason to why and that tired excuse isn't a good reason.. if it doesn't work, it doesn't work, rational or not.  

Demanding to see a car is rather extreme, but hardly irrational. If you were talking to someone in one of the many remote tribes in Brazil who have never seen that type of technology, it would be perfectly rational for them to doubt your stories until they have seen it. The only reason you consider it irrational is because you live in a modern country and everyone you know has seen cars on a daily basis for most of their lives. It is irrational to demand proof when you have already have seen that same proof a million times. If you had never seen a car in your life, I don't think it is irrational at all to demand to see one as proof. 

 

caposkia wrote:

As far as evidence of demons, I'm guessing seeing a possessed person isn't going to work for you.  

It would certainly help. I would consider it preferable that someone more experienced than me in the medical field saw someone who was possessed and was able to run tests on the person. 

 

caposkia wrote:

would documentation of experiences work?

Yes, if it came from reliable sources.

 

caposkia wrote:

 Would sources claiming to deal with them work?  

Yes, if they were reliable sources. This is precisely what I asked for and you have failed to produce. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Considering a Biblical understanding of how demons work, what would be evidence to you?  

Not in the slightest. The bible has numerous assertions that have been proven wrong so I do not consider it a reliable source. 

 

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:actually,

caposkia wrote:
actually, you're the one who is asking for seemingly irrational... or nonsensical proof, so I think I need you to show me how that would be possible if in fact demons were real... This is something new I'm asking, so repetition isn't going to work and ignoring it isn't going to work either. 

Now you want me to play your part in this ??? Actually, yes, repetition IS necessary, so listen up : YOU believe in demons, NOT ME. I'M THE ONE WHO SAID THAT IT WAS 100% ACCURATE TO SAY THERE WAS NO PROOF FOR DEMONS. YOU'RE THE ONE BELIEVES THERE IS.

Just because you're stuck, I have to do it for you ???? Lol, NO !

caposkia wrote:
Let's get this out there now... By your philosophy, If I were the one claiming that it was the means to prove it, then It would be on me to show you, however you're the one claiming that it is the only way.  

I already explained WHY it was the only acceptable proof ! If people just left it to you to decide what would be acceptable proof for your insane claims, you could prove ANYTHING !! And do I really have to explain why that doesn't make sense ??

Because I will if I have to !

caposkia wrote:
yes we have, acceptable to you.

For pete's sake, YOU ASKED ME !! And I explained why it was acceptable, and why other proof wouldn't be ! 

caposkia wrote:
 yet you don't know what to look for

I told you what to look for !

caposkia wrote:
so isn't it possible that all acceptable evidence may not be acceptable to you?

Lol ! No ! READ ! I. TOLD. YOU. WHAT. TO. LOOK. FOR. AND. WHY. IT. IS. ACCEPTABLE. PROOF !

caposkia wrote:
 I'm starting to believe that.

Lots of "beliefs" no proof. 

caposkia wrote:
k, this is where I lose you again... How does what it is change the answer here?

If I have to define something, it helps to be as precise and correct as possible, so as not to leave any room for deliberate (or not) misinterpretation. Saves LOADS of time.

caposkia wrote:
that's a very good question... if you answered it with a yes or no to begin with you wouldn't have had that problem

But that makes no sense. I just told you I didn't even know what you were going on about, so why would I answer a question if I forgot what it referenced ? 

caposkia wrote:
I'm sorry, that's not an excuse.
 

An "excuse" ????? An "excuse" for what ? How many times do people have to explain this ? YOUR CARS ANALOGY WAS A FALSE ANALOGY ! A FALSE ANALOGY IS A FALLACY ! A FALLACY IS AN ERROR IN REASONING ! 

Do I need to make it even clearer ? Cuz I will if I have to.

caposkia wrote:
yea, however the analogy isn't comparing cars to demons, it's comparing one way proof to one way proof.  Therefore, the analogy remains true.  The only way your false analogy excuse works is if i was actually trying to compare cars to demons which... just in case you missed it... i"m not.
   

In case you missed it, and it appears you somehow (IN-BLOODY-CREDIBLE ! ) managed to : You compared proof for the existence for demons, to proof for the existence for cars, WHICH IS A FALSE ANALOGY ! 

And AGAIN : THAT FALSE ANALOGY WAS MEANT TO DEFEND AN ARGUMENT YOU ALREADY GAVE UP ! 

Seriously, do I need a bigger font here ? 

caposkia wrote:
how about the response that specifically says "it doesn't work that way"... a proper response to that response might be "how does it work then?"  which is different than calling it irrational, which would have been my mistake.
 

Yeah, I addressed that "response" all the way into the ground, but sure, I'll do it again : First of all, you need to understand that you're not having a conversation with yourself here. More than once you went on about "the correct response", when you didn't get the reply you were hoping for. Second, if you really don't understand why you don't get to decide what would be acceptable proof for your imaginary creatures, THEN TELL ME, AND I WILL EXPLAIN !

caposkia wrote:
ah, so we're just stuck on you thinking you have justified your request for proof...
 

"Justified" ????  Dude, you claim demons exist. How is it not "justified" to demand proof for such an insane supernatural claim ??

caposkia wrote:
it still doesn't work that way..

Sorry, but it most certainly DOES work that way. I already explained why, but if you missed it (You seem to be quite good at that), then tell me and I'll explain again. 

caposkia wrote:
. regardless if it could seem irrational... The problem with your arguement here is that though some things can SEEM irrational before they're produced, other things actually are... like those things that actually can't happen.  

Now you're just teasing me. You're SO close ! How can there be a "problem with my argument" when you're THIS CLOSE to finally getting it ? 

caposkia wrote:
Also, I will say again, be it that I'm not the one claiming that that particular avenue of proof is a way to prove the existence of demons,

And I will say again, if you seriously don't understand why a person who makes a weird supernatural claim doesn't get to pick what would count as proof, then you're really going to have to come clean and admit that, cuz that one is even easier to explain.

caposkia wrote:
it's on you to explain how it's rational using the means of spirituality.

By means of what now ? Oh no you don't. Again, explaining nonsense with more nonsense doesn't count. That one really isn't getting through, is it ? Okay then, if you really don't understand why you can't explain nonsense with more nonsense, then tell me. 

caposkia wrote:
 Maybe that way I can better figure out how to produce this proof you're looking for.
 

Why would I care how you produce it ? Just produce it already, or admit there is no proof. That is all.

caposkia wrote:
that's all you've given us to work with.
   

No, AGAIN : YOU are the one who has failed to produce acceptable proof. I'm the one who said it's 100% accurate to say there isn't any. If you want to take my place in this conversation so much, then all you have to do is agree with me. 

caposkia wrote:
what's to regret?
 

You have a point there. Why would a theist regret not making sense ? 

caposkia wrote:
If you're actually expecting proof if demons are real, then "spiritual law" would have to be a part of that proof... it's like the law of physics... can't do a physics experiment unless it falls in the lines of scientific law.  It is impossible to make something work outside of that law... it's why it's called "LAW".  Spiritual Law works the same way.

Um.....you cannot make nonsense equal to the laws of physics just by putting the word LAW in front of it. 

*sigh* If you really, truly, honestly, no kidding, honest injun, do not understand that, then please, just tell me. 

caposkia wrote:
Again, you can't see the evidence if you don't know what you're looking for... I think we really need to start talking about what to look for

And again, if you don't understand why a person making an insane, supernatural claim, doesn't just get to pick what would be acceptable proof for the existence of said insane supernatural claim, THEN YOU'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO TELL US, SO WE CAN EXPLAIN IT TO YOU.

 


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

caposkia wrote:
suddenly develops?? I don't remember ever understanding exactly what he was saying

? I'm sorry, are you dyslexic ? That would explain a lot, but you should have said. 

And if you're not and you're just attempting to insult Mouse somehow, I have to tell you, it's a pretty desperate attempt. 

I think you have trouble understanding people when they don't give you the "correct" answers and questions.

 

caposkia wrote:
actually, if belief had any part in that culture, the leader wouldn't have nearly as much control.  The god or gods would trump a leader who claims they're god and they would eventually be overthrown.  The proof of this is in history.    Disbelief is the reason for it.

No, sorry, but you already admitted yourself that you don't settle for just "belief". "Believers" never do, which is why paranoid, authoritarian regimes as the one you mentioned like to nip that in the bud. There really couldn't care less what you "believe". Nobody does. It's what you people end up doing that we care about, like your silly "exorcisms".

 

caposkia wrote:
I don't know actually, but what I do know is they do the complete opposite of what you were claiming belief does

We're talking about belief in "demonic possession". Please try to stick with the subject, no matter how unpleasant it is.


 

caposkia wrote:
ok, this I truly dont' understand... knowing what possession is (even fictionally)  how can you be so sure modern medicine could "handle" demons?

Because fiction is all there is, and all the symptoms of people exposed to these silly rituals are treatable. 

Do you still not understand ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
How could you claim there's no cost when pretty much every religious writing out there claims to the contrary for not following their god?

Because a supernatural claim is a supernatural claim. It doesn't matter where the fiction comes from, fiction it remains.

Do you understand now why there is no cost, and why you have no excuse ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
except dishonesty... which goes against my faith... and against the sheer purpose of Christ's coming

I will refrain from making any sarcastic comments regarding religious "faith" somehow disapproving of dishonesty (I'm not even sure it would be sarcasm), but you're going to have to explain this one : What could possibly be dishonest about keeping your faith, but not openly supporting it, so it can't be taken as support for people who tragically, or purposefully, "misunderstand" it ? I mean, even a chance to save an actual life, that still wouldn't be enough to drop this exclusively destructive belief ?

Think very carefully before answering. You might reveal more of your personality than you wish to. 

 

caposkia wrote:
of course not, we've been stuck on demon controlling devices for the last few pages

It has been adequately and tirelessly explained to you why anything else would be completely worthless.

 

caposkia wrote:
Ok, just the belief alone.  I know a few people who were dangerous people, who wouldn't think twice but to leave you inches from death in an alley come to follow Jesus Christ.  Their following of Christ has changed their lives so dramatically that now you would never know they were such dangerous people only a decade ago.  They are now some of the nicest people you would ever meet and they don't hurt or abuse people anymore.   It started with their sincere belief in the existence of demons. Now if you think I'm lying... you can google testimony's and likely find something.  I know comdian Jeff Allen was a violent drunk who beat his 6 month old in the crib.  I'm not sure of his stance on demons, but He changed just as dramatically coming to belief in Jesus Christ.  He's someone you can google. If none of these are reliable sources, then I need you to define for me what a reliable source is. 

No, people change their behavior without belief in religious nonsense, never mind "demons".  Again, ... something positive that could not have occurred without it.


 

caposkia wrote:
context is context... you can try to interpret it in your own way... and you will be shut down by anyone who is knowledgeable.  

And whether or not someone is considered "knowledgeable" about such things, is once again, a matter of interpretation. That's all you have when you're trying to distill meaning from these ancients religious texts.

What you will be "shut down" by, is someone with more charisma than you.

 

caposkia wrote:
it wasn't even an analogy... nice try... 

No, that wasn't a "try". That was an accurate assessment of your favorite fallacy.

 

caposkia wrote:
we're actually talking about abuse...

You were. I was talking about the insane belief in supernatural creatures. Again, stick with the subject, please.

 

caposkia wrote:
Based on that we seem to be referring to belief being the main cause for abuse

Please do try not to misrepresent what I say. I will be as clear as possible : The belief in "demons" and "possession" is the cause of these insane "exorcisms", which has lead to many deaths and who-knows how many severely emotionally and psychologically damaged people, and nothing else. Therefore, this belief can be justly described as being exclusively toxic, and it needs to be discarded, as all other insane myths have been.

 

caposkia wrote:
not if it included abuse.  I also would know if they're making the right decision.

No, any decision made on the basis of belief in "demons" and "possession" would be at best completely useless, and at worst a horrible, cowardly crime. 

And again, if they were simply a more skilled bullshit artist than you are, they would have no trouble convincing you they were more "knowledgeable" than you in such matters, and you would go along with it. (That is, if you REALLY believe this nonsense)

 

caposkia wrote:
I have to see sources for this claim

You already have : Every single reported case. Every single one.

 

caposkia wrote:
every time you make a false claim, I am going to correct you.  sorry.  

You cannot "correct" something by making a false analogy. A fallacy is not a reasonable argument. If you accuse somebody of making a "false claim", you need to prove that was indeed the case. You did not. 

 

caposkia wrote:
I read that part... did it say to the point of shattering her knees?  

Is it not then abuse, in your book, to make a person with broken knees kneel repeatedly ???

 

caposkia wrote:
Also... here I'm going to take a neutral approach. 

Considering the damning facts in this case, that's going to be quite the balancing act.

 

caposkia wrote:
You claim her self-abuse was inspired by this demon belief... a believer would say her self-abuse was caused by the demon.. who do I believe?  is it the belief in the demon or the demon itself?  

??????????

Do you have any reason, ANY reason at all, to pick the supernatural explanation, when there's a perfectly rational one staring you in the face so hard that even you notice it ??? 

 

caposkia wrote:
I know where you stand, but considering the possibility for a moment that both could be true, how can we be sure what you say is true?  

For the sake of argument, I'm going to assume you really don't know why that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I'll explain : Simply mentioning a supernatural explanation for something doesn't make it any more likely than ANYTHING your imagination can come up with ! So no, you can't "consider the possibility for a moment that both could be true", because that would be a waste of time !

 

caposkia wrote:
One can not believe in demons and if they're real, they'll still cause people to self-abuse. 

Again, simply spouting supernatural nonsense doesn't make it magically real ! The rational explanation is ALL THAT'S REALLY THERE ! 

 

caposkia wrote:
yes, she apparently had some issues in childhood.  The starvation and dehydration was deemed by this article to be self inflicted as well.... unless I missed a part 

Many parts, yes. For one, you missed the part where not giving a sick person the care they so obviously need, also counts as abuse, and worse, since it led to her death. 

And her youth shows quite clearly how all this "belief" can utterly destroy a person. 

 

caposkia wrote:
I believe I did this time, but to add to it, I have yet to see any negative results from my personal belief... 

? I don't understand. Did I not show you all those linked pages, and do you not support belief in "demons" and "possession" ?

 

caposkia wrote:
no one that I'm aware of has abused someone else due to the belief I share with them.

Then they have had the good idea not to take your "demon" and "possession" nonsense seriously, or they have not been allowed near children and sick people.

 

caposkia wrote:
Actually, some have turned away from that kind of behavior because of what i've shared as I mentioned earlier

You still don't understand. I'll explain again : You are actively and openly supporting this exclusively toxic belief, without shame (which is incredible in itself). Believe it or not, but that DOES influence people. People you are unaware of and can't stop when they take this insane belief to it's logical conclusion. You have a responsibility here, and you simply do not seem to care. 

 

caposkia wrote:
false analogies are comparing things that aren't comparable.  I'm comparing the idea of something being what it is to something being what it is.   I am not comparing grass to demons.  Nice try though.

No, once again, that was not a "try". You obviously have trouble even grasping the concept of a false analogy, so I will take my time to explain this yet again :

One of the "somethings" being what it is, was something that doesn't actually exist. Therefore you were trying to draw, once again, parallels between reality and fiction. You can not just presuppose your fiction is real just to make an analogy work.

I have a feeling this won't be the last time I, or other people, will have to explain this.

 

caposkia wrote:
ok, so why start here?  that was my original question to you.  why not start with the behavior issues first?  That's statistically where the majority of childhood abuse at least starts

?

Because that is not what we're addressing here. I'm not sure how you keep missing the actual subject of the conversation. Do I need to repeat it more ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
I have.

This is untrue, since you keep picking the supernatural explanation, when there's a perfectly good rational one.

 

caposkia wrote:
do you see where this is going yet?

Yes, but I would prefer we concentrate on where it should end : Namely you making a habit of ignoring silly and dangerous supernatural nonsense, in favor of the always available rational explanation. That really is not much to ask of anyone.

 

caposkia wrote:
I never said it did... just making a point

No, you made a suggestion that you didn't bother to back up with facts. That is not "making a point".

 

caposkia wrote:
you've  failed with the false analogy excuse... It's my turn to ask you to stop

No, once again, you were comparing cold symptoms to symptoms of "demonic possession". Please stop trying to draw parallels between reality and fiction. 

 

caposkia wrote:
you're assuming I'm paralleling between reality and imaginary.  As far as I remember, we have not concluded that the subject is imaginary.

As explained, if you were allowed to simply presuppose your fiction into existence, then there would be no such thing as a false analogy, and anyone could construct valid arguments for anything their imagination could produce. Reality does not work like that. If it did, we'd be up to our eyeballs in supernatural creatures. 

 

caposkia wrote:
.. unless you're holding out on us... what sources do you have that you're not telling us about?

Again, you do not seem to understand this very simple thing : There is as much proof for the existence of "demons" and "possession" as ANYTHING your imagination can produce. In fact, you could take what you consider "proof" for "demons" and "possession" and give it an entirely different supernatural explanation, and it would make just as much sense ! Yes, your "proof" is THAT worthless ! 

 

caposkia wrote:
I asked you a question... was that your answer?  

And I told you I never made such a suggestion. Please don't pretend you don't understand that that means "no". 

 

caposkia wrote:
it would demand proof.

But what you consider proof is no such thing, so no, you do not demand proof at all.

 

caposkia wrote:
.. you present your case the way you do and wonder why I'm still a believer?

Actually, yes, and I'm not the only one. 

 

caposkia wrote:
 Who's not using logic and reasoning? 

That would be the person who prefers the supernatural explanation when there's a perfectly good rational one available. And let's be honest, if your life was on the line, you would ALWAYS pick the rational one. 

 

caposkia wrote:
people lack to give me sound reasoning for their perspective. 

People keep shoving reality in your face, and you keep ignoring it in favor of silly and dangerous fiction, so no, they have not failed.

Also, you did not answer the question : How do you keep from believing everything, if you were to always apply the standards that allow you to believe in "demons" and "possession" ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
What the "seems irrational until someone produces it"?  yea, that's reasonable... except it didn't do much for his request for proof as you'll notice in my last response to him

There is nothing wrong with his request for proof, and you have finally admitted it. Now we just wait for you to produce it, or admit there is none. 

 

caposkia wrote:
you say that as if I was trying to make things hard for him.

No, I say that as someone who's stating a simple fact. 

 

caposkia wrote:
I asked him a simple question.

Of course you did. What else were you supposed to do. Produce acceptable proof for your insane supernatural claim ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
 he gave me an answer, I told him it doesn't work that way..

You forgot the part where he explained why it does. He's been repeating that for quite a while now. If you don't understand, you need to tell him.

 

caposkia wrote:
then a bunch of fluff and randomness and here we are.

Then try to read what he actually says the first time he says it, so he won't have to repeat it. And tell him when you don't understand something, so he doesn't have to keep asking you.

 

caposkia wrote:
I made it easy for him and gave him a shortcut, he chose to take the highway.

Heh, actually, everyone here you discuss this with is going to end up at the same point as you and Mouse are now, so he's the one who took the shortcut. Everyone else has been humoring you, for their own amusement, mostly. They know it takes longer, but your claim is so fundamentally absurd, that it can be fully exposed no matter what approach we take. 

 

caposkia wrote:
ah. didn't know people "fall" for common knowledge.  That seems like an odd statement to me.

What is odd is that anyone would take "we both know that..." as a guarantee that whatever may follow will magically become common knowledge. Like I said, nobody falls for that. 

 

caposkia wrote:
I have brought a few avenues of discussion for facts on spiritual discussion.
 

Now there's an odd statement. "Facts on spiritual discussion" ??? Sorry, but he's right. That's simply trying to justify nonsense with even more nonsense. 

 

caposkia wrote:
You've been so distracted by nony's excuses

Again, he hasn't needed any "excuses". Try to bring some facts to accompany your next weird accusations, please. Thank you.

 

caposkia wrote:
you've obviously missed them.

I obviously didn't, hence my mentioning Mouse's explanation of why your "facts" don't qualify as such.

 


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

I am suggesting that your excuse the reason they don't have information on exorcism techniques online is because exorcisms are dangerous is bullshit. 

k

Beyond Saving wrote:

Probably the same reason why you can't find "the right way" to do at home brain surgury online.

Except I can. http://journals.lww.com/neurosurgery/pages/default.aspx I can find brain surgery techniques, their success rates and often including detailed pictures and videos. Many of them are available for free, some of the newer articles I would have to pay a few bucks for. And this is just one of several neurosurgery professional journals available online where neurosurgeons share their techniques, describe them in detail and evaluate how well they work. Where is similar information on exorcisms available? Is there a professional exorcism journal somewhere? 

ah, didn't know that.  I like the link.  

Let's see if there is something on exorcisms:  

apparently the catholic church offers workshops: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004582.htm

There's a study of how it has been practiced historically:  http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-1618348021.html

They warn that though simple exorcisms can be performed by anyone, you do need to be gifted and trained to properly perform a more severe possession case, which is more rare than not.  The articles go into the detail about how possession is a lot less then people think.

.so my mistake in thinking there was no information on how to.  Some simple rules I found as well are to not use "I" in the rite, and to not address the demon directly, but through God.  This would be the danger of doing it without the proper training and gift in the field

Beyond Saving wrote:

Ok, well show me a case where it was done "correctly" and show me someone who has gone through the effort to compare exorcism techniques for effectiveness.

http://www.prairieghosts.com/exorcist.html (link to a successful exorcism situation) 

as far as comparing techniques, there's not much to compare except for what is written in scripture.  Anything beyond the Bible is speculation as far as effective technique and is typically deemed unnecessary.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why create an explanation that has no evidence supporting it when there is a perfectly mundane explanation? I imagine you assume that I am typing to you right now using a keyboard and you have no reason to suspect otherwise because me using a keyboard is a perfectly rational explanation of how I am communicating so there is no reason to believe that I have a demon possessing me and I am interacting with the computer through a demon. If I claimed that I had found a way to interact directly with my computer using only my mind, without touching a keyboard, you would be rational to be skeptical until I furnished some proof that I did in fact invent that technology. Until you have evidence that suggests otherwise, there is no rational reason for you to believe anything other than the mundane explanation that I am using a keyboard. 

a lot of people use speak to type programs as well and could be a logical alternative, though not as common.  I'd have no reason to not believe you if you told me you were using such a program.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

So what did God have to do with it? People who don't invite God also get meat, bake bread and grow crops. People who believe in God do not have more than people who do not.

I was answering your double post... You asked if I'm not thankful for all those things and for the people who provide it, I simply said I was.  They have to make the effort...

Beyond Saving wrote:

Maybe your luck changed. It is a random event and you went through a period where you witnessed a random event more frequently than expected, so what? One of my hobbies is playing poker and it was raining today so I went to the casino. I played for about 9 hours and was dealt the hand Ace King 8+ times. The odds of getting that hand are 1 in 82 so on average I should have expected to see it twice the entire day, instead I saw it far more frequently. It happens. Next time I play I might not see that hand the whole day, or who knows maybe my "luck" might continue. There is no reason to imagine that some demon was influencing the cards (and yes it would be a demon because I lost with AK every time except once) Probability is just a mathematical estimation, not a guarantee. That is why some people might win the big lottery multiple times in their life, even though the odds are that any person is unlikely to win a big lottery even once in their lives. 

luck changed huh... You're having a hard time accepting what I'm telling you about the spiritual world and your explanation is luck?  When you bring luck into the picture almost anything becomes possible.  I feel that's being more "gullible" as many atheists would say than to believe in demons.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Maybe they did. How would you know? You said you ruled out electrical problems. How do you rule out electrical problems without calling someone to check it? I imagine you didn't climb up and disassemble it yourself to take a look. 

it doesn't explain this happening at any random location and not a specific street in a specific town.  Again, if it was that wide spread and people were calling about it, I figure it would have hit the news about the electric companies having to check their wiring or something.

Beyond Saving wrote:

If I had a problem with my electricity and they didn't fix it I wouldn't pay them and hire a new electrician. I have never witnessed an electrical problem where the problem couldn't be found. Do you have evidence of any significant number of electrical problems that electricians can't solve?

no, to look at this as an electrical problem would be the wrong approach.. you could call up 100 electricians and if what I say is true, none of them would find a problem... because there isn't any.  It's interference... which by the way I'm willing to bet some electricians might suggest and ask for any things in the area that might cause interference.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Demanding to see a car is rather extreme, but hardly irrational.

What I'm saying is irrational is claiming that it's the only way to prove it... that's irrational, not just the request to see the car.  Everyone knows there is 100 ways to prove cars exist... my example is taking the rationale of nony and using it with that commonly understood concept.  To take nony's approach more literally I should have asked someone to buy me a mercedes, then make it fly.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

If you were talking to someone in one of the many remote tribes in Brazil who have never seen that type of technology, it would be perfectly rational for them to doubt your stories until they have seen it. The only reason you consider it irrational is because you live in a modern country and everyone you know has seen cars on a daily basis for most of their lives. It is irrational to demand proof when you have already have seen that same proof a million times. If you had never seen a car in your life, I don't think it is irrational at all to demand to see one as proof. 

that's different than asking someone to buy it for you... again, i should have asked for ti to fly, it would be more like the request nony's asking for

Beyond Saving wrote:

It would certainly help. I would consider it preferable that someone more experienced than me in the medical field saw someone who was possessed and was able to run tests on the person. 

all research on possession reviels that the medical profession cannot explain it, nor detect it.. rather they compare it to all the mental disorders they're aware of and associate the symptoms to that.  Possession is not a factor they take into consideration becuase they have nothing to treat it.

I'm sure if you talked around, you'd find someone in your area that is familiar with teh spiritual world and either has performed exorcisms and/or knows someone who can.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yes, if it came from reliable sources.

...and that's usually where the breakdown comes between believers and non-believers.  Non-beleivers want a source that doesn't deal with possessions and the believer feels a reliable source would be one trained in such a field...  There's never a middle ground.

What is your reliable source?  Medical professionals in most cases aren't reliable sources because they don't take into consideration the possibility of possession.  Though some who have delt with possessed people might have interesting stories tot ell.

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Considering a Biblical understanding of how demons work, what would be evidence to you?  

Not in the slightest. The bible has numerous assertions that have been proven wrong so I do not consider it a reliable source. 

well the question was what would be evidence...

I'm sure you've gotten many assertions that people have used the Bible to try and back up, but to blame those assertions on scripture is quite a jump.  This would be a topic for another thread though.  I have yet to see any legitimate scripturally based references proven wrong.  


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

Anonymouse wrote:

I already explained WHY it was the only acceptable proof ! If people just left it to you to decide what would be acceptable proof for your insane claims, you could prove ANYTHING !! And do I really have to explain why that doesn't make sense ??

Because I will if I have to !

the explanation I got from you is because it's the only proof that I can't fake... a flying car is something you can't fake in real life too, but you can't do it without dramatically changing the dynamics of the car.  either way, it doesn't make it a logical reasoning.  I'm also NOT asking you to allow "me" to decide... but there are ways things work.  Cars don't fly and I can't escort a demon to your house... I misplaced Solomon's ring

Anonymouse wrote:

I told you what to look for !

Oh, so you know how it all works?!  then you'll have to explain it to me.  this is an aspect of the spiritual world I'm not as familar with if in fact what you ask is possible.

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
k, this is where I lose you again... How does what it is change the answer here?

If I have to define something, it helps to be as precise and correct as possible, so as not to leave any room for deliberate (or not) misinterpretation. Saves LOADS of time.

yea, but how does it change the answer here?  this just in case we're getting lost again is about rationality in asking for proof in comparison to the car analogy

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
that's a very good question... if you answered it with a yes or no to begin with you wouldn't have had that problem

But that makes no sense. I just told you I didn't even know what you were going on about, so why would I answer a question if I forgot what it referenced ? 

because, if you answered it with a simple yes or no to begin with, you wouldn't have had that problem!  

Ah!  I'm starting to see the importance of repetition now

Anonymouse wrote:

An "excuse" ????? An "excuse" for what ? How many times do people have to explain this ? YOUR CARS ANALOGY WAS A FALSE ANALOGY ! A FALSE ANALOGY IS A FALLACY ! A FALLACY IS AN ERROR IN REASONING ! 

Do I need to make it even clearer ? Cuz I will if I have to.

you might have to, because i've already explained why your false analogy excuse fails

Anonymouse wrote:

In case you missed it, and it appears you somehow (IN-BLOODY-CREDIBLE ! ) managed to : You compared proof for the existence for demons, to proof for the existence for cars, WHICH IS A FALSE ANALOGY ! 

And AGAIN : THAT FALSE ANALOGY WAS MEANT TO DEFEND AN ARGUMENT YOU ALREADY GAVE UP ! 

Seriously, do I need a bigger font here ? 

only if you're trying to get noticed.  I've already told you that i wasn't comparing demons to cars and yet here you are saying that i'm comparing demons to cars.  who doesn't read the posts before responding again??? I think I forgot

Anonymouse wrote:

Yeah, I addressed that "response" all the way into the ground, but sure, I'll do it again : First of all, you need to understand that you're not having a conversation with yourself here.

.... oh?!  

Anonymouse wrote:

More than once you went on about "the correct response", when you didn't get the reply you were hoping for.

you had inspired me

Anonymouse wrote:

Second, if you really don't understand why you don't get to decide what would be acceptable proof for your imaginary creatures, THEN TELL ME, AND I WILL EXPLAIN !

I dont' understand where you got the idea that "I" decided the rules.  Do some homework on the subject for a change

Anonymouse wrote:

"Justified" ????  Dude, you claim demons exist. How is it not "justified" to demand proof for such an insane supernatural claim ??

it is justified to demand proof... that was never the issue... the issue is you trying to write the rules for the subject.  you have decided the only way is your way and if that can't be shown than it's false.  you're doing the exact thing you just accused me of doing which is "why you don't get to decide what would be acceptable proof for your imaginary creatures"  (quoted from this post)

caposkia wrote:
it still doesn't work that way..

Sorry, but it most certainly DOES work that way. I already explained why, but if you missed it (You seem to be quite good at that), then tell me and I'll explain again. 

yea, you have yet to show me your sources for research into the spiritual.  To claim as you did is to claim you're more of an expert than I on the subject.  Please show me your sources.. you went to seminary I'm assuming?

Anonymouse wrote:

Now you're just teasing me. You're SO close ! How can there be a "problem with my argument" when you're THIS CLOSE to finally getting it ?

maybe because you decided to make up the rules yourself instead of approaching the subject from a research standpoint

Anonymouse wrote:
 

And I will say again, if you seriously don't understand why a person who makes a weird supernatural claim doesn't get to pick what would count as proof, then you're really going to have to come clean and admit that, cuz that one is even easier to explain.

sure... can you explain it to me in an analogy form though... preferably why a doctor should not be the person to explain the proof of successful surgury.  That way your explanation can be on a level that everyone understands

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
it's on you to explain how it's rational using the means of spirituality.

By means of what now ? Oh no you don't. Again, explaining nonsense with more nonsense doesn't count. That one really isn't getting through, is it ? Okay then, if you really don't understand why you can't explain nonsense with more nonsense, then tell me. 

I explained nothing above and left it there just so we can be sure.  Oh, didn't change anything here either if you're worried about that... check to make sure.  I only said it's on you to explain how your proof is rational using the means of spirituality... we are talking about spirituality here... demons are understood to be spirits right?

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 Maybe that way I can better figure out how to produce this proof you're looking for.
 

Why would I care how you produce it ? Just produce it already, or admit there is no proof. That is all.

um... I was asking for your help here... that's why you should care how I produce it.  

Anonymouse wrote:

Um.....you cannot make nonsense equal to the laws of physics just by putting the word LAW in front of it. 

no you cannot, but the definition of Law does not change... we can use a different law if you'd like... how about laws of thermodynamics?  law of non-contradiction?  Pick your choice


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Antipatris wrote:No, sorry,

Antipatris wrote:

No, sorry, but you already admitted yourself that you don't settle for just "belief". "Believers" never do, which is why paranoid, authoritarian regimes as the one you mentioned like to nip that in the bud. There really couldn't care less what you "believe". Nobody does. It's what you people end up doing that we care about, like your silly "exorcisms".

if you say so

Antipatris wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
I don't know actually, but what I do know is they do the complete opposite of what you were claiming belief does

We're talking about belief in "demonic possession". Please try to stick with the subject, no matter how unpleasant it is.

yup, thanks for clarifying... that doesn't get you out of it though

Antipatris wrote:


 

caposkia wrote:
ok, this I truly dont' understand... knowing what possession is (even fictionally)  how can you be so sure modern medicine could "handle" demons?

Because fiction is all there is, and all the symptoms of people exposed to these silly rituals are treatable. 

Do you still not understand ? 

if fiction is all there is, then what you say would be true, but if it's not, then what you say could be dangerous..  my statement meant the latter, if you understand what possession is... let's assume it's not fictional, how can you be so sure modern medicine could "handle" demons?

Antipatris wrote:

Because a supernatural claim is a supernatural claim. It doesn't matter where the fiction comes from, fiction it remains.

Do you understand now why there is no cost, and why you have no excuse ? 

I have no excuse by assumption alone... you're assuming it's fictional

Antipatris wrote:

I will refrain from making any sarcastic comments regarding religious "faith" somehow disapproving of dishonesty (I'm not even sure it would be sarcasm), but you're going to have to explain this one : What could possibly be dishonest about keeping your faith, but not openly supporting it, so it can't be taken as support for people who tragically, or purposefully, "misunderstand" it ? I mean, even a chance to save an actual life, that still wouldn't be enough to drop this exclusively destructive belief ?

Think very carefully before answering. You might reveal more of your personality than you wish to. 

I'm not afraid of reveiling anything here.  to deny something you believe is dishonest no matter how you look at it.  I can not talk about it with certain people and I certainly don't discuss it with literally everyone, but those who ask I will not deny it. 

Antipatris wrote:

No, people change their behavior without belief in religious nonsense, never mind "demons".  Again, ... something positive that could not have occurred without it.

yea, there's reasons for it... I never claimed that belief in religious anything is the only reason why people change, but to change as they do as described in previous posts is what was in question

Antipatris wrote:

And whether or not someone is considered "knowledgeable" about such things, is once again, a matter of interpretation. That's all you have when you're trying to distill meaning from these ancients religious texts.

that interpretation can easily be rectified by a simple written test.  it's how the education system has been doing it for years

Antipatris wrote:

You were. I was talking about the insane belief in supernatural creatures. Again, stick with the subject, please.

you were so stuck on associating abuse with belief that I guess i thought you were talking about abuse.  I think if you look back you can see why I got confused then.

Antipatris wrote:

Please do try not to misrepresent what I say. I will be as clear as possible : The belief in "demons" and "possession" is the cause of these insane "exorcisms", which has lead to many deaths and who-knows how many severely emotionally and psychologically damaged people, and nothing else. Therefore, this belief can be justly described as being exclusively toxic, and it needs to be discarded, as all other insane myths have been.

I don't, which is why I repeat what seems to come across.  I TRY to represent what you say accurately... if I don't then I need it worded differently... you and nony seem to like to beat around the bush a lot.  it's hard to follow that approach sometimes.

that explanation above based on the assumption that it is fictional... if it is not, you could be putting certain people in more danger.

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I have to see sources for this claim

You already have : Every single reported case. Every single one.

oh, then I'd say your conclusion is based on very little huh

Antipatris wrote:

Is it not then abuse, in your book, to make a person with broken knees kneel repeatedly ???

oh that's how it happened?  one of your links describes otherwise

Antipatris wrote:

??????????

Do you have any reason, ANY reason at all, to pick the supernatural explanation, when there's a perfectly rational one staring you in the face so hard that even you notice it ??? 

If I said that to you, it would make the same sense in my head as that does in your head.  in other words, you're talking to someone who believes that the supernatural explanation is a perfectly rational one.

Antipatris wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
One can not believe in demons and if they're real, they'll still cause people to self-abuse. 

Again, simply spouting supernatural nonsense doesn't make it magically real ! The rational explanation is ALL THAT'S REALLY THERE ! 

which one?  yes I meant that as rhitorical... think about it... a believer is going to see both as rational, you're going to see just the one... as a believer who sees both as rational, how do I pick one?

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I believe I did this time, but to add to it, I have yet to see any negative results from my personal belief... 

? I don't understand. Did I not show you all those linked pages, and do you not support belief in "demons" and "possession" ?

I don't remember seeing my name in those articles

Antipatris wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
no one that I'm aware of has abused someone else due to the belief I share with them.

Then they have had the good idea not to take your "demon" and "possession" nonsense seriously, or they have not been allowed near children and sick people.

you like to make a lot of assumptions don't you... false ones at that

Antipatris wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
Actually, some have turned away from that kind of behavior because of what i've shared as I mentioned earlier

You still don't understand. I'll explain again : You are actively and openly supporting this exclusively toxic belief, without shame (which is incredible in itself). Believe it or not, but that DOES influence people. People you are unaware of and can't stop when they take this insane belief to it's logical conclusion. You have a responsibility here, and you simply do not seem to care. 

oh I care a lot, so in light of what i've said and what you've said, how do we weight the positives with the negatives?  

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
ok, so why start here?  that was my original question to you.  why not start with the behavior issues first?  That's statistically where the majority of childhood abuse at least starts

?

Because that is not what we're addressing here. I'm not sure how you keep missing the actual subject of the conversation. Do I need to repeat it more ? 

you keep going back to the abuse problem... you do, not me!  So my simple question is why start there.. yes it's becasue it's the subject at hand... my counter to that is that this is probably one of the last places to go as far as preventing abuse... there are many other casues out there that are statistically greater in being associated with abuse than this... again ignorance is the issue in all of it it seems

Antipatris wrote:

Yes, but I would prefer we concentrate on where it should end : Namely you making a habit of ignoring silly and dangerous supernatural nonsense, in favor of the always available rational explanation. That really is not much to ask of anyone.

notice I'm not going to buy into your claim just because you tell me over and over again it's supernatural nonsense...

Antipatris wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
I never said it did... just making a point

No, you made a suggestion that you didn't bother to back up with facts. That is not "making a point".

ah, guess i misunderstood myself... 

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I asked you a question... was that your answer?  

And I told you I never made such a suggestion. Please don't pretend you don't understand that that means "no".

yea, point and case, next time just say "no"

Antipatris wrote:
 

That would be the person who prefers the supernatural explanation when there's a perfectly good rational one available. And let's be honest, if your life was on the line, you would ALWAYS pick the rational one. 

really?!  I believe if you did some homework on the subject, you'd find your statement above to be false.

Antipatris wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
people lack to give me sound reasoning for their perspective. 

People keep shoving reality in your face, and you keep ignoring it in favor of silly and dangerous fiction, so no, they have not failed.

perceptive reality and sound reasoning are on 2 different playing fields...

Antipatris wrote:

Also, you did not answer the question : How do you keep from believing everything, if you were to always apply the standards that allow you to believe in "demons" and "possession" ? 

I did answer that question... I'll asnwer it again:  reasoning, rationality and understanding

Antipatris wrote:

There is nothing wrong with his request for proof, and you have finally admitted it. Now we just wait for you to produce it, or admit there is none. 

I have? since when was "it doesn't work that way" admitting nothing being wrong with his request for proof?

Antipatris wrote:

Again, he hasn't needed any "excuses".

I know, but he uses them anyway

Antipatris wrote:


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:ah, didn't

caposkia wrote:

ah, didn't know that.  I like the link.  

Let's see if there is something on exorcisms:  

apparently the catholic church offers workshops: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004582.htm

There's a study of how it has been practiced historically:  http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-1618348021.html

They warn that though simple exorcisms can be performed by anyone, you do need to be gifted and trained to properly perform a more severe possession case, which is more rare than not.  The articles go into the detail about how possession is a lot less then people think.

.so my mistake in thinking there was no information on how to.  Some simple rules I found as well are to not use "I" in the rite, and to not address the demon directly, but through God.  This would be the danger of doing it without the proper training and gift in the field

Ok, so we have a legitimately researched article on exorcism. Unfortunately, it only studies the historic practice of exorcism and belief in demons, not the actual existence of demons. In fact, it suggests that the earliest Christians did not think that exorcisms were necessary. 

Quote:

From his examination of secondcentury literature, Twelftree draws some important conclusions: (1) the early second century shows no interests in exorcism; (2) some writings, in keeping with John's Gospel, indicate that the demonic is defeated by the truth; (3) in the middle of the second century there is a renewed interest in exorcism. Twelftree's explanation for this change is that the acceptance of the longer ending of Mark in Rome marks the renaissance of interest in exorcism in that city (and beyond). In sum, exorcism was neither widespread in early Christianity nor the primary evangelistic method; there were other ways to confront the demonic, and hence some churches may not have thought it necessary to have a ministry of exorcism.

Then we have an article about the increasing number of exorcism being performed. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-78847028.html I don't know if you paid for access to the site but I did so I will provide a few excerpts.

 

Quote:

While researching his recent book, "American Exorcism: Expelling Demons in the Land of Plenty," Cuneo says he attended about 50 exorcisms, in places varying from churches to homes to arena-size venues where clusters of people were exorcised simultaneously.

 

And he still isn't convinced he saw an actual exorcism performed.

 

"I saw lots of fireworks, lots of dramatic activity," he says. "A lot of thrashing and howling and wailing, shredding of clothes, simulated masturbation, screaming and throwing themselves _ but nothing in my mind that could not be accounted for in social, medical or psychiatric terms.

 

"I didn't see the stuff a lot of people were hoping I'd see _ the levitating bodies, the spinning heads, the frightening stuff," he says. "Some people might tell me the reason why I didn't is because Satan knows I'm a writer and he didn't want to blow his cover. It's also possible that the real dramatic stuff involving explicit phenomenon was taking place around the corner."

Those sneaky little demons. The article claims that there are thousands of exorcisms preformed every year. Yet still, not one person has bothered doing any kind of scientific study of possession and whenever a real scientist arrives, (or even a real reporter) those demons go into hiding. 

Then you have people like Bob Larson

Quote:

Bob Larson claims to have participated in thousands of exorcisms, saying the symptoms range from violent behavior to speaking in strange languages. For the past several years, the Colorado-based pastor has traveled the world, performing exorcisms and mass deliverances, often for a televised audience; he even does exorcisms over the radio.

Since he began doing televised exorcisms, he has organized a team of exorcists who work under the name "Do What Jesus Did." He says he and his team members evaluate those who ask to be exorcised, then go from there.

Over the radio? Lol. I hope you don't believe that? You would think that serious experts in demonic possession would be out there collecting evidence to prove this man is a scam artist making money off of people. 

 

caposkia wrote:

http://www.prairieghosts.com/exorcist.html (link to a successful exorcism situation) 

as far as comparing techniques, there's not much to compare except for what is written in scripture.  Anything beyond the Bible is speculation as far as effective technique and is typically deemed unnecessary.

Ok, so we have an excerpt written by a guy clearly attempting to sell books, so let us see what he has to say about the case. Allegations of some pretty weird stuff happening. And then enters JB Rhine a scientist who made his name attempting to study ESP who was apparently quite happy to see if he could get some solid evidence of demons.... 

Quote:

The minister also contacted J.B. Rhine, the famed founder of the parapsychology laboratory at Duke University. He explained what was going on and Rhine and his partner and wife, Louisa Rhine, drove up from North Carolina to see the boy. Unfortunately, no activity took place while the investigator was present, but Rhine did deduce that it sounded like a classic poltergeist case in which the boy's unconscious abilities were influencing the objects around him. The details fit well with other experimental results that Rhine had been obtaining.

(By the way, Rhine's "other experimental results" were also failures and the results of his experiments have been thoroughly debunked) Unfortunately for Rhine, suddenly nothing was wrong with the boy so he didn't get any evidence. Funny how those demons just disappear when someone looking to collect experimental data shows up. Sneaky little buggers. So the minister determines that it must be demonic possession. And off to St. Louis where the exorcism happens and solves everything.

Quote:

According to some sources, Robbie's family then turned to the Catholic Church for help and his father went to the nearby St. James Church in Mount Rainier, Maryland. Here, he met with a young priest named Edward Albert Hughes. He was the assistant pastor of the church at the time. He was skeptical and reluctant to get involved in the matter, but he did agree to go and see Robbie. During the visit, Robbie allegedly addressed the priest in Latin, a language that he did not know. Shaken, Hughes was said to have applied to his archbishop for permission to conduct an exorcism. The sources go on to say that the ritual was performed at Georgetown Hospital in February. Robbie seemed to go into a trance and he thrashed about and spoke in tongues. Hughes ordered the boy to be put into restraints but he somehow managed to work a piece of metal spring loose from the bed and he slashed the priest with it. The stories say that Hughes subsequently left St. James, suffered a nervous breakdown and during masses that he held later in life, he could only hold the consecrated host aloft in one hand.

Great, we have some details here that we can verify which will certainly lend some credibility.

 

Quote:

That was the story anyway, although according to research done by Mark Opsasnick in 1999, that I confirmed on my own three years later, none of this may have happened at all. This incident appears only in the book Possessed by Thomas Allen. There are a number of other suppositions and possible problems in the book and this is one of them. The stories about Father Hughes turned out to be almost totally inaccurate. Father Hughes became assistant pastor of St. James Church under Rev. William Canning in June 1948 and he served without a break until June 1960. (He was later reassigned to St. James in 1973 and stayed there until his death in 1980.) Church records do not indicate that he ever suffered a breakdown, nor that he ever even made an attempt to exorcize Robbie at Georgetown University Hospital. However, Robbie was checked into the hospital under his real name for several days during the period when the alleged exorcism attempt took place, but that is all. Records say that he underwent extensive medial and psychological evaluations.

 

Father Hughes also never actually visited Robbie in his home. In truth, his mother brought him to St. James for the only consultation. There is nothing to suggest that Robbie spoke to the priest in Latin and no evidence to say that Father Hughes was ever slashed with a bedspring. Those who knew Hughes personally remember him suffering no injuries during this period and the fact is, the church social calendar showed him quite busy during the weeks after Robbie's release from the hospital.

Huh, so it never happened and was simply made up by someone who wanted to sell books. Stupid skeptics looking at things like reality. But our intrepid author isn't going to let it rest at that. Sure, this part of the story turned out to be completely fraudulent, but you skeptics can't explain this other bullshit! (We can make it up faster than you can debunk it!)

Wow, this poor kid had words spontaneously being branded all over his body. He had the word "LOUIS" on his rib cage, "NO" on his wrists and a large "N" on each leg. Yet somehow,

Quote:

With that in question, it should be noted that before his parents consulted a priest, they also had him examined by a psychiatrist. He reported that the boy was quite normal, as did a medical doctor who gave him a complete physical.

WHAT?!?!?!? The doctor said the boy was "normal"? Last time I checked, having words branded on you was not normal. Did the doctor somehow miss those? Why weren't the police called? Something about this story doesn't add up.

So we have more stories of weird stuff happening with the boy, all of it testimony and much of it second or third hand. But our author assures skeptics like me that there is evidence,

Quote:

For those readers who are convinced that nothing was occurring in this case aside from overactive imaginations and silly superstition, they may want to consider the trip to St. Louis itself as evidence that something strange (supernatural or not) was taking place. The fact that Robbie's parents would uproot the boy from his home, his father would travel back and forth, jeopardizing his employment and they would all travel halfway across the county in a last ditch effort to find help is suggestive (if not downright convincing) that terrible things were indeed happening.

Aha! So you have a verifiable piece of evidence. We can check that the family did in fact move across the country, because no one would do that for any reason other than demons!

Then we have more unverified stories of skin brandings (those demons certainly have a love of graffiti), levitating etc. Funny how none of that stuff happens in the days of video.

So they start the exorcism- the physical evidence witnessed by the nurses at the hospital was the boys screams, vomit and he pissed himself a lot. (Because we all know that when you strap a boy to a bed and yell at him in latin for hours at a time it is unusual for him to cry and when you don't let the kid go to the bathroom it is unusual for them to piss themselves)

More brands and welts appeared on him. Funny how in modern times every time someone gets branded in an exorcism we find out that the person performing the exorcism actually created it. Stupid video cameras. Makes me wonder whether these were sick fucks torturing the kid or if they simply made up the story. I really hope it is the latter.

Do you have any evidence of someone spontaneously getting brands on their skin? That is something that is observable but I have never seen an article in a medical journal about words being spontaneously branded on skin.

Regardless, the exorcism failed, they drag the kid into church, force him to convert to Catholicism, he is narrowly prevented from committing suicide and they decide to try another exorcism. This time they force him to hold a crucifix and five people hold him down while the priest recites prayers in Latin for
"hours" (how would you respond if someone did that to you? I would get pretty damn violent). If we did that to prisoners of war it would be called torture. Indeed, it is very similar to a torture technique that we use where the subject is restrained and forced to listen to loud music for hours being deprived of sleep and forced to sit in their own urine.    

All we have to support this story are the stories recalled by people. Some of which can be demonstrably proven to be false because they make claims that can be objectively verified and others which there is no way to verify one way or the other. What we know, is that the stories of the people involved are all different.

Quote:

Father Walter Halloran, who later served as the assistant pastor of the St. Joseph's Cathedral in San Diego, California, was only a seminary student at the time of the exorcism. He was present during the sessions held at the St. Francis Xavier rectory and at the Alexian Brothers Hospital but not at the culmination of the events at the White House retreat. His statements about the exorcism have been conflicting (at best) over the years. On one hand, he states that he was not convinced that Robbie exhibited any sort of unnatural strength when he was "possessed". He was punched by the boy several times and believed it to be nothing more than an agitated adolescent could summon. He also didn't recall any foreign languages that the boy spoke, other than Latin, which he could have mimicked listening to the priests. This is in sharp contrast to other reports, including those of Father Bishop and Father Bowdern.

So is Father Halloran a liar? 

 

caposkia wrote:

a lot of people use speak to type programs as well and could be a logical alternative, though not as common.  I'd have no reason to not believe you if you told me you were using such a program.

Exactly my point. Even if I tell you that I am not using a keyboard you assume a mundane explanation based on the technology that you know exists rather than assume it is a demon or that I can somehow interact with my computer telepathically. There is no reason for you to assume anything other than a mundane explanation. So why do you want me to accept an extraordinary explanation for things that happen in the world when there are perfectly plausible mundane explanations?

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

So what did God have to do with it? People who don't invite God also get meat, bake bread and grow crops. People who believe in God do not have more than people who do not.

I was answering your double post... You asked if I'm not thankful for all those things and for the people who provide it, I simply said I was.  They have to make the effort...

Exactly, they have to do the work anyway. So why add in God as the third party when there is zero difference between someone who doesn't believe in god growing a dozen tomato plants and someone who does believe in god growing the same dozen tomato plants. Exactly what is god doing for the believer that he isn't doing for the non-believer and why does he deserve thanks for it? Either way, the end result of having tomatoes on your sandwich is the same. 

 

caposkia wrote:

luck changed huh... You're having a hard time accepting what I'm telling you about the spiritual world and your explanation is luck?  

Yes. We know that chance is variable, there have been several scientific studies that confirm this. We know it can, and often does produce results that are widely skewed from what mathematical probability would lead one to predict, especially when you have a small sample size. If you flip a coin 100 times, basic probability would tell you that roughly 50 of those times it should be heads and 50 of those times it should be tails. In practice, the number of times heads comes up will be extremely variable. It could come up 100 times, 0 times or anything in between. Your sample size is rather small. You had a short portion of your life, where you interacted with a very small portion of the street lamps in the world so you happened to flip heads ten times in a row. There is reason for you to believe some supernatural external force is at work. If you flip a coin a million times, it is quite likely that at some point you will have a string of ten consecutive heads.

 

caposkia wrote:

When you bring luck into the picture almost anything becomes possible.  I feel that's being more "gullible" as many atheists would say than to believe in demons.  

Except my gullibility is supported by a vast amount of scientific study in the field of probability. Anything that is possible, is possible regardless of how improbable it is. It is possible that you had a period in your life where you ended up walking under more street lamps going out than is probable, no light hating demon needed. 

 

caposkia wrote:

it doesn't explain this happening at any random location and not a specific street in a specific town.  Again, if it was that wide spread and people were calling about it, I figure it would have hit the news about the electric companies having to check their wiring or something.

Ridiculous. Every city in the country hires people full time or contracts people through utility companies who do nothing but go around repairing and replacing lights. Why would the news report it? It is common. Lights go out every single day, lights have problems every single day. Most cities have some way for you to report problems with specific lights https://www.duke-energy.com/ohio/service/streetlight-outage.asp  whether or not the light is repaired quickly depends on the budget your city has for repairing lights and how efficient they are. No one is surprised by it, except you. 

 

caposkia wrote:

no, to look at this as an electrical problem would be the wrong approach.. you could call up 100 electricians and if what I say is true, none of them would find a problem... because there isn't any.  It's interference... which by the way I'm willing to bet some electricians might suggest and ask for any things in the area that might cause interference.

Can you show me an example of such a problem where 100 electricians all couldn't find a problem? Yes, there is a such thing as electrical interference, and that is one of the things that an electrician will look for. I've heard of it causing problems with tv's, radios and internet signals but never heard of it turning off lights so I do not know if that is possible. If it is, I am sure it is something that a good electrician would look for. Again, no demon necessary.

 

caposkia wrote:

all research on possession reviels that the medical profession cannot explain it, nor detect it.. rather they compare it to all the mental disorders they're aware of and associate the symptoms to that.  Possession is not a factor they take into consideration becuase they have nothing to treat it.

The medical profession cannot explain or detect things that do not exist. The fact that they cannot explain or detect it is evidence that it does not exist. Are you saying there is some conspiracy among medical professionals that cover up the existence of possessions? Based on the stories people claim that there are observable things that occur during a possession like bodies being branded spontaneously, levitating, unexplained welts etc. Are doctors ignoring these symptoms? Why? 

 

caposkia wrote:

I'm sure if you talked around, you'd find someone in your area that is familiar with teh spiritual world and either has performed exorcisms and/or knows someone who can.

Sure. And I can also find experts on communicating telepathically with dolphins and people who will promise me a ride to visit the mother ship. 

 

caposkia wrote:

...and that's usually where the breakdown comes between believers and non-believers.  Non-beleivers want a source that doesn't deal with possessions and the believer feels a reliable source would be one trained in such a field...  There's never a middle ground.

What is your reliable source?  Medical professionals in most cases aren't reliable sources because they don't take into consideration the possibility of possession.  Though some who have delt with possessed people might have interesting stories tot ell.

A reliable source is one that provides evidence that can be verified by an independent party. For example, you could go through the effort to test those surgical techniques I linked to and confirm that they do in fact work. The great thing about a scientific journal is that every article that is written is ripped to shreds by intelligent critics trying to find anything wrong with the theory. When someone says they did a test and produced a certain result, several other people will try a similar test and see if the results they get are the same. 

With possession, all you get is a bunch of people telling you how it works, but you can't find anyone conducting any serious kind of test to determine whether or not it actually works. 

 

caposkia wrote:

well the question was what would be evidence...

I'm sure you've gotten many assertions that people have used the Bible to try and back up, but to blame those assertions on scripture is quite a jump.  This would be a topic for another thread though.  I have yet to see any legitimate scripturally based references proven wrong.  

I already told you what I want to see as evidence. I want to see proof that someone was just sitting in a hospital and the word Hell spontaneously appeared branded on their chest. The claim was that it was happening to Robbie quite frequently, so if demons still like making graffiti, there should be someone in the world this is happening to today. I want to see them put in a controlled environment and I want to see doctors scratching their heads trying to figure out why all these brands keep appearing. I want to see a study where they do a comparative analysis of people who are exorcised and those who receive medical treatment to determine which is better at alleviating the symptoms. I want to see someone doing serious academic study of demons, not someone who simply takes the bible at face value and accepts any random story as evidence. We know humans make up stories, they have done so for thousands of years which is why you dismiss things like alien abductions and doubt the existence of big foot. Yet for some reason you accept demons which have no more evidence.  

 

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:the

caposkia wrote:
the explanation I got from you is because it's the only proof that I can't fake... a flying car is something you can't fake in real life too, but you can't do it without dramatically changing the dynamics of the car.  either way, it doesn't make it a logical reasoning.

Incredible. Now you're not even reading what you write yourself anymore. You just admitted it CAN be done !

caposkia wrote:
 I'm also NOT asking you to allow "me" to decide... but there are ways things work.

And you will tell me how things work, right ? And how is that not the same as you deciding what counts as proof ? 

caposkia wrote:
Cars don't fly

Dude, it's called an airplane. 

caposkia wrote:
and I can't escort a demon to your house... I misplaced Solomon's ring

Then go find it. I keep telling you : How you get the proof is NOT MY PROBLEM. YOU are the person who claims there's proof. I'm the one who claims it's 100% accurate to say there's no proof for demons. You seem to agree with me, but for some mysterious reason, you can't openly admit it. Weird.

caposkia wrote:
Oh, so you know how it all works?!  then you'll have to explain it to me.  this is an aspect of the spiritual world I'm not as familar with if in fact what you ask is possible.

You can stop trying to smuggle your "spiritual world" into this conversation. You've been told again and again : You can't explain nonsense with more nonsense. Do I need to explain that ? Then tell me.

caposkia wrote:
yea, but how does it change the answer here?

What was this about again ? Look, instead of these series of questions, why not just get right to where you're trying to go ? Just give me all your questions + "correct" answers, and I'll tell you where you went wrong. Saves time.

caposkia wrote:
 this just in case we're getting lost again is about rationality in asking for proof in comparison to the car analogy

Again, your cars analogy is a false analogy, and it was defending an argument you already gave up.

caposkia wrote:
because, if you answered it with a simple yes or no to begin with, you wouldn't have had that problem!

Again, if have no idea what you're even talking about, but if this is still about your car analogy, sure, I'll repeat it again : Your cars analogy is a false analogy, and it was defending an argument you already gave up. 

caposkia wrote:
Ah!  I'm starting to see the importance of repetition now

Gee, I hope so.

caposkia wrote:
you might have to, because i've already explained why your false analogy excuse fails

Oh dear. Excuse me, I have to go borrow a link somewhere...

Here you go : http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_analogy

caposkia wrote:
only if you're trying to get noticed.  I've already told you that i wasn't comparing demons to cars and yet here you are saying that i'm comparing demons to cars.

Hey, let's look at what I actually said, just for shits and giggles :

Anonymouse wrote:
You compared proof for the existence for demons, to proof for the existence for cars, WHICH IS A FALSE ANALOGY !

And now here comes the punchline..

caposkia wrote:
 who doesn't read the posts before responding again??? I think I forgot

LOL ! 

Seriously, though, are you just being stuborn, or do you really not get that your "proof for demons"-"proof for cars " thing was a false analogy ? I mean, I'm trying my darndest to avoid sounding condescending, but if I have to explain this in simpler terms, that's going to become inevitable. 

Oh, and let's not forget : YOUR FALSE ANALOGY WAS DEFENDING AN ARGUMENT YOU ALREADY GAVE UP !

caposkia wrote:
.... oh?!  

I guess you could also say that it seems as if you have a script all prepared, and you're totally helpless when the atheist deviates from it.

caposkia wrote:
you had inspired me

Not yet, I haven't, but we're getting there.

caposkia wrote:
I dont' understand where you got the idea that "I" decided the rules.

I got that idea the second you tried that "irrational proof" excuse, and started suggesting all kinds of other proof I should ask for. You know, the "correct" proof.

So basically, I got the idea when it happened. 

caposkia wrote:
 Do some homework on the subject for a change

That's how I figured out something you couldn't fake. By doing my homework.

caposkia wrote:
it is justified to demand proof... that was never the issue...

Good. Awesome. Then give me the proof I asked for, or admit there's no proof for demons. 

caposkia wrote:
the issue is you trying to write the rules for the subject.

I only have two rules : You shouldn't be able to fake the proof, and you can't prove nonsense with nonsense. If you have a problem with either of those rules, then tell me and explain why. That should be interesting. And fun. (Well, for me)

caposkia wrote:
you have decided the only way is your way and if that can't be shown than it's false.
 

Actually, if those rules make no sense, that should be pretty easy to prove. Go right ahead. 

caposkia wrote:
you're doing the exact thing you just accused me of doing which is "why you don't get to decide what would be acceptable proof for your imaginary creatures"  (quoted from this post)

Nope, I'm using "rules" you have no choice but to agree with, because they make perfect sense. (Please, oh please, disagree)

And you did no such thing.

caposkia wrote:
it still doesn't work that way..

I explained why it does. All you have is "no, it doesn't", minus an explanation. 

caposkia wrote:
yea, you have yet to show me your sources for research into the spiritual.  To claim as you did is to claim you're more of an expert than I on the subject.  Please show me your sources.. you went to seminary I'm assuming?

Do I need to go to the scientology headquarters and become an expert, to know that all their alien stuff is bullshit ? (That, my friend, is how analogies work)

"Spirituality" is a vague term that doesn't even have a workable definition. What could be easier to fake than that ? 

caposkia wrote:
maybe because you decided to make up the rules yourself instead of approaching the subject from a research standpoint

Wrong again. Please do disagree with my rules. Yes, please do disagree and make this even easier and amusing than it already is. 

caposkia wrote:
sure... can you explain it to me in an analogy form though... preferably why a doctor should not be the person to explain the proof of successful surgury.

Yeah, that's another false analogy, because you're comparing knowledge of the imaginary to actual practical knowledge about the human body and surgical techniques. 

A working analogy would be something like not letting a witchdoctor tell you how to treat your leukemia. 

caposkia wrote:
That way your explanation can be on a level that everyone understands

If you seriously think there are other people besides yourself who aren't getting this, then you are sorely mistaken. 

caposkia wrote:
it's on you to explain how it's rational using the means of spirituality.

Um...typo ? 

caposkia wrote:
I explained nothing above and left it there just so we can be sure. Oh, didn't change anything here either if you're worried about that... check to make sure.

?

caposkia wrote:
 I only said it's on you to explain how your proof is rational using the means of spirituality... we are talking about spirituality here... demons are understood to be spirits right?

Call them what you like, it won't make them real. And I already explained why your "spirituality" doesn't fly. Will happily explain again if you didn't understand it the first time. 

caposkia wrote:
um... I was asking for your help here... that's why you should care how I produce it.

?? If I had acceptable proof for demons, why would I ask you ? You're the one who claims it exists, not me, so it's your job to produce it, or admit there is none. 

It's always going to come back to that, and I've dealt with every single one of your objections, no matter how many times your rephrased or just repeated them. 

caposkia wrote:
no you cannot,

Then don't.

caposkia wrote:
but the definition of Law does not change...we can use a different law if you'd like... how about laws of thermodynamics?  law of non-contradiction?  Pick your choice

?? Why would I let you change the subject ?

Produce the proof, or admit there is none.  


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 205
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:if you say

caposkia wrote:
if you say so

No, that was not an opinion, that was a fact.

 

caposkia wrote:
yup, thanks for clarifying... that doesn't get you out of it though

I wasn't "in" anything, so I don't need to "get out" of it. You simply brought up something irrelevant to what was being discussed.


 

caposkia wrote:
if fiction is all there is, then what you say would be true, but if it's not, then what you say could be dangerous.

Yes, wishful thinking can be amusing, but again, it's completely irrelevant.

 

caposkia wrote:
.  my statement meant the latter, if you understand what possession is... let's assume it's not fictional, how can you be so sure modern medicine could "handle" demons?

Assumptions are also irrelevant here. Facts are more important, such as the fact that all the symptoms shown by these so-called "possessed" people can all be treated by modern medicine. 

 
 

caposkia wrote:
I have no excuse by assumption alone... you're assuming it's fictional

No, it is not an assumption that you have no acceptable proof for the existence of "demons" or "possession". 

 

caposkia wrote:
I'm not afraid of reveiling anything here.  to deny something you believe is dishonest no matter how you look at it.

No matter who suffers for it ? Just as long as it isn't you ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
 I can not talk about it with certain people and I certainly don't discuss it with literally everyone,

? You realize you're on the internet, right ? You certainly ARE discussing it with literally everyone. 

 

caposkia wrote:
but those who ask I will not deny it. 

And what if your defense of this insanity leads someone to deny their sick loved one the proper care for their condition ? Please don't bother to deny this could happen. You already brought up a case where it did. 

 

caposkia wrote:
yea, there's reasons for it... I never claimed that belief in religious anything is the only reason why people change, but to change as they do as described in previous posts is what was in question

No, absolutely not. Again : ..something positive that could not have occurred without it.

This is rather puzzling. You say you realize it's not the only reason why people change, and yet you still think it could not have occurred without it. That makes no sense.

So no, you have not found a reliable source that reports something positive that could not have occurred without belief in "demons" or "possession".

The results of belief in this nonsense remain entirely negative. 

Unless you'd care to try again ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
that interpretation can easily be rectified by a simple written test.  it's how the education system has been doing it for years

A written test which is, again, based on someone's interpretation of the same material. 

 

caposkia wrote:
you were so stuck on associating abuse with belief that I guess i thought you were talking about abuse.  I think if you look back you can see why I got confused then.

I was stuck on reporting facts, namely the many cases I brought to your attention, one of which you brought yourself. The association was already there. I didn't have to make it. 


 

caposkia wrote:
I don't, which is why I repeat what seems to come across.

What "seems to come across" bears almost no resemblance to what I actually said. You have this problem with other people as well. That's an extremely convenient reading comprehension problem you have there. 

 

caposkia wrote:
 I TRY to represent what you say accurately.

You have failed spectacularly. In fact, it's becoming increasingly hard to believe you're not doing it on purpose. 

 

caposkia wrote:
.. if I don't then I need it worded differently... you and nony seem to like to beat around the bush a lot.  it's hard to follow that approach sometimes.

Please do explain how asking you to provide acceptable proof for your supernatural claim, or confronting you with the sad facts regarding "demonic possession", can in any way be described as "beating around the bush". 

 

 

caposkia wrote:
that explanation above based on the assumption that it is fictional... if it is not, you could be putting certain people in more danger.

You're assuming it's not fictional. I provided the proof that shows just exactly who's in real danger, so I need make no assumptions.  You have provided nothing at all. 

 

caposkia wrote:
oh, then I'd say your conclusion is based on very little huh

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying that every single case of the subject we're discussing comes down to "very little" ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
oh that's how it happened?  one of your links describes otherwise

False. The only other link I gave you did not mention that fact. 

 

caposkia wrote:
If I said that to you, it would make the same sense in my head as that does in your head.  in other words, you're talking to someone who believes that the supernatural explanation is a perfectly rational one.

I did not ask what you "believed". I asked why you didn't pick the rational explanation when there's a perfectly good rational one. "Belief" can't magically make the facts supporting the rational explanation disappear.  

 

caposkia wrote:
which one?  yes I meant that as rhitorical... think about it... a believer is going to see both as rational, you're going to see just the one... as a believer who sees both as rational, how do I pick one?

The one that's supported by facts, which disqualifies the supernatural one. And again, your "belief" can't just make facts disappear into thin air, and it also can' t produce any. All it can do is inspire you to ignore said facts, and somehow not feel ashamed for doing so. 

 

caposkia wrote:
I don't remember seeing my name in those articles

But if it did show up, like the instigator in the Anneliese Michel case, would it make a difference for you ? Would that be enough to drop your insane belief ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
you like to make a lot of assumptions don't you... false ones at that

Actually, I made a positive assumption about you. If you consider those "false", well, okay then.

 

caposkia wrote:
oh I care a lot, so in light of what i've said and what you've said, how do we weight the positives with the negatives?

What "positive" ? You have so far not been able to come up with even one example. 

 

caposkia wrote:
you keep going back to the abuse problem... you do, not me!

Well, yes, because you somehow seem almost physically unable to grasp that these cases happen regularly, and cases where belief in "demons" or "possession" leads to something positive that could not have happened without it, never happen at all. 

 

caposkia wrote:
So my simple question is why start there..

And my simple answer is yet again, because we are discussing belief in "demons" and "possession", not every other single cause of abuse. 

 

caposkia wrote:
yes it's becasue it's the subject at hand... my counter to that is that this is probably one of the last places to go as far as preventing abuse... there are many other casues out there that are statistically greater in being associated with abuse than this.

See above.

 

caposkia wrote:
.. again ignorance is the issue in all of it it seems

Is this the "they did it wrong" argument again ? That one doesn't work, not only because of 20/20 hindsight, but because, as I already explained, you could easily be convinced by a more slick bullshit artist, that YOU were the ignorant one. I believe such an event is called an "epiphany" ? Or "growing stronger in the faith" ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
notice I'm not going to buy into your claim just because you tell me over and over again it's supernatural nonsense...

Then try to notice the facts that support my claims (you may re-read them if you wish) , and the complete absence of facts that might support yours, and then I might not have to repeat myself over and over again.

 

caposkia wrote:
ah, guess i misunderstood myself... 

No, you simply did not read what I wrote. That happens fairly frequently. 

 

caposkia wrote:
yea, point and case, 

What do you mean ? What "point" and what "case" ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
next time just say "no" 

But then I would be assuming you were an idiot, and I see no need to make that assumption. 

 

 

caposkia wrote:
really?!  I believe if you did some homework on the subject, you'd find your statement above to be false. 

Suggesting people did not do their "homework" also does not count as an argument. 

 

caposkia wrote:
perceptive reality and sound reasoning are on 2 different playing fields...

There is no "playing field" where the facts I mentioned are no longer there. 

 

caposkia wrote:
I did answer that question... I'll asnwer it again:  reasoning, rationality and understanding

No, again, read everything I write, and try to remember it for longer than one post. I have already explained that reasoning and rationality would demand proof, of which you have none, and anyone can claim to "understand" fiction, so no, you most certainly did not answer the question. 

Here it is again : How do you keep from believing everything, if you were to always apply the standards that allow you to believe in "demons" and "possession" ?

 

caposkia wrote:
I have? since when was "it doesn't work that way" admitting nothing being wrong with his request for proof?

You admitted the proof would seem irrational before it was produced.  

Oh, and he already explained, many times, why it does indeed work that way. 

 

caposkia wrote:
I know, but he uses them anyway
 

Then please do give me an example he hasn't already debunked. Good luck with that.


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

Ok, so we have a legitimately researched article on exorcism. Unfortunately, it only studies the historic practice of exorcism and belief in demons, not the actual existence of demons. In fact, it suggests that the earliest Christians did not think that exorcisms were necessary. 

This is very true... considering for a moment what it really takes to get rid of a demon, exorcisms aren't necessary... and those that people perform appropriately have nothing to do with ritualistic redundant prayer, rather it's ministry to the person for a change in their heart.  

i think we're finally getting somewhere with the understanding of proper exorcism

Beyond Saving wrote:

From his examination of secondcentury literature, Twelftree draws some important conclusions: (1) the early second century shows no interests in exorcism; (2) some writings, in keeping with John's Gospel, indicate that the demonic is defeated by the truth; (3) in the middle of the second century there is a renewed interest in exorcism. Twelftree's explanation for this change is that the acceptance of the longer ending of Mark in Rome marks the renaissance of interest in exorcism in that city (and beyond). In sum, exorcism was neither widespread in early Christianity nor the primary evangelistic method; there were other ways to confront the demonic, and hence some churches may not have thought it necessary to have a ministry of exorcism.

agreed!  doesn't mean they don't still happen... and if they do, there must be some understood purpose behind them... which I'm willing to bet 99% of the time is not the case.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Then we have an article about the increasing number of exorcism being performed. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-78847028.html I don't know if you paid for access to the site but I did so I will provide a few excerpts.

 

Quote:

 

While researching his recent book, "American Exorcism: Expelling Demons in the Land of Plenty," Cuneo says he attended about 50 exorcisms, in places varying from churches to homes to arena-size venues where clusters of people were exorcised simultaneously.

 

And he still isn't convinced he saw an actual exorcism performed.

 

"I saw lots of fireworks, lots of dramatic activity," he says. "A lot of thrashing and howling and wailing, shredding of clothes, simulated masturbation, screaming and throwing themselves _ but nothing in my mind that could not be accounted for in social, medical or psychiatric terms.

 

"I didn't see the stuff a lot of people were hoping I'd see _ the levitating bodies, the spinning heads, the frightening stuff," he says. "Some people might tell me the reason why I didn't is because Satan knows I'm a writer and he didn't want to blow his cover. It's also possible that the real dramatic stuff involving explicit phenomenon was taking place around the corner."

yea, I don't blame him for not being convinced... As I was saying earlier in this post... a proper exorcism has more to do with change in the victim rather than physically and forcefully demanding the demon to leave...

I forget where I read it, but a proper exorcism was detailed... it included many sessions with the victim and included only verbal communication between the exorcist and the demon and education and ministry.  The demon was exorcised ultimately by claiming the victim would no longer listen to it and so it was pointless to stay.  The ironic aspect of this exorcism is that there was no violent thrashing, no self abuse, no screaming, floating flying objects, etc... not to say that wouldn't happen with a different demon, but those scenarios are a-typical.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Those sneaky little demons. The article claims that there are thousands of exorcisms preformed every year. Yet still, not one person has bothered doing any kind of scientific study of possession and whenever a real scientist arrives, (or even a real reporter) those demons go into hiding. 

Then you have people like Bob Larson

Quote:

 

Bob Larson claims to have participated in thousands of exorcisms, saying the symptoms range from violent behavior to speaking in strange languages. For the past several years, the Colorado-based pastor has traveled the world, performing exorcisms and mass deliverances, often for a televised audience; he even does exorcisms over the radio.

Since he began doing televised exorcisms, he has organized a team of exorcists who work under the name "Do What Jesus Did." He says he and his team members evaluate those who ask to be exorcised, then go from there.

Over the radio? Lol. I hope you don't believe that? You would think that serious experts in demonic possession would be out there collecting evidence to prove this man is a scam artist making money off of people. 

oh of course i don't believe that.  But neither does anyone who understands the practice... The "serious experts" have bigger fish to fry than to worry about some guy making money off the concept. debunking him would be as easy as opening a Bible.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Ok, so we have an excerpt written by a guy clearly attempting to sell books, so let us see what he has to say about the case. Allegations of some pretty weird stuff happening. And then enters JB Rhine a scientist who made his name attempting to study ESP who was apparently quite happy to see if he could get some solid evidence of demons.... 

Quote:

The minister also contacted J.B. Rhine, the famed founder of the parapsychology laboratory at Duke University. He explained what was going on and Rhine and his partner and wife, Louisa Rhine, drove up from North Carolina to see the boy. Unfortunately, no activity took place while the investigator was present, but Rhine did deduce that it sounded like a classic poltergeist case in which the boy's unconscious abilities were influencing the objects around him. The details fit well with other experimental results that Rhine had been obtaining.

(By the way, Rhine's "other experimental results" were also failures and the results of his experiments have been thoroughly debunked) Unfortunately for Rhine, suddenly nothing was wrong with the boy so he didn't get any evidence. Funny how those demons just disappear when someone looking to collect experimental data shows up. Sneaky little buggers. So the minister determines that it must be demonic possession. And off to St. Louis where the exorcism happens and solves everything.

Quote:

According to some sources, Robbie's family then turned to the Catholic Church for help and his father went to the nearby St. James Church in Mount Rainier, Maryland. Here, he met with a young priest named Edward Albert Hughes. He was the assistant pastor of the church at the time. He was skeptical and reluctant to get involved in the matter, but he did agree to go and see Robbie. During the visit, Robbie allegedly addressed the priest in Latin, a language that he did not know. Shaken, Hughes was said to have applied to his archbishop for permission to conduct an exorcism. The sources go on to say that the ritual was performed at Georgetown Hospital in February. Robbie seemed to go into a trance and he thrashed about and spoke in tongues. Hughes ordered the boy to be put into restraints but he somehow managed to work a piece of metal spring loose from the bed and he slashed the priest with it. The stories say that Hughes subsequently left St. James, suffered a nervous breakdown and during masses that he held later in life, he could only hold the consecrated host aloft in one hand.

Great, we have some details here that we can verify which will certainly lend some credibility.

 

Quote:

 

That was the story anyway, although according to research done by Mark Opsasnick in 1999, that I confirmed on my own three years later, none of this may have happened at all. This incident appears only in the book Possessed by Thomas Allen. There are a number of other suppositions and possible problems in the book and this is one of them. The stories about Father Hughes turned out to be almost totally inaccurate. Father Hughes became assistant pastor of St. James Church under Rev. William Canning in June 1948 and he served without a break until June 1960. (He was later reassigned to St. James in 1973 and stayed there until his death in 1980.) Church records do not indicate that he ever suffered a breakdown, nor that he ever even made an attempt to exorcize Robbie at Georgetown University Hospital. However, Robbie was checked into the hospital under his real name for several days during the period when the alleged exorcism attempt took place, but that is all. Records say that he underwent extensive medial and psychological evaluations.

 

Father Hughes also never actually visited Robbie in his home. In truth, his mother brought him to St. James for the only consultation. There is nothing to suggest that Robbie spoke to the priest in Latin and no evidence to say that Father Hughes was ever slashed with a bedspring. Those who knew Hughes personally remember him suffering no injuries during this period and the fact is, the church social calendar showed him quite busy during the weeks after Robbie's release from the hospital.

Huh, so it never happened and was simply made up by someone who wanted to sell books. Stupid skeptics looking at things like reality. But our intrepid author isn't going to let it rest at that. Sure, this part of the story turned out to be completely fraudulent, but you skeptics can't explain this other bullshit! (We can make it up faster than you can debunk it!)

Wow, this poor kid had words spontaneously being branded all over his body. He had the word "LOUIS" on his rib cage, "NO" on his wrists and a large "N" on each leg. Yet somehow,

Quote:

With that in question, it should be noted that before his parents consulted a priest, they also had him examined by a psychiatrist. He reported that the boy was quite normal, as did a medical doctor who gave him a complete physical.

WHAT?!?!?!? The doctor said the boy was "normal"? Last time I checked, having words branded on you was not normal. Did the doctor somehow miss those? Why weren't the police called? Something about this story doesn't add up.

So we have more stories of weird stuff happening with the boy, all of it testimony and much of it second or third hand. But our author assures skeptics like me that there is evidence,

Quote:

For those readers who are convinced that nothing was occurring in this case aside from overactive imaginations and silly superstition, they may want to consider the trip to St. Louis itself as evidence that something strange (supernatural or not) was taking place. The fact that Robbie's parents would uproot the boy from his home, his father would travel back and forth, jeopardizing his employment and they would all travel halfway across the county in a last ditch effort to find help is suggestive (if not downright convincing) that terrible things were indeed happening.

Aha! So you have a verifiable piece of evidence. We can check that the family did in fact move across the country, because no one would do that for any reason other than demons!

Then we have more unverified stories of skin brandings (those demons certainly have a love of graffiti), levitating etc. Funny how none of that stuff happens in the days of video.

So they start the exorcism- the physical evidence witnessed by the nurses at the hospital was the boys screams, vomit and he pissed himself a lot. (Because we all know that when you strap a boy to a bed and yell at him in latin for hours at a time it is unusual for him to cry and when you don't let the kid go to the bathroom it is unusual for them to piss themselves)

More brands and welts appeared on him. Funny how in modern times every time someone gets branded in an exorcism we find out that the person performing the exorcism actually created it. Stupid video cameras. Makes me wonder whether these were sick fucks torturing the kid or if they simply made up the story. I really hope it is the latter.

Do you have any evidence of someone spontaneously getting brands on their skin? That is something that is observable but I have never seen an article in a medical journal about words being spontaneously branded on skin.

Regardless, the exorcism failed, they drag the kid into church, force him to convert to Catholicism, he is narrowly prevented from committing suicide and they decide to try another exorcism. This time they force him to hold a crucifix and five people hold him down while the priest recites prayers in Latin for
"hours" (how would you respond if someone did that to you? I would get pretty damn violent). If we did that to prisoners of war it would be called torture. Indeed, it is very similar to a torture technique that we use where the subject is restrained and forced to listen to loud music for hours being deprived of sleep and forced to sit in their own urine.    

 

All we have to support this story are the stories recalled by people. Some of which can be demonstrably proven to be false because they make claims that can be objectively verified and others which there is no way to verify one way or the other. What we know, is that the stories of the people involved are all different.

Quote:

Father Walter Halloran, who later served as the assistant pastor of the St. Joseph's Cathedral in San Diego, California, was only a seminary student at the time of the exorcism. He was present during the sessions held at the St. Francis Xavier rectory and at the Alexian Brothers Hospital but not at the culmination of the events at the White House retreat. His statements about the exorcism have been conflicting (at best) over the years. On one hand, he states that he was not convinced that Robbie exhibited any sort of unnatural strength when he was "possessed". He was punched by the boy several times and believed it to be nothing more than an agitated adolescent could summon. He also didn't recall any foreign languages that the boy spoke, other than Latin, which he could have mimicked listening to the priests. This is in sharp contrast to other reports, including those of Father Bishop and Father Bowdern.

So is Father Halloran a liar? 

very possibly... and I think you're finally seeing how any story like this that becomes widely known is going to get it's embellishers.  It has been recorded and documented that the boy was admitted to a psychiatric hospital.. that's an odd place for a "normal" boy who had "nothing wrong with him" and was diagnosed as such by a few doctors. 

and yes, why would demons want to get themselves known to the world?  that would mean more people would believe in God, the very being they oppose.  None of that, including the understanding that nothing may have happened... This is why it becomes so controversial.  Unless you know something that demons leave behind when they possess people.  maybe an MRI scan would reveal a pitchfork type glow in the brain Eye-wink  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Exactly my point. Even if I tell you that I am not using a keyboard you assume a mundane explanation based on the technology that you know exists rather than assume it is a demon or that I can somehow interact with my computer telepathically. There is no reason for you to assume anything other than a mundane explanation. So why do you want me to accept an extraordinary explanation for things that happen in the world when there are perfectly plausible mundane explanations?

because, just as that example shows... there are other possibilities.  It doesn't mean you have to assume the other possibilites first... not even the experts do that.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Exactly, they have to do the work anyway. So why add in God as the third party when there is zero difference between someone who doesn't believe in god growing a dozen tomato plants and someone who does believe in god growing the same dozen tomato plants. Exactly what is god doing for the believer that he isn't doing for the non-believer and why does he deserve thanks for it? Either way, the end result of having tomatoes on your sandwich is the same.

in that specific scenario God isn't doing anything for either... why do you believe He would have to?  

What does He deserve thanks for?  Giving His only begotten son over to the authorities so that He could take the punishment for our wrongdoings and our ancestors wrongdoings as well as our childrens wrongdoings.  Also maybe for creating us in the first place and allowing us to live with our own choices instead of being puppets and/or destroyed.   He also provides us everything we need.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yes. We know that chance is variable, there have been several scientific studies that confirm this. We know it can, and often does produce results that are widely skewed from what mathematical probability would lead one to predict, especially when you have a small sample size. If you flip a coin 100 times, basic probability would tell you that roughly 50 of those times it should be heads and 50 of those times it should be tails. In practice, the number of times heads comes up will be extremely variable. It could come up 100 times, 0 times or anything in between. Your sample size is rather small. You had a short portion of your life, where you interacted with a very small portion of the street lamps in the world so you happened to flip heads ten times in a row. There is reason for you to believe some supernatural external force is at work. If you flip a coin a million times, it is quite likely that at some point you will have a string of ten consecutive heads.

right, and anyone can reason their way out of anything... it doesn't change what actually happened.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Except my gullibility is supported by a vast amount of scientific study in the field of probability. Anything that is possible, is possible regardless of how improbable it is. It is possible that you had a period in your life where you ended up walking under more street lamps going out than is probable, no light hating demon needed. 

I'm glad you said it about possibility

Also, I never claimed the demon was needed.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Ridiculous. Every city in the country hires people full time or contracts people through utility companies who do nothing but go around repairing and replacing lights. Why would the news report it? It is common. Lights go out every single day, lights have problems every single day. Most cities have some way for you to report problems with specific lights https://www.duke-energy.com/ohio/service/streetlight-outage.asp  whether or not the light is repaired quickly depends on the budget your city has for repairing lights and how efficient they are. No one is surprised by it, except you. 

you're talking about sporatic outages, not streets worth... A whole section of town doesn't just lose power on their streetlights unless there's an outage... Around here, that's typically... at least local news in the police logs. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Can you show me an example of such a problem where 100 electricians all couldn't find a problem? Yes, there is a such thing as electrical interference, and that is one of the things that an electrician will look for. I've heard of it causing problems with tv's, radios and internet signals but never heard of it turning off lights so I do not know if that is possible. If it is, I am sure it is something that a good electrician would look for. Again, no demon necessary.

...so basically here you want me to prove a negative to you???  I could call up 100 electricians and have them check the wiring if something like this was happening again and they could all document no problems, but how is that going to help you understand?

Again, I never claimed demons were necessary

Beyond Saving wrote:

The medical profession cannot explain or detect things that do not exist.

well yes, this is true... it would be a much more difficult field of study if they did.

Beyond Saving wrote:

The fact that they cannot explain or detect it is evidence that it does not exist.

Oh, so when doctors find nothing wrong, it doesn't exist! got it

Beyond Saving wrote:

Are you saying there is some conspiracy among medical professionals that cover up the existence of possessions?

No, I'm saying it's not medical

Beyond Saving wrote:

Based on the stories people claim that there are observable things that occur during a possession like bodies being branded spontaneously, levitating, unexplained welts etc. Are doctors ignoring these symptoms? Why? 

I believe that's embellishment and never actually happened... unless doctors have documented the case.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Sure. And I can also find experts on communicating telepathically with dolphins and people who will promise me a ride to visit the mother ship.

I bet you can, so believe everyone or believe no one is your philosophy right?  Doctors included in this case.

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

A reliable source is one that provides evidence that can be verified by an independent party. For example, you could go through the effort to test those surgical techniques I linked to and confirm that they do in fact work. The great thing about a scientific journal is that every article that is written is ripped to shreds by intelligent critics trying to find anything wrong with the theory. When someone says they did a test and produced a certain result, several other people will try a similar test and see if the results they get are the same. 

With possession, all you get is a bunch of people telling you how it works, but you can't find anyone conducting any serious kind of test to determine whether or not it actually works. 

well that one's easy... as I said at the beginning it's really about change in the victim... This would be very similar to having someone come to Christ and their lives changing dramatically due to that event.  You want an approach that an independent party can reproduce, study the progress of someone who is ministering to another person who is open to God's word and how their lives change through the process.... it has happened millions of times and has been replicated through the centuries.   

Would that be considered verification?

Beyond Saving wrote:

I already told you what I want to see as evidence. I want to see proof that someone was just sitting in a hospital and the word Hell spontaneously appeared branded on their chest. The claim was that it was happening to Robbie quite frequently, so if demons still like making graffiti, there should be someone in the world this is happening to today. I want to see them put in a controlled environment and I want to see doctors scratching their heads trying to figure out why all these brands keep appearing. I want to see a study where they do a comparative analysis of people who are exorcised and those who receive medical treatment to determine which is better at alleviating the symptoms. I want to see someone doing serious academic study of demons, not someone who simply takes the bible at face value and accepts any random story as evidence. We know humans make up stories, they have done so for thousands of years which is why you dismiss things like alien abductions and doubt the existence of big foot. Yet for some reason you accept demons which have no more evidence.  

 

As I've said, these scenarios are a-typical.. I've heard little about the brandings, rather more about the self abuse, which can easily be explained... if you happen to find documentation of that though, I want to see it myself.  I'm a skeptic when it comes to demonic branding as this particular story claims.  

I'm guessing if it actually happens, a doctor would diagnose it self inflicted.  

If you're thinking now I'm going back on my belief... I said the scenario ended positively, i never claimed all the alleged events claimed in the story actually happened, rather that the story as a whole sounded like a legitimate case based on the less dramatic commentary and therefore it likely was a possession case that was embellished a bit.  It was asked to find a story of possession with a positive outcome, I provided it.. The details within I figured would come up and just like this post, i will handle them individually.