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:Incredible.

Anonymouse wrote:

Incredible. Now you're not even reading what you write yourself anymore. You just admitted it CAN be done !

So you're saying i can genetically modify a demon to work with your ideal proof?  This one I have to hear!  I can't wait.  How do I go about doing this then Mr. Mouse?

Anonymouse wrote:

And you will tell me how things work, right ? And how is that not the same as you deciding what counts as proof ? 

just like you didn't decide the Laws of science even though you can tell me them, I didn't decide the spiritual Laws, though I can tell you them.

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Cars don't fly

Dude, it's called an airplane. 

exactly, cars don't fly.... airplanes do.. if it's an airplane it's not a car.. oh, and if it's a car, it's not an airplane.

Anonymouse wrote:

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.

If was my problem until you decided that your proof is the only way demons could exist... then it became yours to explain why and how that's the only way.  

what did you say about posts that had "weird, strange, funny" etc?

Anonymouse wrote:

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.

you need to explain what I asked... I left it up there as a reminder.

Anonymouse wrote:

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.

I'm glad you're finally admitting that  you're not here to discuss the topic, you could have said that from the beginning.  irrationalities... basically you finally admitted that your approach does not work.  Though you're still trying to deny it.  I wonder why?.... woah!  I'm starting to sound like you!  I think we've been talking too long

Anonymouse wrote:

Again, your cars analogy is a false analogy, and it was defending an argument you already gave up.

if I gave it up, then why are we still discussing it?

Anonymouse wrote:

Again, if have no idea what you're even talking about.

I know

Anonymouse wrote:

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

yup, read it a few times, then reread some of my last few posts to you about why mine doesn't fit your claim.

Anonymouse wrote:

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 !

It's all good.  I know this is hard for you.  I've tried being reasonable.  i think leaving it just as is is good...  proof to proof.  What does the definition of false analogy say again?  Oh yea, you left a link.  lemme check:  "false analogy is a rhetorical fallacy that uses an analogy (comparing objects or ideas with similar characteristics) to support an argument, but the conclusion made by it is not supported by the analogy due to the differences between the two objects."

per the bolded parts, to call my analogy false, you would have to admit to claiming that I was comparing cars to demons.  I admitted a few posts ago that I should have asked for a flying car... they don't work that way and you would have to change it into something else besides a car to make it fly... hence it would no longer be a car... so if you're saying that the car analogy is possible and your proof for demons is not, then ok, false analogy... to make it true, I will add in "flying car"   is that better?

Anonymouse wrote:

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. 


 

so then no matter the subject matter, I can hand you an apple and ask you to prove the subject matter using an apple?  

Anonymouse wrote:

That's how I figured out something you couldn't fake. By doing my homework.

Ok, now let's get out of fiction and look at the claimed reality of spiritualism

Anonymouse wrote:

Good. Awesome. Then give me the proof I asked for, or admit there's no proof for demons. 

I honestly don't understand this part... see one avenue of proof, that's what that whole analogy was about, which you so effectively turned into a tangent isn't logical, forget irrational.  Why can't there be any other ways? ...and how is what you're asking possible if in fact demons are real?  These are questions I need answers to.

Anonymouse wrote:

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)

I have no problem with either of those rules...  So why do you keep asking for nonsense?

Anonymouse wrote:

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. 

they make sense... I find it hard to believe if in fact you've done the homework that you can't find anything rational that I can't fake.

Anonymouse wrote:

I explained why it does. All you have is "no, it doesn't", minus an explanation. 

minus an explanation huh... you have a very short memory don't you

Anonymouse wrote:

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)

no, but I can ignorantly decide something is bullshit without looking into it also.. does that mean it is?

Anonymouse wrote:

"Spirituality" is a vague term that doesn't even have a workable definition. What could be easier to fake than that ? 

same with "life", but no one argues that... if you disagree here, what you do you mean by "workable definition" then?

Anonymouse wrote:

Wrong again. Please do disagree with my rules. Yes, please do disagree and make this even easier and amusing than it already is. 

unfortunately I didn't... maybe that'll help you realize I'm taking this from a rational standpoint rather than the one you've been trying so hard to stuff me into.

Anonymouse wrote:

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.

I thought you didn't like to assume... You do realize the "false analogy" excuse doesn't work and is getting old.  It's also a tangent from the point which is from day 1 your way has failed

Anonymouse wrote:
 

A working analogy would be something like not letting a witchdoctor tell you how to treat your leukemia. 

Do you really wonder why i didn't take that approach with you?... alright, if that works how does that compare to the point at hand?

Anonymouse wrote:

If you seriously think there are other people besides yourself who aren't getting this, then you are sorely mistaken. 

oh there are, but I'm also aware that other do follow you as well.  Ignorance is bliss isn't it?

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
it's on you to explain how it's rational using the means of spirituality.

Um...typo ? 

no, you seem to have a better grasp of it than I do per your "false analogy" statements and your assurance that the proof you ask for has to be possible if demons are real.

Anonymouse wrote:

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. 

I've been waiting for your explanation for a long time now... so far your "you can't produce my proof so admit they're not real" has been the poorest excuse for disbelief yet.

Anonymouse wrote:

?? 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. 

well, you did actually... and you're claiming that what you're asking is possible if they exist, so what you have must be acceptable if what you're saying is true.. unless you're now going to deny that.  I am the one claiming they exist and I will produce logical proof, but you're claiming your way has to work or they don't exist.  In other words, you are claiming that you at least know of "acceptable proof for demons" and you are asking me for it.  I need your help in understanding this avenue of proof.  I'm not familiar with this approach to it.  

Anonymouse wrote:

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. 

you've ignored them by repeating what you've already said... if you had delt with them, we'd be in a very different place right now.  

Anonymouse wrote:

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.  

I thought Law was part of the subject... or are you saying Law doesn't apply here?  There are no rules in other words?  tell me if that's what you're thinking, if not, then I don't get what you're saying about changing the subject.


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

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
if you say so

No, that was not an opinion, that was a fact.

k

Antipatris wrote:

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.

I've stayed on topic the whole time.  I have not been the one bringing out tangents on false analogies and/or redundancies that bring no progress to the conversation

Antipatris wrote:

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. 

can be, but isn't as the cases brought up show... again this gets into the science of medicine and whether a lot of it is actually treating the symptoms or just supressing them.

Antipatris wrote:

No matter who suffers for it ? Just as long as it isn't you ? 

you haven't read the Bible have you

Antipatris wrote:

? You realize you're on the internet, right ? You certainly ARE discussing it with literally everyone. 

no, I'm "discussing" it with you and Mouse.  Everyone else is just listening in.  I'm aware of what i"m saying... I'm also aware of what you're saying and how that is not solving the problem either.

Antipatris wrote:

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. 

If I'm aware of it, I would educate them.  My belief has never brought that up.  In fact, when asked, I say strait out; "use what God has allowed us to have" which includes proper medicine and care when needed.

Antipatris wrote:

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 ? 

Sure, I know for a fact a closer friend of mine would not be who he is today without Jesus... yes this includes the belief in demons and possession.  He was a violent agressive person who has physically hurt many people... he was in a gang that thrived off the pain of others and he has the tattoos to prove it.  He claims it is Jesus that keeps him from being the person he was... and if it wasn't for his awareness in demons and the spiritual world, he may not have come to know Jesus the way he did.  

There are many more stories I could keep bringing up with similar outcomes... like the muslim who was a part of the group that is set out to kill Christians, only to be given an opportunity to debunk the Bible once and for all only to end up becoming a Christian himself.  

How many of them do you need before it becomes reality for you?

Antipatris wrote:

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. 

yes, of course.. written tests are no longer valid means of assessment either... anything else?  You might want to let the DOE know of your findings on testing.

Antipatris wrote:

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. 

This goes back to again getting rid of everything that can be associated with abuse...which covers a lot, including child care, manufacturing, sex, etc.  Those facts dont' justify your means.

Antipatris wrote:

 

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. 

neither of you can answer with strait answers, so you leave it up to interpretation...  not convenient, but I am trying to clarify for both sides so neither can misconstrue it..  I've learned from talking to people like you that if I take what you say as is, it somehow gets turned around into something I said without me actually saying it... so instead, I clarify up front... if you dont' like it, keep your answers simple and strait forward

Antipatris wrote:

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. 

trust me, I'm not... it's my job to figure out how knowledgeable you really are on the subject.  By responding like I do to see where it goes and can from there see that your'e not very knowledgeable on the subject.

Antipatris wrote:

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". 

ok, the "acceptable Proof" has not yet been requested... conclusion?  acceptable here is apparently subjective.  

facts about demonic possession that have been used here have consisted of abuse surrounding demonic possession, abuse surrounding demonic possession... and... uh oh yea, abuse surrounding demonic possession... 

these are beating around the bush because:

1. the "acceptable proof" has been refuted

2.  the "sad facts regarding demonic possession" don't get to the point, which is; "are demons real?"

Antipatris wrote:

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. 

but you have... to claim as you did is to assume demons aren't real... you have provided less than I have...

Antipatris wrote:

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" ? 

I dont' remember you providing every single case of the subject, only specific cases that had an abuse issue attached to them.  Everything that we have discussed on here has come down to "very little"

Antipatris wrote:

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.  

...and disbelief  can't magically make reality disappear

Antipatris wrote:

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 ? 

If I had such a gift, I would have to understand the circumstance and I would be aware of everything that happened... I know that abuse by others would not have been a factor other than the choice to possibly stop medication that is only suppressing a bigger problem..  

Antipatris wrote:

What "positive" ? You have so far not been able to come up with even one example. 

I've come up with a few by now... recheck.  Whether you find them credible, well that's in question now isn't it.

Antipatris wrote:

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. 

and you seem to somehow be almost physically unable to grasp that there are more cases just like with any other subject, where abuse doesn't happen at all, but those aren't as interesting to publish or write about despite the fact that I still was able to find a few and know a few myself as I had mentioned.

Keep going though, this is fun

Antipatris wrote:

And my simple answer is yet again, because we are discussing belief in "demons" and "possession", not every other single cause of abuse. 

no, I believe we've ended up discussing how abuse is related to the specific belief, which opens the door to every other cause for abuse to compare and contrast as to whether it really is the belief or just one of many reasons people find.

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
yea, point and case, 

What do you mean ? What "point" and what "case" ? 

what did I misread something again?  you had made my point clearly and solved the case

Antipatris wrote:

 

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. 

that's what simple answers lead to with you?  no wonder we can't get anywhere

Antipatris wrote:

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. 

just in case you weren't aware, that does not automatically justify any random request for proof being possible.

Antipatris wrote:

Then please do give me an example he hasn't already debunked. Good luck with that.

how about every one?  I think you'd be harder pressed to give me an example of something he has actually debunked... He's failed at every attempt no matter how confident he seems.  

Let's get on with the topic shall we?


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

caposkia wrote:

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

That isn't the opinion of the Catholic Church and other "experts" nowadays. How do you know that your opinion of how an exorcism should be performed is the correct way? Especially since there has never been a comparison of different exorcism techniques to see how they work?

 

caposkia wrote:
 

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.

So you are saying that all these exorcism stories are bullshit?

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

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.

That is odd. Serious experts in science devote significant time towards debunking crazies who use pseudoscience to spread lies. Why there are some very intelligent men from the scientific field who have devoted their whole lives to debunking false science, such as James Randi. Why do you think that no one in the church does the same thing to this joker? After all, his efforts simply make thinking people believe that all this demon stuff is baloney and I would think that someone who devotes their entire career to exorcisms would be concerned about his effect on the field as a whole. 

 

caposkia wrote:

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. 

We don't know that he was diagnosed as having nothing wrong with him by the doctors, we only have eyewitness testimony that we know is unreliable because we know they lied to us about other things. The very fact he was admitted to a psychiatric hospital suggests that the doctors involved believed there was something wrong with him. Doctors do not admit you if they believe you are perfectly healthy. It is not the least bit unusual for a teenage boy to have depression, ADHD, autism or a myriad of other disorders that would cause them to exhibit erratic and/or anti-social behavior. Remember, this happened in the 1940's and our knowledge of mental health has grown exponentially since then. It is quite likely that they knew he wasn't acting or thinking normally but did not have the knowledge to determine exactly what was wrong and the medications to treat such things had not been invented yet. 

 

caposkia wrote:

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  

Then why would demons show up at all? 

 

caposkia wrote:

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.

So why do you feel a need to assume a possibility that has not been proved to even be a possible when there are other possibilities that have been proven to be possible?

 

caposkia wrote:

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?  

Because you told me he did. You said 

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. 

My point is, God does not provide food, nor does he provide us with "everything we need" as evidenced by the sheer number of people who have died throughout history because they didn't have the basic necessities of food, water, shelter and medicine to survive. Everything we need is provided by human labor. 

 

caposkia wrote:

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.

 Lol, and you just said it again. "He also provides us everything we need." Ask all the people in the world who are dying of malnutrition. Sorry, I am not going to thank anyone for torturing their own son, I think that is absolutely barbaric. Nor am I going to thank anyone who sends perfectly decent human beings to hell. If there is a god, then there are certainly demons because He is clearly demonic. 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

right, and anyone can reason their way out of anything... it doesn't change what actually happened.

Nor does it change the fact that you have zero evidence to support your crazy version of what happened.

 

caposkia wrote:

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.

I don't doubt the possibility of anything, that is why I have repeatedly asked you for evidence to demonstrate that your explanation is more probable than other explanations. Evidence that you have repeatedly failed to produce. Since you have zero evidence and your explanation is rather extraordinary, your explanation is slightly more improbable than the theory that we do not really exist and are actually all part of a computer program. 

 

caposkia wrote:

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.

You described your situation as "random" streetlights that only went out only while you were directly under them and turned back on (presumably while they were still in your range of sight). Now you are saying that a whole block went out? If a whole street goes out and comes back on shortly, most likely it was a breaker that got tripped and quickly reset. Doubtful the news is going to report on an outage that lasts only a few seconds, though they would for one that last hours, but you said the lights came back on. 

You said

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 even asked you for clarification and you said,

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.

 

caposkia wrote:

...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?

It would prove that you had an electrical problem that professional electricians could not explain, which in and of itself would be noteworthy even before you put forward you demon theory. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Again, I never claimed demons were necessary

Then why do you believe in them? 

 

caposkia wrote:

No, I'm saying it's not medical

Yet you are saying that the symptoms are medical, so it is medical. A doctor is not an expert on saws, but when you saw off your finger it becomes a medical problem and with some effort a doctor can determine that a saw is what caused the injury (they do it in court cases all the time, an expert witness will analyze pictures of the wound and provide evidence that it was caused by a certain implement)

 

caposkia wrote:

I believe that's embellishment and never actually happened... unless doctors have documented the case.

Do you have any case of a demon that has been documented by doctors? That would be great. 

 

caposkia wrote:

I bet you can, so believe everyone or believe no one is your philosophy right?  Doctors included in this case.

I believe people who perform credible and repeatable experiments in their field and provide their evidence openly and willingly to other experts in their field for peer review. I do not trust all doctors, there are plenty of them that are scam artists. Fortunately, if you read some peer reviewed journals it is pretty easy to determine which ones just make stuff up and do poor experiments and which ones perform good research. I am not trusting any single doctor, I am trusting that the field in general does a good job self policing their ranks and criticizing the frauds before their crazy ideas become part of mainstream medicine. 

 

caposkia wrote:

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?

So are you saying that everyone who does not believe in god is possessed by a demon?

I won't deny that sometimes converting to a religion can be personally beneficial in some cases. It can also be extremely damaging (such as you might become a bigot against gay marriage). Nor is turning to religion the only way a person can make a substantial change in their life. For example, numerous studies of drug rehabilitation programs have demonstrated that there is not a significant difference in relapse rates among those who attend religious based programs and adopt a religion and those who attend similar secular programs.

If holding a false belief makes you a better person that is fine with me. Just don't try to convince me that your fantasy is real. And whether or not a believing in a fantasy has more benefits than believing in reality is completely irrelevant to what is fantasy and what is reality. Personally, I believe it is better to know reality than to be blissfully ignorant in some fantasy.   

 

caposkia wrote:

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.

You are the one who linked me to the story! Now you are telling me you don't even believe it yourself! If you do not believe the branding claims, why do you believe any of the claims? Maybe I am crazy, but when someone lies to me once, I tend to be quite skeptical of everything they claim. 

 

caposkia wrote:

I'm guessing if it actually happens, a doctor would diagnose it self inflicted.

Probably, because that is the logical conclusion, either self inflicted or inflicted by someone else. They would put the person in a psychiatric ward where they would be restrained, and presumably the demon would keep making brands so then they would be studying the cameras trying to figure out how they got there. At that point it would become news at least among the psychiatrist journals. However, it appears that it has never actually happened.  

 

caposkia wrote:

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.  

Except we have no clue how it ended because we don't know who he is. We are told that he grew up with "little to no recollection" of the events and outwardly has the perfect American family blah blah blah. But we also all know those people who have a "perfect" family and have some serious problems that they just don't talk to anyone about. That is why every time there is some murder everyone comes out of the woodwork going "I don't get it, he was such a nice person and seemed so happy."

All we have is the word of an author, who you say you don't believe all the claims he relates so we already have a credibility issue. We don't know how long the author talked to him, nor do we know if he was honest with the author. Since he insisted on keeping his name private and claims he doesn't have a recollection of the events, it is clear he does not want to talk about it. People generally have no problem talking about things that turned out just fine. You will find the same type of approach taken by many war veterans who get back and will refuse to talk to anyone about what they saw and what they did while outwardly having a normal life. Just because a person's life looks fine on the surface, does not mean that there are not serious problems beneath.

Hell, when my marriage ended everyone was shocked because they thought we had a "perfect" marriage and we faked it straight through Christmas and I moved out New Years Day. 

I suppose it is possible that he doesn't recall the events at all. It was no doubt a traumatic experience, even if you discount the stories of all the screams and pleading, it was widely reported in his hometown newspaper that he was possessed and essentially destroyed his ability to go back to his old school or neighborhood, which on its own can be traumatic to a kid. Maybe he was mentally strong enough to get through it and live a rather normal and well adjusted life. There are people who get molested as children and manage to go about their lives perfectly normal as well, there are people who fight in wars and manage to come back and live perfectly normal lives, there are people who can get through any number of traumatic experiences and live normally.

That doesn't make such things positive, because we know in many cases people are not able to live perfectly normal lives after experiencing them. At best, this is a case where the exorcism didn't cause any lasting damage to the kid, I don't think you can call it a positive outcome unless you can prove that things like the body branding and levitation were actually happening and that the exorcism was preferable to those.  

 

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:exactly,

caposkia wrote:

exactly, cars don't fly.... airplanes do.. if it's an airplane it's not a car.. oh, and if it's a car, it's not an airplane.

Is this a car or an airplane?

 

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
Beyond Saving wrote:caposkia

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

exactly, cars don't fly.... airplanes do.. if it's an airplane it's not a car.. oh, and if it's a car, it's not an airplane.

Is this a car or an airplane?

 

by definition, it is an airplane.  See:  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/airplane?s=t.  Only if it is unable to fly is it just a car.  

I guess if you really want to get technical, we could argue that when the wings are folded up, it is unable to fly and when they're out it's able to fly... Then by definition it could be just a car... but only when the wings are folded in... My point would still stand then that cars can't fly.  


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

That isn't the opinion of the Catholic Church and other "experts" nowadays. How do you know that your opinion of how an exorcism should be performed is the correct way? Especially since there has never been a comparison of different exorcism techniques to see how they work?

The Bible

Beyond Saving wrote:

So you are saying that all these exorcism stories are bullshit?

no, but I would say a lot of them that make headlines and/or are written about are quite embellished... otherwise, why would people want to read it?

Beyond Saving wrote:

That is odd. Serious experts in science devote significant time towards debunking crazies who use pseudoscience to spread lies. Why there are some very intelligent men from the scientific field who have devoted their whole lives to debunking false science, such as James Randi. Why do you think that no one in the church does the same thing to this joker? After all, his efforts simply make thinking people believe that all this demon stuff is baloney and I would think that someone who devotes their entire career to exorcisms would be concerned about his effect on the field as a whole. 

We know true believers know the truth and those who buy it, well they likely aren't in the truth and need personal guidance... A broadcast debunking tv evangelists and showy exorcists isn't going to give that personal guidance.  It's again as simple as opening a Bible

Beyond Saving wrote:

We don't know that he was diagnosed as having nothing wrong with him by the doctors, we only have eyewitness testimony that we know is unreliable because we know they lied to us about other things. The very fact he was admitted to a psychiatric hospital suggests that the doctors involved believed there was something wrong with him. Doctors do not admit you if they believe you are perfectly healthy. It is not the least bit unusual for a teenage boy to have depression, ADHD, autism or a myriad of other disorders that would cause them to exhibit erratic and/or anti-social behavior. Remember, this happened in the 1940's and our knowledge of mental health has grown exponentially since then. It is quite likely that they knew he wasn't acting or thinking normally but did not have the knowledge to determine exactly what was wrong and the medications to treat such things had not been invented yet. 

The cure for the ailments you mention above in the 40's was the belt, not a psychiatric hospital.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Then why would demons show up at all? 

good question... to distract, deter and/or otherwise push people away from God and to get their own needs met some believe

Beyond Saving wrote:

So why do you feel a need to assume a possibility that has not been proved to even be a possible when there are other possibilities that have been proven to be possible?

it has been proven to me.  I've made an attempt at discussing that evidence, but this thread is quite stuck on a magic demon controlling device at the moment.

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

in that specific scenario God isn't doing anything for either... why do you believe He would have to?  

Because you told me he did. You said 

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. 

Right.. I said "has provided" not "is providing"  Which means the "means" are there... it is up to us to not be greedy and help each other.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Lol, and you just said it again. "He also provides us everything we need." Ask all the people in the world who are dying of malnutrition. Sorry, I am not going to thank anyone for torturing their own son, I think that is absolutely barbaric. Nor am I going to thank anyone who sends perfectly decent human beings to hell. If there is a god, then there are certainly demons because He is clearly demonic. 

yea, I'll ask them... many have asked those who are dying of starvation and malnutrition... they ask how we can have so much food here that we throw out literally tons of it a year and yet they see none of it there.  Why can't some of the food we waste go to those dying?  It would be a simple job of portion control.  Again, God provides, what we do with it is up to us.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

You described your situation as "random" streetlights that only went out only while you were directly under them and turned back on (presumably while they were still in your range of sight). Now you are saying that a whole block went out? If a whole street goes out and comes back on shortly, most likely it was a breaker that got tripped and quickly reset. Doubtful the news is going to report on an outage that lasts only a few seconds, though they would for one that last hours, but you said the lights came back on. 

just to clarify, yes random, no not so random that it ended up being a streetlight on this street, then a few streets later on a different night another streetlight... rather likely a few per street in one night would go out... it might be 1 for one street and 5 on another... then 3 on the next street and so on... Sure, it's your typical cycling until it's happening on every street at least once guaranteed... not anymore though

Beyond Saving wrote:

Then why do you believe in them? 

because they exist... necessity doesn't determine existence.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yet you are saying that the symptoms are medical, so it is medical. A doctor is not an expert on saws, but when you saw off your finger it becomes a medical problem and with some effort a doctor can determine that a saw is what caused the injury (they do it in court cases all the time, an expert witness will analyze pictures of the wound and provide evidence that it was caused by a certain implement)

why would anyone have to be an expert on saws to determine how you cut off your finger?  

I understand they do stuff like that in court cases, but they also take guesses in court cases... e.g. "the most likely cause was a..." fill in the blank

Beyond Saving wrote:

Do you have any case of a demon that has been documented by doctors? That would be great. 

other than what has been presented so far that references to doctor involvement, no... do you?

Beyond Saving wrote:

So are you saying that everyone who does not believe in god is possessed by a demon?

No

Beyond Saving wrote:

If holding a false belief makes you a better person that is fine with me. Just don't try to convince me that your fantasy is real. And whether or not a believing in a fantasy has more benefits than believing in reality is completely irrelevant to what is fantasy and what is reality. Personally, I believe it is better to know reality than to be blissfully ignorant in some fantasy.   

That's fine... If you remember though, i never came on here to try to convince you of anything

Beyond Saving wrote:

You are the one who linked me to the story! Now you are telling me you don't even believe it yourself! If you do not believe the branding claims, why do you believe any of the claims? Maybe I am crazy, but when someone lies to me once, I tend to be quite skeptical of everything they claim. 

When did I lie to you?  Also, when did I claim that every aspect of that story was valid?  I only claimed that it was a possession scenario that had a positive outcome... if that's the one you were referring to.  concerning the Annabelle case, I still haven't seen the evidence of physical abuse by any others by name or specifically referenced.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Except we have no clue how it ended because we don't know who he is. We are told that he grew up with "little to no recollection" of the events and outwardly has the perfect American family blah blah blah. But we also all know those people who have a "perfect" family and have some serious problems that they just don't talk to anyone about. That is why every time there is some murder everyone comes out of the woodwork going "I don't get it, he was such a nice person and seemed so happy."

hey, it was asked to find an exorcism story where there was a positive outcome.  there it was... This particular post had nothing to do with whether he actually had a demon or not, rather the point was that it was documented that this kid had exorcisms performed on him and had conventional medical help and ended up being ok, unabused, not scared for life or any of the other alleged outcomes of exorcism.  


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:So you're

caposkia wrote:
So you're saying i can genetically modify a demon to work with your ideal proof?  This one I have to hear!  I can't wait.  How do I go about doing this then Mr. Mouse?

False analogy AGAIN ! Stop comparing fiction to mechanics !  Don't understand ? Then tell me. 

caposkia wrote:
just like you didn't decide the Laws of science even though you can tell me them, I didn't decide the spiritual Laws, though I can tell you them.

And AGAIN !! Now you're comparing the whole of science to "spirituality". I told you in my last reply why that doesn't work. 

caposkia wrote:
exactly, cars don't fly.... airplanes do.. if it's an airplane it's not a car.. oh, and if it's a car, it's not an airplane.

*sigh*   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_car_(aircraft)

The lengths you go to just to build yet another false analogy. 

caposkia wrote:
If was my problem until you decided that your proof is the only way demons could exist... then it became yours to explain why and how that's the only way.

Which I did. Because those were the only things I could think of that you can't fake.

caposkia wrote:
what did you say about posts that had "weird, strange, funny" etc?

That you should quit making them, and giving me the proof I asked for, or simply admit there is no proof for demons ? 

I mean, seriously, if you're going to accuse someone else of being "weird, strange and funny", then why not give an example ? You know, add some proof to your claims ? 

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.

Anonymouse wrote:
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:
you need to explain what I asked... I left it up there as a reminder.

And I also left it up there as a reminder that I already did. Underlining it alone isn't gonna get your attention, so I'll use bold font as well : You can't explain nonsense with more nonsense. 

If you still don't get why trying to prove nonsense by adding more nonsense doesn't work, then tell me. Heck, I'll explain with an analogy, an actual working one, since you like them so much.

caposkia wrote:
I'm glad you're finally admitting that  you're not here to discuss the topic, you could have said that from the beginning.

Sorry, wrong again. Try reading what I actually wrote. 

caposkia wrote:
 irrationalities... basically you finally admitted that your approach does not work.

Nope, again, just read what I write. It will save us both so much time. 

caposkia wrote:
 Though you're still trying to deny it.  I wonder why?.

Mainly because you have great trouble actually reading what I write, and what you make of it bears not even a little resemblance to what I actually said. It's really quite extraordinary.

caposkia wrote:
... woah!  I'm starting to sound like you!

? Um...no, sorry. For starters, you'd have to read what I actually wrote before you could even manage a half decent imitation. 

caposkia wrote:
I think we've been talking too long

Meh. Not really. Just try to stick to the subject and we'll be done in a jiffy.

caposkia wrote:
if I gave it up, then why are we still discussing it?

???????? LOL !

BECAUSE YOU KEEP BRINGING IT UP AGAIN !

Dude, if you don't even know yourself why you keep doing that, then how am I supposed to know ??? 

Hey, here's an idea : Why not just stop doing that ? 

caposkia wrote:
I know

Then explain. And try not bringing up any more arguments I already addressed. 

caposkia wrote:
yup, read it a few times, then reread some of my last few posts to you about why mine doesn't fit your claim.

Oh really ? Then what about all those endlessly repeated analogies where you compared proof for cars to proof for demons ? 

So you either still don't understand why you can't just go drawing parallels between fiction and mechanics, or your selective blindness has struck again.

Which is it gonna be ? 

caposkia wrote:
It's all good.  I know this is hard for you.

Are you kidding ? You couldn't have made it any easier for me if you tried.

caposkia wrote:
 I've tried being reasonable.

If hanging on to a false analogy like this is "reasonable", then I dread to read what comes next.

caposkia wrote:
 i think leaving it just as is is good...  proof to proof.

Changing things around again, and saying it's "just as is is good" ? No, sorry, you compared "proof for demons", to "proof for cars"

caposkia wrote:
 What does the definition of false analogy say again?  Oh yea, you left a link.  lemme check:  "false analogy is a rhetorical fallacy that uses an analogy (comparing objects or ideas with similar characteristics) to support an argument, but the conclusion made by it is not supported by the analogy due to the differences between the two objects."

per the bolded parts, to call my analogy false, you would have to admit to claiming that I was comparing cars to demons.

Or I could just claim you did what you actually did, namely, compare "proof for demons" to "proof for cars".

Which is what I claimed. 

caposkia wrote:
 I admitted a few posts ago that I should have asked for a flying car.

Link is up there. Or you could just google this stuff yourself before you go making useless false analogies.

caposkia wrote:
.. they don't work that way and you would have to change it into something else besides a car to make it fly... hence it would no longer be a car.

It would be a "flying car" as the link explains. 

caposkia wrote:
.. so if you're saying that the car analogy is possible

Am I typing in invisible ink ? I said your cars analogy is a false analogy, because you can't compare "proof for demons" to "proof for cars". If you don't understand why, I'll happily explain.

caposkia wrote:
and your proof for demons is not,

"My" proof ? Have you once again forgotten which side of this argument you claim to be on ? 

caposkia wrote:
then ok, false analogy.

Yeah, and you know what's even worse ? You already gave up the argument you were trying to defend with your false analogy anyway ! So basically, you've been wasting my time. Gee, I hope you didn't do that on purpose.

So anyway, now that that mess is all cleaned up, please produce the proof for demons, or admit that there is none. 

caposkia wrote:
.. to make it true, I will add in "flying car"   is that better?

Nope, still comparing mechanics to fiction, which doesn't work. And still not grasping that you already gave up the argument you were trying to defend with your false analogy in the first place. 

The proof will SEEM irrational, remember ? So yeah, no more excuses. Produce the proof, or admit there isn't any.

caposkia wrote:
so then no matter the subject matter, I can hand you an apple and ask you to prove the subject matter using an apple?  

Again, that is not what I wrote. How hard is it to read what I actually write ??? 

caposkia wrote:
Ok, now let's get out of fiction and look at the claimed reality of spiritualism 

No, because you can't prove nonsense with other nonsense. If you don't understand that, then tell me. I mean, I can't just go assuming that you don't understand that. 

caposkia wrote:
I honestly don't understand this part 

Really ? It's pretty straightforward : You claim there is proof for demons. You ask me what would be acceptable proof. I tell you. I tell you WHY it's acceptable, and why your other suggestions are not. You force me to repeat those explanations by not reading what I write, and clinging to false analogies you already gave up many posts ago.

So after I have repeated my ignored or misrepresented explanations, I repeat my original request : Produce the proof, or admit there isn't any. 

Really, what's not to understand ? But do tell if you still don't. I'll happily explain again. 

caposkia wrote:
... see one avenue of proof, that's what that whole analogy was about, which you so effectively turned into a tangent isn't logical, forget irrational.
 

Well, we've established it's a false analogy, so yeah, of course it's not logical. As for me turning it into a "tangent", hey, you kept digging it up again, so don't blame me. 

caposkia wrote:
Why can't there be any other ways?

I've already explained that, many, many times : Because those are the only things I can think of that you cant fake. If you don't understand what that's essential, then tell me, and I'll explain. Again.

caposkia wrote:
...and how is what you're asking possible if in fact demons are real? These are questions I need answers to.

If it's not possible, then there is no proof for demons. But you say there is. That means you either can answer those questions yourself, or you accept proof that isn't acceptable at all, for reasons I've already explained in detail, again and again. Either way, you're in trouble.

caposkia wrote:
I have no problem with either of those rules...  So why do you keep asking for nonsense?

Forgot already ? The proof is going to SEEM like nonsense before it's produced. And you haven't produced it yet. 

caposkia wrote:
they make sense...

Thanks ! 

caposkia wrote:
I find it hard to believe if in fact you've done the homework that you can't find anything rational that I can't fake.

Again, the proof is going to SEEM irrational, before it gets produced. Which hasn't happened yet. 

caposkia wrote:
minus an explanation huh... you have a very short memory don't you

Unfortunately for you, I don't. 

caposkia wrote:
no, but I can ignorantly decide something is bullshit without looking into it also.. does that mean it is?

Nope, and that's not what I did. And that's also not how you would dismiss those silly alien stories the scientologists are selling. Or are you telling me you took all their courses ? 

caposkia wrote:
same with "life", but no one argues that...

I think you'll find people argue plenty about the meaning of life. 

caposkia wrote:
if you disagree here, what you do you mean by "workable definition" then?

A statement that explains the meaning of a term. In this case, there isn't one. Which makes it too easy to fake, so it's not relevant in a search for acceptable proof.  

caposkia wrote:
unfortunately I didn't...

"Unfortunately" ?? Are you kidding again ? This just keeps getting easier. 

caposkia wrote:
maybe that'll help you realize I'm taking this from a rational standpoint rather than the one you've been trying so hard to stuff me into.

But you just AGREED with my rules, so why would I need to "stuff" them into you ???

caposkia wrote:
I thought you didn't like to assume...

And I didn't. You made another false analogy and I explained why it qualified as such. If you don't understand why, then say so. 

caposkia wrote:
You do realize the "false analogy" excuse doesn't work and is getting old.
 

What do you mean ? You made another false analogy and I explained why it qualified as such. If you don't understand why, then say so.

Yes, your false analogies are getting old. Stop making them. 

caposkia wrote:
It's also a tangent from the point which is from day 1 your way has failed

??? A "tangent" from what "point" ? Stop making these vague claims and try making your "point" without yet another false analogy. 

caposkia wrote:
Do you really wonder why i didn't take that approach with you?.

What "approach" ? What are you talking about ? 

caposkia wrote:
.. alright, if that works how does that compare to the point at hand?

But you didn't make a "point" ! You made another false analogy. I've already explained why they don't qualify as "points".

caposkia wrote:
oh there are, but I'm also aware that other do follow you as well.  Ignorance is bliss isn't it?

Can't make heads nor tails of the first sentence, and the second one is a non-sequitur. 

caposkia wrote:
no, you seem to have a better grasp of it than I do per your "false analogy" statements and your assurance that the proof you ask for has to be possible if demons are real.

Again, I have already explained why "spirituality" doesn't count as proof, and you have accepted my "rules" that disqualify it. 

Also, it's not my fault that you keep making false analogies, or seem incapable of acknowledging that fact, and AGAIN, we already agreed acceptable proof is going to SEEM impossible/irrational/nonsense before someone produces it. 

I'm sure I'll have to repeat all that plenty more times. Not a problem. 

caposkia wrote:
I've been waiting for your explanation for a long time now.

Yeah, and I've been waiting for you to actually read it. But sure, I'll explain again : It's too easy to fake, so as we agreed, it doesn't work as acceptable proof. 

caposkia wrote:
.. so far your "you can't produce my proof so admit they're not real" has been the poorest excuse for disbelief yet.

No, sorry, we already agreed on my "rules" for acceptable proof, so if it's an "excuse", it's one you agree with. Which leaves you with no other choice : Produce the proof, or admit there is none. 

caposkia wrote:
well, you did actually.

I did actually ?? I did actually what ? 

caposkia wrote:
.. and you're claiming that what you're asking is possible if they exist,

Well yeah. If something exists, then of course acceptable proof is possible. 

caposkia wrote:
so what you have must be acceptable if what you're saying is true.

Wait a minute..."what I have " ??? Did you forget again ? YOU ARE THE ONE WHO BELIEVES IN DEMONS ! 

caposkia wrote:
unless you're now going to deny that.

For pete's sake , deny WHAT ???????

caposkia wrote:
 I am the one claiming they exist and I will produce logical proof,

Forgot AGAIN ?? We already agreed that you don't get to decide what "logical proof" for demons is ! 

caposkia wrote:
but you're claiming your way has to work or they don't exist.
 

We AGREED on my "rules" for acceptable proof !! We AGREED ! 

caposkia wrote:
In other words,

YES !! "In OTHER WORDS" !! Words I never wrote ! Stop doing this !!

caposkia wrote:
you are claiming that you at least know of "acceptable proof for demons" and you are asking me for it.

For the last time (Ha !), I know the proof is acceptable because I know you can't fake it ! You AGREED with that rule ! 

caposkia wrote:
 I need your help in understanding this avenue of proof.

Why do you need my help when you already agreed with my rules ??? If you don't understand, then why agree with my rules ?????

caposkia wrote:
 I'm not familiar with this approach to it.

But you already agreed with my rules !

caposkia wrote:
you've ignored them by repeating what you've already said.

Because you kept making the same mistake I already dealt with ! 

caposkia wrote:
.. if you had delt with them, we'd be in a very different place right now.
 

Every single time I dealt with one of your objections, I asked you to tell me if you didn't understand my explanation. If you don't answer that question, then how am I supposed to know you're not simply ignoring everything I tell you ? 

caposkia wrote:
I thought Law was part of the subject... or are you saying Law doesn't apply here?  There are no rules in other words?  tell me if that's what you're thinking, if not, then I don't get what you're saying about changing the subject.

If you're talking about laws in "other worlds", that would fall under explaining nonsense with more nonsense, which we agreed can not lead to acceptable proof. 

And if you're having trouble sticking to the subject, here it is again :

Produce acceptable proof (we agree on the rules for that), or admit there is none.

 


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

caposkia wrote:

The Bible

The Bible is a claim, not evidence. 

 

caposkia wrote:

We know true believers know the truth and those who buy it, well they likely aren't in the truth and need personal guidance... A broadcast debunking tv evangelists and showy exorcists isn't going to give that personal guidance.  It's again as simple as opening a Bible

I think some good solid evidence would go a lot further at convincing people than "personal guidance". Again, the Bible is a series of claims, until those claims can be supported with some kind of evidence there is no more reason to believe the claims of the Bible are true than to believe the claims of The Iliad are true. 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

The cure for the ailments you mention above in the 40's was the belt, not a psychiatric hospital.

In the 1940's they were just starting the research that would lead to the recognition of those ailments. They used the term "insane" to define anyone who exhibited anti-social behavior and their treatment varied from psychoanalytics, shock treatment, electroconvulsive therapy, lobotomies or restraining the person. By the late 1940's psychiatric hospitals were far more common and available to people who were not necessarily wealthy.  The research done in those hospitals is what led to our modern day distinctions between various disorders and the medications we use to treat them. It was in fact in 1949 when Lithium was first used to treat depression, the exact same year this incident occurred. 

 

caposkia wrote:

good question... to distract, deter and/or otherwise push people away from God and to get their own needs met some believe

Yet if you could provide solid evidence of the existence of demons, that would certainly be related to evidence of a god. 

 

caposkia wrote:

it has been proven to me.  I've made an attempt at discussing that evidence, but this thread is quite stuck on a magic demon controlling device at the moment.

I have asked you multiple times for evidence sans magic demon controlling device. All I have gotten are stories that could have dozens of explanations without the existence of demons. Including stories that you yourself say are unbelievable. So why do you expect me to believe them?

 

caposkia wrote:

Right.. I said "has provided" not "is providing"  Which means the "means" are there... it is up to us to not be greedy and help each other.  

Except it isn't there until we create it, and for most of human history has not been there at all no matter what people did. We are fortunate to live in wealthy countries that have found ways to create excess resources. Most humans throughout history have been far less fortunate and have not had everything the need and in many cases, not even the means to get what they need. Many humans have starved to death through no fault of their own, they were simply born in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

 

caposkia wrote:

yea, I'll ask them... many have asked those who are dying of starvation and malnutrition... they ask how we can have so much food here that we throw out literally tons of it a year and yet they see none of it there.  Why can't some of the food we waste go to those dying?  It would be a simple job of portion control.  Again, God provides, what we do with it is up to us.

Because god doesn't exist so he doesn't send it to them, we have to do it and humans are notoriously self centered. We have excess food because we have awesome technology that allows very few people to produce excess food even after we eat ourselves into obesity. The only way our current world population is going to enjoy that is when they modernize as well so they can produce their own food, or we solve the distribution problems. Effectively distributing food is exceptionally hard especially since areas that have food shortages tend to be those that have high levels of violence. It is one thing to volunteer to give away some food and even deliver it, it is quite another to get shot at and potentially killed for just trying to be nice and feed the poor.

But again, even our current state where we could theoretically feed the whole world with perfect distribution- is a new condition that has come about in the last 150 years or so- long after God supposedly started providing us with everything we need. Prior to that, there was not enough food to feed humanity even if perfect distribution could be achieved. Does god only care about modern people in wealthy countries? 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Then why do you believe in them? 

because they exist... necessity doesn't determine existence.

ok..... but why do you believe they exist? Do you have any evidence whatsoever? Or are you just accepting an assertion because it sounds good to you?

 

caposkia wrote:

why would anyone have to be an expert on saws to determine how you cut off your finger?  

I understand they do stuff like that in court cases, but they also take guesses in court cases... e.g. "the most likely cause was a..." fill in the blank

Exactly my point. So I would expect that a doctor, especial a mental health one, would come to recognize that "the most likely cause was a demon" if demons were real and caused health issues. The same way I would expect a professional electrician to say "hmmm, I think the main problem you have here is a demon" if electric loving demons existed. Just like the doctor or electrician could identify if a problem was caused by an animal, some chemical in the environment, something you ate etc.  

 

caposkia wrote:

other than what has been presented so far that references to doctor involvement, no... do you?

No, I have no evidence whatsoever which is why I do not believe in demons. If I had evidence, I would believe they were a possibility. Since you believe, I assumed you had evidence. Are you saying that it is correct to say that there is zero evidence proving the existence of demons? (I would be happy with something the merely strongly suggested demons as a possibility)

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

So are you saying that everyone who does not believe in god is possessed by a demon?

No

Phew, thought I might be possessed there for a moment. I do have a strong aversion to churches, but I was in one last Saturday and I didn't burst into flames, levitate or get any new brands on my body. 

 

caposkia wrote:

That's fine... If you remember though, i never came on here to try to convince you of anything

But you did say you have evidence of the existence of demons. That is all I want. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

You are the one who linked me to the story! Now you are telling me you don't even believe it yourself! If you do not believe the branding claims, why do you believe any of the claims? Maybe I am crazy, but when someone lies to me once, I tend to be quite skeptical of everything they claim. 

When did I lie to you?  Also, when did I claim that every aspect of that story was valid?  I only claimed that it was a possession scenario that had a positive outcome... if that's the one you were referring to.  concerning the Annabelle case, I still haven't seen the evidence of physical abuse by any others by name or specifically referenced.

Oh no, I wasn't calling you a liar, I was calling the sources the author used about the case liars. My point being that if you believe that one aspect of the story is false and you have the same source for the rest of the story, on what basis do you believe one part but not the other? If the parts about branding and levitating were lies or exaggerations, why would you believe any of the other details that cannot be confirmed by a different source? How do you know it had a positive outcome?

As far as the Anneliese Michel case, a girl died from being severely dehydrated and starvation- two conditions that can readily be treated in any hospital. They can, and will force a feeding tube down your throat. Plus, a jury decided that there was in fact abuse, since I have neither the time nor desire to dig through all the details of the case that is enough for me. Whether there was outright abuse or just sheer idiotic negligence in not getting her to a hospital seems irrelevant to me. It clearly was not a positive result, at least I always consider a teenage girl dying to be a bad result in any situation.     

 

caposkia wrote:
 

hey, it was asked to find an exorcism story where there was a positive outcome.  there it was... This particular post had nothing to do with whether he actually had a demon or not, rather the point was that it was documented that this kid had exorcisms performed on him and had conventional medical help and ended up being ok, unabused, not scared for life or any of the other alleged outcomes of exorcism.  

Except we don't know whether or not he was abused or scarred for life because that information is not available. We have the word of an author that both of us agree is untrustworthy in relaying other parts of the story. Regardless, I believe that you could find a case where some kid was exorcised and it did not cause significant physical or mental harm. So what? That doesn't mean it is a good thing, nor does it mitigate the thousands of cases where exorcisms lead to significant harm. Many kids that were abused by their parents grow up to be fine well adjusted adults, that doesn't mean child abuse is a good thing or even a neutral thing. 

 

 

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:kI see facts

caposkia wrote:
k

I see facts leave you even less than monosyllabic. Okay then. 

 

caposkia wrote:
I've stayed on topic the whole time.  I have not been the one bringing out tangents on false analogies and/or redundancies that bring no progress to the conversation

The false analogies were yours. If you don't want people wasting time explaining why you shouldn't use them, then I suggest you don't use them anymore.

 

caposkia wrote:
can be, but isn't as the cases brought up show...

Can be, but isn't, when the patient is kept away from proper medical care, as the cases brought up show. 

 

caposkia wrote:
again this gets into the science of medicine and whether a lot of it is actually treating the symptoms or just supressing them.

What can or cannot be done about a medical condition, is something medical professionals are trained for and capable of judging. However, your opinions on such matters are irrelevant. Surely you understand that at least ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
you haven't read the Bible have you

Your question does not answer mine, so I will repeat : You will keep openly supporting this exclusively toxic nonsense, no matter who suffers for it ? Just as long as it isn't you ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
no, I'm "discussing" it with you and Mouse.  Everyone else is just listening in.  I'm aware of what i"m saying... I'm also aware of what you're saying and how that is not solving the problem either.

The problem is people who believe in "demons", and aren't content to keep this insanity to themselves, and shamelessly stick their heads in the sand when confronted with the results of their "beliefs". So yes, I am most certainly confronting that problem.

And you are trumpeting your support for these insane and destructive beliefs to anyone who will listen. 

 

 

caposkia wrote:
If I'm aware of it, I would educate them.
 

You were aware of such a case, and you presented it as holding proof for "demonic possession". Clearly, the one needing an education there was you. 

And as that same case showed, you don't need to be "aware" of anything to be a tragically negative influence. Just openly supporting this insane notion is quite enough. 

 

caposkia wrote:
My belief has never brought that up.

Then try some facts instead of "belief".

 

caposkia wrote:
 In fact, when asked, I say strait out; "use what God has allowed us to have" which includes proper medicine and care when needed.
 

So you use vague language on purpose in such a situation ??? "Includes" ????? 

 

caposkia wrote:
Sure, I know for a fact a closer friend of mine would not be who he is today without Jesus... yes this includes the belief in demons and possession.  He was a violent agressive person who has physically hurt many people... he was in a gang that thrived off the pain of others and he has the tattoos to prove it.  He claims it is Jesus that keeps him from being the person he was... and if it wasn't for his awareness in demons and the spiritual world, he may not have come to know Jesus the way he did.  

There are many more stories I could keep bringing up with similar outcomes... like the muslim who was a part of the group that is set out to kill Christians, only to be given an opportunity to debunk the Bible once and for all only to end up becoming a Christian himself.  

How many of them do you need before it becomes reality for you?

 

What I need is for you to actually read my request : Please show me a reliable source that reports something positive that could not have occurred without belief in "demons" or "possession".

People change, WITHOUT belief in "demons" and "possession". I asked for something that COULD NOT have occurred without belief in "demons" or "possession". 

 

caposkia wrote:
yes, of course.. written tests are no longer valid means of assessment either... anything else?  You might want to let the DOE know of your findings on testing.

You are conveniently forgetting the subject of this "written test", so your attempt at sarcasm is yet another waste of time. 

 

caposkia wrote:
This goes back to again getting rid of everything that can be associated with abuse

No, it does not. We are discussing the abuse caused by this very specific, already debunked, medieval fantasy. You seem very eager to discuss something else. Ashamed of your "belief" after all ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
...which covers a lot, including child care, manufacturing, sex, etc.  Those facts dont' justify your means.

Yes, they do. That's what facts do. "Belief" in "demons" and "possession" on the other hand, does not justify even the mild annoyance it would cause in a best case scenario. 

 

caposkia wrote:
neither of you can answer with strait answers, so you leave it up to interpretation.

Patently false. We have answered even the questions designed to lead us as far away as possible from what we were actually discussing. As for you, at this early point in your reply, you have already failed to answer two direct questions. More to come, I'm sure. 

And no, not a single one of the questions or statements you jumbled up, have been open to "interpretation" by anyone with even a passing knowledge of the English language. Which makes your selective reading comprehension problem very strange indeed. 

 

caposkia wrote:
..  not convenient, but I am trying to clarify for both sides so neither can misconstrue it

Again, you have mysteriously managed to "misconstrue" some remarkably simple sentences. 

 

caposkia wrote:
..  I've learned from talking to people like you that if I take what you say as is

And that is exactly what you did not do. The examples were already given. 

 

caposkia wrote:
, it somehow gets turned around into something I said without me actually saying it.

Um...no, what happened was your exact words were quoted, together with the sentence they were supposed to "clarify", to show the painfully obvious difference between the two.

 

caposkia wrote:
.. so instead, I clarify up front.

The example Mouse underlined for you shows you do no such thing. 

 

caposkia wrote:
.. if you dont' like it, keep your answers simple and strait forward

Simply suggesting someone's answers aren't simple and straightforward doesn't make them so. Please remember to bring facts to accompany your accusations, or don't make them at all. 


 

caposkia wrote:
trust me, I'm not

The facts say otherwise. Again, said facts have been underlined for you , and I had to reference them in an earlier reply already. 

 

caposkia wrote:
... it's my job to figure out how knowledgeable you really are on the subject.

Considering your remarkable lack of knowledge about the case you brought up yourself, that doesn't really mean much, does it ?  

 

caposkia wrote:
 By responding like I do to see where it goes and can from there see that your'e not very knowledgeable on the subject.

? How does your strange reading comprehension problem even relate to being "knowledgeable on the subject" ???

 

 

caposkia wrote:
ok, the "acceptable Proof" has not yet been requested.

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

He's been asking you for WEEKS ! 

 

 

caposkia wrote:
.. conclusion?  acceptable here is apparently subjective.
 

No, you have admitted it only seems irrational before it's produced, and you have agreed with his rules for determining "acceptable proof". 

It's now up to you to produce it, or admit there is none. You have left yourself no other way out.

 

caposkia wrote:
facts about demonic possession that have been used here have consisted of abuse surrounding demonic possession, abuse surrounding demonic possession... and... uh oh yea, abuse surrounding demonic possession... 
 

There are no other facts that amount to anything at all. As your repeated failure to come up with anything positive that could not have occurred without it shows. 

 

caposkia wrote:
these are beating around the bush because:

1. the "acceptable proof" has been refuted 

 

Again, completely false. You have accepted his rules to determine acceptable proof. 

 

 

caposkia wrote:
2.  the "sad facts regarding demonic possession" don't get to the point, which is; "are demons real?"
 

Just read what you wrote. Please, just read it : "the "sad facts regarding demonic possession" don't get to the point... "?

If facts don't get to the point, then what does ??

 

caposkia wrote:
but you have...to claim as you did is to assume demons aren't real.
 

Again, the facts are there, so no-one need make any assumptions. 

 

caposkia wrote:
.. you have provided less than I have...
 

Again, patently false. I have provided facts relevant to what we're discussing, namely the exclusively negative results of a belief in "demons" and "possession". I have given you chance after chance to come up with even one single example of something even remotely positive that could not have occurred without said belief.

You have failed to do so every time. 

 

caposkia wrote:
I dont' remember you providing every single case of the subject
 

You don't remember ??? How many times now have I asked you for even a single example of something even remotely positive that could not have occurred without said belief ??

 

caposkia wrote:
only specific cases that had an abuse issue attached to them.
 

You brought one of them up yourself, and again, there are no cases were anything even remotely positive occurred that could not have happened without it. 

 

caposkia wrote:
 Everything that we have discussed on here has come down to "very little"
 

No.

The cases I have brought forward can NEVER be described as "very little". You need to read every single one of them again, if you ever even did that in the first place.

 

caposkia wrote:
...and disbelief  can't magically make reality disappear
 

Then we agree that "belief" is completely powerless, which again brings up the same question : Why you didn't pick the rational explanation when there's a perfectly good rational one ?

 

caposkia wrote:
If I had such a gift, I would have to understand the circumstance and I would be aware of everything that happened... I know that abuse by others would not have been a factor other than the choice to possibly stop medication that is only suppressing a bigger problem..
 

I'm sorry, but that in no way whatsoever addresses my question. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I'll repeat : If you were ever in the position of the person who planted the whole "demonic possession" idea in Anneliese Michel's mind, would the resulting tragedy be enough to convince you of the toxic nature of your "belief" ? Or would you deny any responsibility and simply go on spreading your "belief" in "demons" and "possession" ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
I've come up with a few by now... recheck.  Whether you find them credible, well that's in question now isn't it.

No, since you haven't even be able to come up with a single example of anything positive that could not have occurred without it. 

We'll get to credibility once you produce an example. 

 

caposkia wrote:
and you seem to somehow be almost physically unable to grasp that there are more cases just like with any other subject, where abuse doesn't happen at all, but those aren't as interesting to publish or write about despite the fact that I still was able to find a few and know a few myself as I had mentioned.

Again, nothing positive happened there that could not have occurred without it. 

 

caposkia wrote:
Keep going though, this is fun

Once again, I find myself forced to remind you to read all about the cases I linked you to. 

"Fun" ? No.

 

caposkia wrote:
no, I believe we've ended up discussing how abuse is related to the specific belief,

Again, those two are related through facts. 

 

caposkia wrote:
which opens the door to every other cause for abuse to compare and contrast as to whether it really is the belief or just one of many reasons people find.

No, that door remains closed, because the belief we are discussing is not involved in any of those other causes. Again, please stick to the subject under discussion. 

 

caposkia wrote:
what did I misread something again?  you had made my point clearly and solved the case

I ,of course, did no such thing, so yes, you obviously "misread" something again. State your "point" and "case" and if you draw any conclusions from something I said, quote me verbatim, so I can correct your mistake. 

 

caposkia wrote:
that's what simple answers lead to with you?  no wonder we can't get anywhere

??

Me assuming you're an idiot is somehow essential to "getting somewhere" ? Sorry, but again, I see no reason to make that assumption at this point. 

 

caposkia wrote:
just in case you weren't aware, that does not automatically justify any random request for proof being possible.

Again, you have already agreed to his rules for determining acceptable proof. 

 

caposkia wrote:
how about every one?  I think you'd be harder pressed to give me an example of something he has actually debunked..

He debunked your attempt to declare his proof "irrational", and now that you agreed to his rules, he has debunked any and all future attempts to get around the necessity of providing said proof, or admitting there is none. 


 

caposkia wrote:
He's failed at every attempt no matter how confident he seems.
 

Again, completely untrue. He has made you admit his proof is not "irrational", and after your week-long struggle to make him ask for some other kind of proof, he has now made you agree with the rules he used to come up with that acceptable proof in the first place.

 

caposkia wrote:
Let's get on with the topic shall we?
 

Then give me the example I asked for.

Or simply admit there are none to be found.

 

 


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

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
So you're saying i can genetically modify a demon to work with your ideal proof?  This one I have to hear!  I can't wait.  How do I go about doing this then Mr. Mouse?

False analogy AGAIN ! Stop comparing fiction to mechanics !  Don't understand ? Then tell me. 

really?   That's an analogy to you?  Stop running, just answer it strait or admit that your ideal proof is nonsensical

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
exactly, cars don't fly.... airplanes do.. if it's an airplane it's not a car.. oh, and if it's a car, it's not an airplane.

*sigh*   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_car_(aircraft)

The lengths you go to just to build yet another false analogy. 

really, you want to tangent on this again?  You've done a great job up until now avoiding having to face answering directly to your attempt at discrediting believers.  I'm bored... we're moving on... call it false all you want

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
and your proof for demons is not,

"My" proof ? Have you once again forgotten which side of this argument you claim to be on ? 

wow, I had to sift through a lot before I found the subject again. 

K, your proof because you're claiming that if demons were real, then your ideal proof that I can't fake MUST be possible... that's what makes it your proof... i say demons are real and that your proof can't work, you say demons aren't real and that if they were your proof would work... so I need an explanation on why.

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
...and how is what you're asking possible if in fact demons are real? These are questions I need answers to.

If it's not possible, then there is no proof for demons. But you say there is. That means you either can answer those questions yourself, or you accept proof that isn't acceptable at all, for reasons I've already explained in detail, again and again. Either way, you're in trouble.

yea, I've tried to explain why what you're asking for doesn't work, but we always get sidetracked for some reason...  They are spirits, fallen angels.  you can't control them with a magic ring anymore than you can control a human with a magic ring.  It's always choice..  They are against God which would include His creation.  What you are asking is nonsensical.  You can't explain nonsense with nonsense, but you also can't explain reality with nonsense.  

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I have no problem with either of those rules...  So why do you keep asking for nonsense?

Forgot already ? The proof is going to SEEM like nonsense before it's produced. And you haven't produced it yet.

now you're changing it.. I thought it was "it would seem irrational before it's produced"?  If it's not nonsense, then you will have to explain how it works if demons are real... an answer is not "false analogy" or "it will seem like X before it's produced" or "you can't explain nonsense with nonsense" or "read what I said" or anything else you want to repeat... it is on you to explain how it would work be it that you came up with the claim.  I clam demons are real, you claim we can control them if they are.  How?

Anonymouse wrote:

Nope, and that's not what I did. And that's also not how you would dismiss those silly alien stories the scientologists are selling. Or are you telling me you took all their courses ? 

I have not dismissed alien stories, but I don't believe in them... I thought before we were talking about alien stories in general and not specifically from a religious sect, but either way... I research it before I dismiss it.  

and really?  you're going to try and claim that's not what you did?  Ok

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
if you disagree here, what you do you mean by "workable definition" then?

A statement that explains the meaning of a term. In this case, there isn't one. Which makes it too easy to fake, so it's not relevant in a search for acceptable proof.  

So your workable definition is "there isn't one"  nice...  A statement that explains the meaning of the term Demon?  An evil spirit.  

Anonymouse wrote:

I did actually ?? I did actually what ? 

if you're going to keep giving me the runaround, at least try to keep up.

Anonymouse wrote:

For the last time (Ha !), I know the proof is acceptable because I know you can't fake it ! You AGREED with that rule ! 

Right, it still doesn't validate your claim as much as you want it to... Rules are rules, they don't validate any proof, they only keep the study on track.

Anonymouse wrote:

Why do you need my help when you already agreed with my rules ??? If you don't understand, then why agree with my rules ?????

Your rules make sense, your avenue of proof doesn't

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I thought Law was part of the subject... or are you saying Law doesn't apply here?  There are no rules in other words?  tell me if that's what you're thinking, if not, then I don't get what you're saying about changing the subject.

If you're talking about laws in "other worlds", that would fall under explaining nonsense with more nonsense, which we agreed can not lead to acceptable proof. 

And if you're having trouble sticking to the subject, here it is again :

Produce acceptable proof (we agree on the rules for that), or admit there is none.

 

You have only one aspect of proof you find acceptable... that aspect is nonsense, as to which you claimed will seem so until it's provided... So though you can't explain nonsense with nonsense, apparently nonsense has to be explained in order for it to not be nonsense.. I need you to explain your nonsense... telling me it's the only proof I can't fake is not explaining how it's possible and telling me it will seem like nonsense, irrational, etc before it's provided also will not help.  


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

The Bible

The Bible is a claim, not evidence. 

then it sounds like we have a different subject to discuss first

Beyond Saving wrote:

I think some good solid evidence would go a lot further at convincing people than "personal guidance". Again, the Bible is a series of claims, until those claims can be supported with some kind of evidence there is no more reason to believe the claims of the Bible are true than to believe the claims of The Iliad are true. 

part of the personal guidance I would hope would include solid evidence, but as we are all more than aware, solid evidence doesn't work unless you want it to... if you want to believe something... or not believe something, all the "solid evidence" in the world isn't going to change your mind... personal guidance if you allow it will

Beyond Saving wrote:

In the 1940's they were just starting the research that would lead to the recognition of those ailments. They used the term "insane" to define anyone who exhibited anti-social behavior and their treatment varied from psychoanalytics, shock treatment, electroconvulsive therapy, lobotomies or restraining the person. By the late 1940's psychiatric hospitals were far more common and available to people who were not necessarily wealthy.  The research done in those hospitals is what led to our modern day distinctions between various disorders and the medications we use to treat them. It was in fact in 1949 when Lithium was first used to treat depression, the exact same year this incident occurred. 

nice

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yet if you could provide solid evidence of the existence of demons, that would certainly be related to evidence of a god. 

exactly, so what would that solid evidence be then if demons were real? 

Beyond Saving wrote:

I have asked you multiple times for evidence sans magic demon controlling device. All I have gotten are stories that could have dozens of explanations without the existence of demons. Including stories that you yourself say are unbelievable. So why do you expect me to believe them?

I've mentioned friends of mine who dramatically changed and came to know Jesus through their understanding of demons, I've mentioned earlier the record keeping that the Vatican does with such cases as well as any spiritual influence, good or bad and how they determine it.  

Also, if stories have dozens of explanations as you say, how do we deduce the one true explanation?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Except it isn't there until we create it, and for most of human history has not been there at all no matter what people did. We are fortunate to live in wealthy countries that have found ways to create excess resources. Most humans throughout history have been far less fortunate and have not had everything the need and in many cases, not even the means to get what they need. Many humans have starved to death through no fault of their own, they were simply born in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

that's still happening today... it's not their fault they're starving... but I also believe that people in general are at fault be it that we do literally throw out tons of food a year in our country alone, enough food to basically feed every starving person in the world.... we also have the resources to educate those starving communities on how to be self sufficient, but again, we're not doing that abundantly enough.  Do you really believe that the resources aren't here?  Do you believe people make food or do they just plant the seed and care for the plant?

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

yea, I'll ask them... many have asked those who are dying of starvation and malnutrition... they ask how we can have so much food here that we throw out literally tons of it a year and yet they see none of it there.  Why can't some of the food we waste go to those dying?  It would be a simple job of portion control.  Again, God provides, what we do with it is up to us.

Because god doesn't exist so he doesn't send it to them, we have to do it and humans are notoriously self centered.

point and case right here... "we have to do it and humans are notoriously self centered."  Why should God have to send it to them?  He told us in the Bible that we're responsible for each other and that we should take care of each other.. He wasn't just talking about friends and family.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

We have excess food because we have awesome technology that allows very few people to produce excess food even after we eat ourselves into obesity. The only way our current world population is going to enjoy that is when they modernize as well so they can produce their own food, or we solve the distribution problems. Effectively distributing food is exceptionally hard especially since areas that have food shortages tend to be those that have high levels of violence. It is one thing to volunteer to give away some food and even deliver it, it is quite another to get shot at and potentially killed for just trying to be nice and feed the poor."

...and right here you're making it more and more clear that it's us as humans that are the cause of the problems, not God.  Like you said; "distributing food is exceptionally hard especially since areas that have food shortages tend to be those that have high levels of violence."  that would put some of the blame on those people at least, but at the same time, it's making it clearer and clearer that the resources to feed them are there.

Beyond Saving wrote:

But again, even our current state where we could theoretically feed the whole world with perfect distribution- is a new condition that has come about in the last 150 years or so- long after God supposedly started providing us with everything we need. Prior to that, there was not enough food to feed humanity even if perfect distribution could be achieved. Does god only care about modern people in wealthy countries? 

really?  You're telling me that kings and royals starved when their people did?  Yes, there were droughts and famines in history, but it's hard for me to believe that there was less food in the world then when there is a larger population than ever now... it was more likely that people were somehow cut off and/or did not have the help from theri neighbors.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

ok..... but why do you believe they exist? Do you have any evidence whatsoever? Or are you just accepting an assertion because it sounds good to you?

of course not.  I believe they exist because I've seen their effects, have reliable sources explain situations that have happened concerning them, I've seen the effects of God and know Him personally.  I know sources that have great stories of His actions too.  I've seen the changes in people, so dramatic and so quick that psychology wouldn't have a rational explanation for it.

Doing research into the history of religions and peoples, all of the ones I've researched have been traced back to a judeo/Christian origin and yet I can't find an origin for the belief in the Judeo/Christian God despite attempts at trying to explain that he's really Ba'al and/or other random gods throughout history which happened to be around amidst those who believed in YHWH.  

when confronting those who seem to know a bit about the history, they try to claim belief in YHWH by name can't be found before a specific date, but before a specific date, it seems that humanity didn't know God's true name and would call him by many different names, but characteristics trace that following to this same following.  

Beyond that, every explanation I've gotten against God has been poor at best, not that some for God haven't been poor, but none against have been reasonably concluded by at least the individual explanations I've gotten.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Exactly my point. So I would expect that a doctor, especial a mental health one, would come to recognize that "the most likely cause was a demon" if demons were real and caused health issues. The same way I would expect a professional electrician to say "hmmm, I think the main problem you have here is a demon" if electric loving demons existed. Just like the doctor or electrician could identify if a problem was caused by an animal, some chemical in the environment, something you ate etc.  

The problem here is your comparing physical causes to spiritual ones... That would be the "false analogy" Mouse has been trying so hard to pin me on.  Doctors only know physical or psychological causes and electricians are pretty much restricted to physical causes.  Out of the 2 an electrician would be the one to determine the demon problem, but probably wouldn't understand it as that unless they were gifted in that department.  They would determine outside interference if it was that consistent, but ultimately likely second guess themselves when they can't find anything that would cause it.    The problem with demonic interference, just like a thief, it's not consistent

Beyond Saving wrote:

No, I have no evidence whatsoever which is why I do not believe in demons.

that is the most rational reasoning I've heard to date on here... thank you

Beyond Saving wrote:

If I had evidence, I would believe they were a possibility. Since you believe, I assumed you had evidence. Are you saying that it is correct to say that there is zero evidence proving the existence of demons? (I would be happy with something the merely strongly suggested demons as a possibility)

there is evidence out there.  But this is why I ask people what they're looking for... In most cases, those who believe there is no evidence are not looking for the actual evidence... the other wall that is hit is that the actual evidence either doesn't come from a source they find reliable or the evidence isn't sufficient for them to accept because they have bigger issues with the subject than just the topic at hand.  Typically it's that the evidence is not necessary to investigate if they can come up with another possible reason... There's a word for that and I forget, but the word summed up basically states that the most commonly accepted reason or cause isn't necessarily the correct reason or cause.  But if one can't consider all of the other possibilities as "possibilities" then they'll be satisfied with the most common reason or cause.  In most cases, it wouldn't make a difference, but in the case of diagnoses with doctors, it could be the difference between life and death... Spiritually speaking, the rammifications are just as severe.

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

Phew, thought I might be possessed there for a moment. I do have a strong aversion to churches, but I was in one last Saturday and I didn't burst into flames, levitate or get any new brands on my body. 

not all churches are good

Beyond Saving wrote:

But you did say you have evidence of the existence of demons. That is all I want. 

let's see where we go with what i gave above

Beyond Saving wrote:

Oh no, I wasn't calling you a liar, I was calling the sources the author used about the case liars. My point being that if you believe that one aspect of the story is false and you have the same source for the rest of the story, on what basis do you believe one part but not the other? If the parts about branding and levitating were lies or exaggerations, why would you believe any of the other details that cannot be confirmed by a different source? How do you know it had a positive outcome?

The same way we can determine any story that has erronius information to be true.  Logical deduction.  

all in all, I can't be sure this had a positive outcome anymore than anything else I read about that I wasn't an eye-witness to

Beyond Saving wrote:

Except we don't know whether or not he was abused or scarred for life because that information is not available. We have the word of an author that both of us agree is untrustworthy in relaying other parts of the story. Regardless, I believe that you could find a case where some kid was exorcised and it did not cause significant physical or mental harm. So what? That doesn't mean it is a good thing, nor does it mitigate the thousands of cases where exorcisms lead to significant harm. Many kids that were abused by their parents grow up to be fine well adjusted adults, that doesn't mean child abuse is a good thing or even a neutral thing. 

nothing anyone can provide can justify any abuse sourced to any reason.  It's no different here, but we can't just ignore everything that can be associated with abuse because people got hurt by ignorant people.  that doesn't leave much left.


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

Antipatris wrote:

I see facts leave you even less than monosyllabic. Okay then. 

I'm already going in circles with Mouse.  i don't need to do that with you too.  I feel you're a bit smarter than that.

Antipatris wrote:

The false analogies were yours. If you don't want people wasting time explaining why you shouldn't use them, then I suggest you don't use them anymore.

Right... I've explained how they aren't and yet, here we are...  I even changed a word just in case mouse decided to use a different excuse than he was because I realized if it was going to be false at all, that would have to be it.

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
again this gets into the science of medicine and whether a lot of it is actually treating the symptoms or just supressing them.

What can or cannot be done about a medical condition, is something medical professionals are trained for and capable of judging. However, your opinions on such matters are irrelevant. Surely you understand that at least ? 

that statement was a fact you can research yourself... start with google

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
you haven't read the Bible have you

Your question does not answer mine, so I will repeat : You will keep openly supporting this exclusively toxic nonsense, no matter who suffers for it ? Just as long as it isn't you ? 

well, it kind of does actually... if you had read the Bible, then you'd know that what you ask is nonsensical... I will support my belief regardless whether I suffer from it or not.  Those who suffer from it aren't suffering from the existence of the belief, but from the ignorance of those who dispense the abuse.

Antipatris wrote:
 

The problem is people who believe in "demons", and aren't content to keep this insanity to themselves, and shamelessly stick their heads in the sand when confronted with the results of their "beliefs". So yes, I am most certainly confronting that problem.

And you are trumpeting your support for these insane and destructive beliefs to anyone who will listen. 

No, I am trumpeting support for my belief in the existence of the God of the Bible and with that the understanding that demons exist.  I do not support those destructive beliefs and I try to denounce them and separate them from the truth of what I follow.   

You on the other hand are doing a great job at reconnecting them to the same belief... In turn you might be causing more crimes against believers for those who think the same way as other abusers.

Antipatris wrote:

Then try some facts instead of "belief".

Like eye-witness accounts?

Antipatris wrote:

So you use vague language on purpose in such a situation ??? "Includes" ?????

no, I use "includes" with you so you can't BS your way around the idea that it might not include medicine

Antipatris wrote:
 

What I need is for you to actually read my request : Please show me a reliable source that reports something positive that could not have occurred without belief in "demons" or "possession".

What is your reliable source for this?  Lemme guess, it's not a source that would likely report such a case right?

Antipatris wrote:

People change, WITHOUT belief in "demons" and "possession". I asked for something that COULD NOT have occurred without belief in "demons" or "possession". 

My friend turning from a violent gang member to a devout Christian who has a passion for world missions.  He became someone who wants to help those he used to hurt.  There is nothing else in his life that can explain the change that took place within him.

Antipatris wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
yes, of course.. written tests are no longer valid means of assessment either... anything else?  You might want to let the DOE know of your findings on testing.

You are conveniently forgetting the subject of this "written test", so your attempt at sarcasm is yet another waste of time. 

no, it's a valid point if what you say is true

Antipatris wrote:

No, it does not. We are discussing the abuse caused by this very specific, already debunked, medieval fantasy. You seem very eager to discuss something else. Ashamed of your "belief" after all ? 

how is that me eager to discuss something else?  Are you eager to discuss something else... like trying to blame me for attempting a sidetrack?

If this was already debunked, i dont' think this site would exist

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
neither of you can answer with strait answers, so you leave it up to interpretation.

Patently false. We have answered even the questions designed to lead us as far away as possible from what we were actually discussing.

Nothing i have asked you was designed to lead you away from what we're discussing.   though I'm sure you'll still believe what you want about that

Antipatris wrote:

As for you, at this early point in your reply, you have already failed to answer two direct questions. More to come, I'm sure. 

oh yes, ... I-I mean... ...............

Antipatris wrote:

And no, not a single one of the questions or statements you jumbled up, have been open to "interpretation" by anyone with even a passing knowledge of the English language. Which makes your selective reading comprehension problem very strange indeed. 

mouse tries to use that as an excuse and your'e still stuck on it.  

Antipatris wrote:

Again, you have mysteriously managed to "misconstrue" some remarkably simple sentences. 

yet I reread everything I post just to make sure you or mouse can't twist my words into something I didn't say... why?  because Mouse has been trying very hard to do that very thing.

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
... it's my job to figure out how knowledgeable you really are on the subject.

Considering your remarkable lack of knowledge about the case you brought up yourself, that doesn't really mean much, does it ?

apparently then none of us know much about the case, even with links, you both still try to add to it..

oh right... an example.  physical abuse when the report states as clear as day that death was caused by starvation and dehydration... the report previously mentioned the patient refused themselves to eat and drink

Antipatris wrote:
 

No, you have admitted it only seems irrational before it's produced, and you have agreed with his rules for determining "acceptable proof". 

It's now up to you to produce it, or admit there is none. You have left yourself no other way out.

yet, I'm not the one claiming his "acceptable proof" is possible if demons exist.. He is, which means I need an explanation as to why that's possible if demons exist by the one claiming that it's a valid means of proof

Antipatris wrote:

You don't remember ??? How many times now have I asked you for even a single example of something even remotely positive that could not have occurred without said belief ??

providing every case?  no

how many times have you asked?  before or after I gave you some examples that you tried to explain your way out of?  You have tried to reason other possibilities, but it doesnt' mean that the change actually could have occured with those other possibilities... unless you were a doctor with that particular persons psych file, you could not logically produce that conclusion.

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 Everything that we have discussed on here has come down to "very little"
 

No.

The cases I have brought forward can NEVER be described as "very little". You need to read every single one of them again, if you ever even did that in the first place.

regardless of what the cases have, everything we have discussed here has come down to "very little".   Notice I mentioned everything WE HAVE DISCUSSED HERE.

Antipatris wrote:

Then we agree that "belief" is completely powerless, which again brings up the same question : Why you didn't pick the rational explanation when there's a perfectly good rational one ?

because I do my homework first, i dont' just blindly conclude that the most common reason is the right one

Antipatris wrote:

I'm sorry, but that in no way whatsoever addresses my question. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I'll repeat : If you were ever in the position of the person who planted the whole "demonic possession" idea in Anneliese Michel's mind, would the resulting tragedy be enough to convince you of the toxic nature of your "belief" ? Or would you deny any responsibility and simply go on spreading your "belief" in "demons" and "possession" ? 

Ah, I see your angle.  I wouldn't have planted the belief in her head... rather I would have deduced without discussing it with her whether she had a demon or not, then approached the issue from there.  

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
which opens the door to every other cause for abuse to compare and contrast as to whether it really is the belief or just one of many reasons people find.

No, that door remains closed, because the belief we are discussing is not involved in any of those other causes. Again, please stick to the subject under discussion. 

that's your choice... again, I follow your lead

Antipatris wrote:

He debunked your attempt to declare his proof "irrational", and now that you agreed to his rules, he has debunked any and all future attempts to get around the necessity of providing said proof, or admitting there is none. 

really... even though I've explained each thing Iv'e agreed to does not validate in any way his reasoning to be rational?


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:

The Bible is a claim, not evidence. 

then it sounds like we have a different subject to discuss first

I hope not, I don't particularly feel like teaching elementary school. The bible purports to relay the story of a particular period of history- it is claiming that what it says happened, actually happened. Evidence, is information collected independent of the bible that suggests that the events in the bible actually did or did not happen. If I tell you "I ate lamb chops for lunch", that is a claim. Evidence that might support that claim would be the dirty plate, leftover bones, that there are no more lamb chops in my freezer etc. The bible makes a claim about what happened, it is not in and of itself evidence. And since we are talking about a single claim from the bible (that demons exist), just because the bible says they exist is not evidence because I do not recognize the bible as an authority. If demons are real, one would expect evidence of their existence completely independent of the bible. 

A few websites for you to check out on the basics of reasons and evidence. 

http://redschoolhouse.org/drupal/book/export/html/92

http://mental.psych.northwestern.edu/publications/explanation_evidence.pdf

 

caposkia wrote:

part of the personal guidance I would hope would include solid evidence, but as we are all more than aware, solid evidence doesn't work unless you want it to... if you want to believe something... or not believe something, all the "solid evidence" in the world isn't going to change your mind... personal guidance if you allow it will

Nonsense. Solid evidence works whenever a person is willing to make their conclusion based on reality. Whether you want to believe something or not is completely irrelevant, I believe many things that I would prefer not to believe. So give me some evidence. Not explanations, not theories and not claims. Evidence please. Because the only reason I do not believe in demons is because I have not seen a shred of evidence that they exist. 

 

caposkia wrote:

exactly, so what would that solid evidence be then if demons were real? 

You went all crazy when Anonymouse suggested what kind of evidence and I don't care to travel down that road. Just give me whatever you have.

 

caposkia wrote:

I've mentioned friends of mine who dramatically changed and came to know Jesus through their understanding of demons, I've mentioned earlier the record keeping that the Vatican does with such cases as well as any spiritual influence, good or bad and how they determine it.

Ok, we have established that we have a lot of people who make claims. So what? Claims /= evidence. As far as your claim that people change due to their belief in god I am not disputing. I agree that beliefs can change people, but that says nothing about whether or not the belief is factual. People are changed by false beliefs all the time.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Also, if stories have dozens of explanations as you say, how do we deduce the one true explanation?

The logical thing to do is to look at the evidence and believe that the most probable explanation that is consistent with the evidence is true. 

 

caposkia wrote:

that's still happening today... it's not their fault they're starving...

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Exactly who is at fault varies by specific situation. 

 

caposkia wrote:

but I also believe that people in general are at fault be it that we do literally throw out tons of food a year in our country alone, enough food to basically feed every starving person in the world.... we also have the resources to educate those starving communities on how to be self sufficient, but again, we're not doing that abundantly enough.  

Maybe we do, maybe we don't. Educating entire civilizations is an immense task and it becomes exceedingly difficult to educate people who do not wish to be educated and cling to their local superstitions. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Do you really believe that the resources aren't here?  Do you believe people make food or do they just plant the seed and care for the plant?

There probably are not enough resources for everyone in the world to live like you and me for very long. To feed everyone? We could theoretically get that done at least. Yes people make food, at least in order to have enough food to feed the whole world. Going out to your backyard garden and planting a few seeds and caring for the plant isn't going to produce enough. World food production requires man made chemicals, genetically engineered plants, modern tractors and modern preservation methods- all man made. 

 

caposkia wrote:

...and right here you're making it more and more clear that it's us as humans that are the cause of the problems, not God.  Like you said; "distributing food is exceptionally hard especially since areas that have food shortages tend to be those that have high levels of violence."  that would put some of the blame on those people at least, but at the same time, it's making it clearer and clearer that the resources to feed them are there.

Of course humans cause the problems because there is no god. It would be ridiculous of me to blame a being that I do not believe exists. That would be like blaming demons for my light going out. 

 

caposkia wrote:

really?  You're telling me that kings and royals starved when their people did?  Yes, there were droughts and famines in history, but it's hard for me to believe that there was less food in the world then when there is a larger population than ever now... it was more likely that people were somehow cut off and/or did not have the help from theri neighbors.

Yes, really. No, kings and royals did not starve because they got first dibs on the food. When there wasn't enough to go around it was peasants that starved first. Although, for some civilizations, the entire people starved to death including the privileged classes. I would highly recommend that you read Collapse by Jared Diamond where he details how various primitive cultures collapsed and in some cases went completely extinct. Lack of food due to climate change, poor farming practices, drought, floods, fires etc. has been one of the main causes in history. He lays out several case studies and is one of the most fascinating history books I have ever read.  

http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Societies-Choose-Succeed-Revised/dp/0143117009

(mods please edit link to give the site $$) 

 

caposkia wrote:

of course not.  I believe they exist because I've seen their effects,

Are any of those effects observable by anyone other than you?

 

caposkia wrote:

have reliable sources explain situations that have happened concerning them, I've seen the effects of God and know Him personally.  

Not interested in god, just demons for now. 

 

caposkia wrote:

I know sources that have great stories of His actions too.  I've seen the changes in people, so dramatic and so quick that psychology wouldn't have a rational explanation for it.

Oh really? Are you a psychologist? From what I have read psychologists have all sorts of rational explanations for why people change. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Doing research into the history of religions and peoples, all of the ones I've researched have been traced back to a judeo/Christian origin

You obviously haven't researched very many religions then. There have been hundreds of religions that have nothing to do with the Abrahamic god.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions

Here is a decent list to start with. You will note that it conveniently separates the Abrahamic religions from all the others. 

 

caposkia wrote:

and yet I can't find an origin for the belief in the Judeo/Christian God despite attempts at trying to explain that he's really Ba'al and/or other random gods throughout history which happened to be around amidst those who believed in YHWH.  

when confronting those who seem to know a bit about the history, they try to claim belief in YHWH by name can't be found before a specific date, but before a specific date, it seems that humanity didn't know God's true name and would call him by many different names, but characteristics trace that following to this same following.  

Beyond that, every explanation I've gotten against God has been poor at best, not that some for God haven't been poor, but none against have been reasonably concluded by at least the individual explanations I've gotten.

So all you have is explanations that seem to make sense to you. Do you have any evidence? I don't care to argue about whether or not people believed in the Abrahamic god or not, it makes no difference to me and their beliefs have no bearing on whether or not he exists.

 

caposkia wrote:

The problem here is your comparing physical causes to spiritual ones... That would be the "false analogy" Mouse has been trying so hard to pin me on.  Doctors only know physical or psychological causes and electricians are pretty much restricted to physical causes.  Out of the 2 an electrician would be the one to determine the demon problem, but probably wouldn't understand it as that unless they were gifted in that department.  They would determine outside interference if it was that consistent, but ultimately likely second guess themselves when they can't find anything that would cause it.    The problem with demonic interference, just like a thief, it's not consistent

I would expect both to be able to tell me that they can't solve the problem because it is spiritual. They are after all the ones who would most frequently witness the problem because they are the ones that people would call first. Whether or not they are capable of solving the problem is not relevant to whether or not they are capable of recognizing they cannot solve it. 

 

caposkia wrote:

there is evidence out there.  But this is why I ask people what they're looking for... In most cases, those who believe there is no evidence are not looking for the actual evidence...

That is why I am asking you where the evidence is because I don't care to spend my life looking for something when it probably doesn't exist. But since you say there is evidence out there, you must know where it is. Why are you keeping it so secret?

 

caposkia wrote:

the other wall that is hit is that the actual evidence either doesn't come from a source they find reliable or the evidence isn't sufficient for them to accept because they have bigger issues with the subject than just the topic at hand.  Typically it's that the evidence is not necessary to investigate if they can come up with another possible reason... There's a word for that and I forget, but the word summed up basically states that the most commonly accepted reason or cause isn't necessarily the correct reason or cause.  But if one can't consider all of the other possibilities as "possibilities" then they'll be satisfied with the most common reason or cause.  In most cases, it wouldn't make a difference, but in the case of diagnoses with doctors, it could be the difference between life and death... Spiritually speaking, the rammifications are just as severe.

Then show me some evidence and explain to me why I should consider it evidence of demons rather than the most likely cause. 

 

caposkia wrote:

not all churches are good

In my experience most of them are not. 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

let's see where we go with what i gave above

Was there evidence up there? I must have missed it. 

 

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
caposkia wrote:Putting that

caposkia wrote:

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 dealt 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?

Your words are very flattering...  Yes, that does make more sense.  However, your God could have avoided the whole mess by never allowing for the possibility of depression in the first place. Furthermore, you seem to be speaking as if I'm done with my 'tribulation' when I'm most certainly not...

Caposkia, assuming God is what you believe Him to be, it is my opinion that He deserves to be suffering hell right now. I'm very curious as to what your God has to say about my opinion. Will you pass my opinion along to Him and relay His response back to me? I'd really appreciate it. I'm being completely serious, by the way--I'd actually really like you to do that.

 

caposkia wrote:

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."

Whenever I relapse into depression my thought processes become distorted--sometimes for days at a time. Given I have such large spans of time where my "mind is weak", your hypothesis suggests I am likely to have been manipulated by at least one demon. How can I tell when it's a demon manipulating me and when it's just my own messed-up thoughts?

 

caposkia wrote:

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.

What keeps those people so vulnerable to abuse is their heavily restricted access to information--not their lack of belief in god(s). I mean, do you really think Beyond Saving finds such treatment acceptable?

 

caposkia wrote:

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.

You're exactly right: the motivation is NOT a lack of belief in god(s)--it is a desire to maintain power and control.

 


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

caposkia wrote:
really?   That's an analogy to you?

You're trying to apply a scientific process to a piece of fiction ! 

caposkia wrote:
Stop running, just answer it strait

I never said what you claim I'm "saying" in your question. Why should I explain something I never asked you to do ???

caposkia wrote:
or admit that your ideal proof is nonsensical

We already agreed it can only SEEM nonsensical/irrational/whatever next you think of.

caposkia wrote:
really, you want to tangent on this again?

Don't make mistakes like that, and I won't have to point them out. 

caposkia wrote:
You've done a great job up until now avoiding having to face answering directly to your attempt at discrediting believers.

I addressed every single weird or irrelevant thing you brought up, and repeatedly explained my reasoning behind dismissing your objections. "Believers" discredited themselves long before I came along. That's what makes this so easy. 

caposkia wrote:
 I'm bored... we're moving on... call it false all you want

You got caught with your hand in the fallacy cookie jar. You can either honestly admit your mistake and move on....or you can pout. 

caposkia wrote:
wow, I had to sift through a lot before I found the subject again. 

Meh, it's not really a lot when you take into account that I'm constantly having to repeat myself for most of it.

caposkia wrote:
K, your proof because you're claiming that if demons were real, then your ideal proof that I can't fake MUST be possible.

Ah, okay. Well, I did give you a choice of three, and let's not forget that we now agree on the "rules" used to determine acceptable proof. 

caposkia wrote:
.. that's what makes it your proof... i say demons are real and that your proof can't work,

How can you say that my proof "can't work" when we already agreed on the rules to determine what makes for acceptable proof in the first place ? 

caposkia wrote:
you say demons aren't real and that if they were your proof would work

What I said was that it's 100% accurate to say that there's no proof for demons. I explained my reasoning behind coming up with acceptable proof for their existence, and you agreed my "rules" for that made sense. 

caposkia wrote:
... so I need an explanation on why.

I don't understand. Why would you need "an explanation" when you already agreed that my rules for determining what is acceptable proof make sense to you ? 

Why would you need something explained to you when you already admitted it makes sense ? 

caposkia wrote:
yea, I've tried to explain why what you're asking for doesn't work, but we always get sidetracked for some reason...

Those days are behind us. I'm pretty sure you'll think twice before trying another false analogy, and now that you've agreed to my "rules", well, this is pretty much over.

caposkia wrote:
They are spirits, fallen angels.  you can't control them with a magic ring anymore than you can control a human with a magic ring.  It's always choice..  They are against God which would include His creation.

Cool story. Not proof, though.

caposkia wrote:
 What you are asking is nonsensical.

Again, we already agreed that the proof is going to SEEM nonsensical/irrational/whatever's next, until it's produced. 

caposkia wrote:
 You can't explain nonsense with nonsense,

And yet that is exactly what you just tried to do with your cool story. If you understand you shouldn't do it, then don't. It really is that simple. 

caposkia wrote:
but you also can't explain reality with nonsense.

Again, we already agreed it's going to SEEM like nonsense before someone produces it. 

caposkia wrote:
now you're changing it.. I thought it was "it would seem irrational before it's produced"?

And it will also seem nonsensical before it's produced. 

caposkia wrote:
If it's not nonsense, then you will have to explain how it works if demons are real.

Since you're the one who's convinced there is such a thing as acceptable proof, and you agreed with my rules for determining what makes for acceptable proof, you're the one who should know how to produce it.

Because if you don't, well, that would mean there is no such thing as acceptable proof. 

caposkia wrote:
.. an answer is not "false analogy" or "it will seem like X before it's produced" or "you can't explain nonsense with nonsense" or "read what I said" or anything else you want to repeat

Ah, it's good to see you remember everything you did wrong. But um...try to remember it at the right time, okay ? 

caposkia wrote:
... it is on you to explain how it would work be it that you came up with the claim.

And you agree with my "rules" for coming up with said claim, so you're once again asking me to explain something you already agreed makes sense. I really don't understand why you keep doing that. 

caposkia wrote:
 I clam demons are real, you claim we can control them if they are.

Here, once again, is what I actually claim : That it is 100% correct to say that there is no proof for demons. When asked what I would accept as acceptable proof I gave you the choice between producing an actual demon, a demon-controlling ring from the Solomon stories, or a demon-powered generator. 

caposkia wrote:
How?

The person who can answer that question, will be able to produce acceptable proof for demons. Since you can't answer it yourself, it's about time that you admitted that there is no proof for demons. 

caposkia wrote:
I have not dismissed alien stories, but I don't believe in them... I thought before we were talking about alien stories in general and not specifically from a religious sect, but either way... I research it before I dismiss it.
 

My point is you dismissed it without taking all their courses, or going through all the "information" they would consider essential for "understanding the truth" of their claims. 

And I'm telling you that's a very sensible approach to take, and I applaud you for it.

In fact, I'm taking that very same approach right now, with your "demon" claim. 

caposkia wrote:
and really?  you're going to try and claim that's not what you did?  Ok

Facts are facts. Sorry.

caposkia wrote:
So your workable definition is "there isn't one"  nice...

Um...no, I clearly said there is no workable definition.

caposkia wrote:
A statement that explains the meaning of the term Demon?  An evil spirit.

No, we were talking about "spirituality". 

caposkia wrote:
if you're going to keep giving me the runaround, at least try to keep up.

If you're going to keep throwing accusations at me, at least try to make them a little less vague. "You did, actually", doesn't give me much to go on. 

caposkia wrote:
Right, it still doesn't validate your claim as much as you want it to.

?

So apart from you agreeing with my rules for determining what makes for acceptable proof, what else do I need ? 

caposkia wrote:
.. Rules are rules, they don't validate any proof

We agreed on the rules that determine acceptable proof. I'm sorry, but that already happened. 

caposkia wrote:
, they only keep the study on track.

"Study" ?? What "study" ? 

caposkia wrote:
Your rules make sense, your avenue of proof doesn't

What do you mean "avenue of proof" ?? 

caposkia wrote:
You have only one aspect of proof you find acceptable.

And you agree that it's acceptable proof, let's try to keep that in mind. 

caposkia wrote:
.. that aspect is nonsense,

Nope, only going to seem like it until it's produced.

caposkia wrote:
as to which you claimed will seem so until it's provided.

Another claim of mine with which you agree. Let's keep that in mind as well. 

caposkia wrote:
.. So though you can't explain nonsense with nonsense, apparently nonsense has to be explained in order for it to not be nonsense.

No, nonsense needs acceptable proof in order for it not to be nonsense. We agreed what makes for acceptable proof, and we agreed it will seem nonsensical before it's produced. 

caposkia wrote:
I need you to explain your nonsense.

Again, it will only SEEM like nonsense before it's produced. You seem to have trouble understanding that, which is weird, since you already agreed with it.  

caposkia wrote:
.. telling me it's the only proof I can't fake is not explaining how it's possible and telling me it will seem like nonsense, irrational, etc before it's provided also will not help.  

?

But all those things you just mentioned are facts. Facts you don't even argue with !

If facts won't "help" you, then what do you want from me ? Lies ?

Look, I'm sorry, but there is no way out of this for you. You will either produce the proof we both agree is acceptable, or you will admit there is none. 

Heck, you're almost there, or didn't you notice that you almost admitted that acceptable proof for demons isn't possible ? 

Keep going, you can do this !

 


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 205
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I'm already

caposkia wrote:
I'm already going in circles with Mouse.  i don't need to do that with you too.  I feel you're a bit smarter than that.

Sorry, but I have no vanity you can appeal to. And you're not going in circles with Mouse, no matter how much you'd like to.

You are, as he said, nearing the finish line.

 

caposkia wrote:
Right... I've explained how they aren't and yet, here we are

No, you simply ignored the explanation of why they were just that. Your "proof for cars", "proof for demons" false analogy is still there for anyone to read.

 

caposkia wrote:
I even changed a word just in case mouse decided to use a different excuse than he was because I realized if it was going to be false at all, that would have to be it.

No, no words were changed in the false analogy I just mentioned. And once again, simply accusing Mouse of using "excuses" will not make it so. 

 

caposkia wrote:
that statement was a fact you can research yourself... start with google

And my statement was a fact that addressed yours. Start with common sense.

 

caposkia wrote:
well, it kind of does actually... if you had read the Bible, then you'd know that what you ask is nonsensical.

As I already explained, what you get out of the bible is a matter of interpretation, so it is completely unable to label anything "nonsensical". So no, it "kind of" doesn't.

 

caposkia wrote:
I will support my belief regardless whether I suffer from it or not.

That was not the question. But any chance to boast, I guess..

 

caposkia wrote:
Those who suffer from it aren't suffering from the existence of the belief, but from the ignorance of those who dispense the abuse.

The abuse for which the belief gives them the excuse, or the very idea and the motivation in the first place. A belief which you support, so I will ask again :

You will take no responsibility at all, for what someone does after you convinced them that "demons" and "possession" aren't nonsense at all ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
No, I am trumpeting support for my belief in the existence of the God of the Bible and with that the understanding that demons exist.  I do not support those destructive beliefs

Yes, you do. You just repeated them.

 

caposkia wrote:
and I try to denounce them and separate them from the truth of what I follow.  

This "truth of what you follow" is enough to cause a tragedy, as the very example you brought forward yourself proves. 

And once again, you will only denounce AFTER the tragedy has occurred, and even then, you STILL defended an obvious case of abuse as a "true" "demonic possession". 

 

caposkia wrote:
You on the other hand are doing a great job at reconnecting them to the same belief.

Again, a simple lie. The connection is already there, made by the people actually committing those crimes. 

 

caposkia wrote:
In turn you might be causing more crimes against believers for those who think the same way as other abusers.

People taking their sick relatives to a doctor instead of an exorcist, and not beating their own children to death just because some priest tells them their child is "possessed", THAT would be a "crime" to you ????????

 

caposkia wrote:
Like eye-witness accounts?

If that is the first thing you think of when I ask you to try facts, then I have to ask you again : How do you keep from believing EVERYTHING ?

 

caposkia wrote:
no, I use "includes" with you so you can't BS your way around the idea that it might not include medicine

I will repeat, why would you use such a vague term in a critical situation like that ??? If you say "include" people will ask "so what else ?", and if someone needs urgent medical help, you would be wasting critical time ! Why would you DO that ???

 

caposkia wrote:
What is your reliable source for this?

No, again, I am asking YOU for such a reliable source. I will repeat, AGAIN : Please show me a reliable source that reports something positive that could not have occurred without belief in "demons" or "possession".

 

caposkia wrote:
 Lemme guess, it's not a source that would likely report such a case right?

If you're assuming that a reliable source wouldn't report such a case, if it existed, then I would have to say you guess wrong.

 

caposkia wrote:
 My friend turning from a violent gang member to a devout Christian who has a passion for world missions.  He became someone who wants to help those he used to hurt.  There is nothing else in his life that can explain the change that took place within him.

If that was even remotely true, then it would be impossible for an atheist to make such a change in his life. And since that is not the case, your claim is nonsense, and that is not what I asked for.

Try again. 

 

caposkia wrote:
 no, it's a valid point if what you say is true

No, it is not a valid point, since the standard used by the written test to evaluate the interpretation of said religious text, is itself based on yet another interpretation of the same religious text. One interpretation evaluates another. 

 

caposkia wrote:
 how is that me eager to discuss something else?

By continuously trying to bring up abuse in general, while we are discussing the very specific abuse caused by this very specific religious belief.

 

caposkia wrote:
 Are you eager to discuss something else.

That is a strange question to ask of someone who just had to remind you what we're actually discussing here. 

 

caposkia wrote:
.. like trying to blame me for attempting a sidetrack?

Again, I do not need to "blame" you for something you actually did.

 

caposkia wrote:
If this was already debunked, i dont' think this site would exist

Actually, if this wasn't already debunked, there would be no such thing as modern medicine. 

 

caposkia wrote:
Nothing i have asked you was designed to lead you away from what we're discussing.
 

Then please explain why you keep brining up abuse in general, when we're discussing something else entirely, and why you keep bothering Mouse with your "spirituality" ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
though I'm sure you'll still believe what you want about that
 

No, when there are facts, there is no need for "belief".

 

caposkia wrote:
oh yes, ... I-I mean... ...............
 

?

 

caposkia wrote:
mouse tries to use that as an excuse and your'e still stuck on it.

Again : A fact is not an "excuse". 

 

caposkia wrote:
yet I reread everything I post just to make sure you or mouse can't twist my words into something I didn't say... why?  because Mouse has been trying very hard to do that very thing.

Once again, completely untrue. Mouse quoted you verbatim. 

 

caposkia wrote:
apparently then none of us know much about the case, even with links, you both still try to add to it..

Please explain how, since I had to bring all these facts to your attention (facts you either ignored on purpose, or were simply ignorant of), I am now suddenly counted among those who didn't "know much about the case" ?????????

 

caposkia wrote:
oh right... an example.

?? An example of what ??

 

caposkia wrote:
physical abuse when the report states as clear as day that death was caused by starvation and dehydration... the report previously mentioned the patient refused themselves to eat and drink

???????? 

Do I have to take you through all this AGAIN ?????

What the hell is the matter with you ? Her parents made her kneel on BROKEN KNEES !! 

 

caposkia wrote:
yet, I'm not the one claiming his "acceptable proof" is possible if demons exist..

You're the one who agrees that what he asks for qualifies as acceptable proof, and you have admitted you understand such proof will only seem impossible before it is produced, which it hasn't been yet. 

 

caposkia wrote:
He is, which means I need an explanation as to why that's possible if demons exist by the one claiming that it's a valid means of proof

And you AGREE with him, so why would you even need an explanation ??? 

 

caposkia wrote:
providing every case?  no

?????

I should have allowed you to bring up cases that weren't reported by reliable sources ??? What use would that be ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
how many times have you asked?  before or after I gave you some examples that you tried to explain your way out of?

Again, there was nothing there for me to explain my way out of. You did not bring what I asked. You gave me an example of something that occurs WITHOUT a belief in "demons" or "possession". 

 

caposkia wrote:
 You have tried to reason other possibilities,

No, there was no "trying". I stated a fact that completely invalidates your claim. 

 

caposkia wrote:
 but it doesnt' mean that the change actually could have occured with those other possibilities.

Again, the facts say otherwise.

 

caposkia wrote:
 .. unless you were a doctor with that particular persons psych file, you could not logically produce that conclusion.

Oh really ? Then please do link me to the "psych file" of your friend. Particularly the part where a belief in "demons" and "possession" is named as the sole and only motivation for his change of heart. 

Or have you now suddenly changed your mind about the necessity of such a "file" ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
regardless of what the cases have, everything we have discussed here has come down to "very little".

"Regardless of what the cases have" ??????? The facts those cases report are essential to what is being discussed her ! It is not my fault you keep ignoring this.

 

caposkia wrote:
Notice I mentioned everything WE HAVE DISCUSSED HERE.

Again, it is not my fault that you keep ignoring these facts, no matter how many times I bring them to your attention. 

 

caposkia wrote:
because I do my homework first, i dont' just blindly conclude that the most common reason is the right one

No, not the "most common" reason ! Why pick a supernatural explanation when there's a perfectly good rational one ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
Ah, I see your angle.

No, you don't. You really don't. You did not even answer the question. 

 

caposkia wrote:
 I wouldn't have planted the belief in her head.

I did not ask if you would have done that. I asked if you DID do that, would the resulting tragedy be enough to convince you of the toxic nature of your belief, or would you deny any responsibility and simply go on spreading your "belief" in "demons" and "possession" ?

 

caposkia wrote:
.. rather I would have deduced without discussing it with her whether she had a demon or not, then approached the issue from there.

And since you are STILL defending this case as being a genuine case of "demonic possession", you would have said she had a "real" demon, which would place you in exactly the same position as the person who actually did that, so please answer the above question. 

 

caposkia wrote:
that's your choice... again, I follow your lead

"Follow my lead" ? You keep saying that. I don't think you know what it means. 

Again, what we are "following" here, or should be "following", are a still ongoing list of tragedies, inspired by your insipid supernatural belief in "demons" and "possession". 

 

 

caposkia wrote:
really... even though I've explained each thing Iv'e agreed to does not validate in any way his reasoning to be rational?

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

So you want to both agree with his reasoning, and call it irrational at the same time ???

You really are a very strange fellow indeed.

 


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

I hope not, I don't particularly feel like teaching elementary school. The bible purports to relay the story of a particular period of history- it is claiming that what it says happened, actually happened. Evidence, is information collected independent of the bible that suggests that the events in the bible actually did or did not happen. If I tell you "I ate lamb chops for lunch", that is a claim. Evidence that might support that claim would be the dirty plate, leftover bones, that there are no more lamb chops in my freezer etc. The bible makes a claim about what happened, it is not in and of itself evidence. And since we are talking about a single claim from the bible (that demons exist), just because the bible says they exist is not evidence because I do not recognize the bible as an authority. If demons are real, one would expect evidence of their existence completely independent of the bible. 

which is why we may have another topic to discuss first.  I hope you don't feel like teaching elementary school.  We'd likely get nowhere.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

A few websites for you to check out on the basics of reasons and evidence. 

http://redschoolhouse.org/drupal/book/export/html/92

http://mental.psych.northwestern.edu/publications/explanation_evidence.pdf

Glad you linked those... the first link makes a valid point; "evidence that your readers accept" basically meaning evidence isn't always evidence regardless if it's evidence or not.  What?  well, I've been trying to figure out what my readers here would accept as evidence... They've given me their take, but now I'm stuck with a new problem.   How do I explain to my readers that evidence they're looking for isn't realistic?  Also, how do I find new ground that might be more realistic with those same readers?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Nonsense. Solid evidence works whenever a person is willing to make their conclusion based on reality. Whether you want to believe something or not is completely irrelevant, I believe many things that I would prefer not to believe. So give me some evidence. Not explanations, not theories and not claims. Evidence please. Because the only reason I do not believe in demons is because I have not seen a shred of evidence that they exist. 

this is exactly what i've been trying to get at... you want some sort of lab test, which depends on physical means for proof.   How do you expect to get physical results when studying something metaphysical?

Beyond Saving wrote:

You went all crazy when Anonymouse suggested what kind of evidence and I don't care to travel down that road. Just give me whatever you have.

well, let's see, personal experience and eye-witness accounts are more claims rather than evidence... stories from history are just that and no history can be considered evidence, congruent claims are still just claims no matter how ironic.  Physical damage caused by demons are typically explained away by other means... be it that a demon has to use physical means to hurt in a physical way for physical evidence, that physical mean is usually to blame and not the source...  Also change in mental state, though typically has no one psycological answer still is explained away by a laundry list of psychological disorders and thus a non-believer would assume many things went randomly wrong with the person all of a sudden and/or the change though miraculous still had an unknown outside source...  The Bible falls under the history category...

Considering all of that.  We're running out of means of evidence for you.  I guess it would come down to you experiencing a demon first hand... that would not be a realistic means of proof and likely demons would not cooperate in a controlled environment... so I'm stumped... what else is there as far as evidence that you would accept if in fact a metaphysical existence actually is reality?  

The only other approach i can think of that has been done and can be retested is if you truly from the bottom of your heart seek out God and start walking in His ways.  The changes that happen in you would be the proof and the process you go through would allow you to see the evidences of a metaphysical existence.  This would require personal guidance as well as solo exploration.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Ok, we have established that we have a lot of people who make claims. So what? Claims /= evidence. As far as your claim that people change due to their belief in god I am not disputing. I agree that beliefs can change people, but that says nothing about whether or not the belief is factual. People are changed by false beliefs all the time.

But usually not for the better

Beyond Saving wrote:

The logical thing to do is to look at the evidence and believe that the most probable explanation that is consistent with the evidence is true. 

though as I was saying, that's not always the case, so should we rather be wrong and assume the most probable explanation is the evidence, or should we investigate futher to make sure the conclusion is sound?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Exactly who is at fault varies by specific situation. 

agreed

Beyond Saving wrote:

Maybe we do, maybe we don't. Educating entire civilizations is an immense task and it becomes exceedingly difficult to educate people who do not wish to be educated and cling to their local superstitions. 

If they do not wish to be educated, then it becomes their problem, not everyone elses, but there are milliions out there who would welcome the education and yet are not getting it... And we do throw out tons of food, you can research that yourself.  

the task may be immense, but if we had done it from day 1, the task wouldn't be so bad... the longer we wait, the more immense the task becasue the larger the problem becomes

all in all, it still comes back to people being the problem... which was my original point.

Beyond Saving wrote:

There probably are not enough resources for everyone in the world to live like you and me for very long. To feed everyone? We could theoretically get that done at least. Yes people make food, at least in order to have enough food to feed the whole world. Going out to your backyard garden and planting a few seeds and caring for the plant isn't going to produce enough. World food production requires man made chemicals, genetically engineered plants, modern tractors and modern preservation methods- all man made. 

There are studies that would dispute that.  This link shows the simple math aspect of the studies:  http://true-progress.com/the-earth-can-feed-clothe-and-house-12-billion-people-306.htm

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Of course humans cause the problems because there is no god. It would be ridiculous of me to blame a being that I do not believe exists. That would be like blaming demons for my light going out. 

My original point was that humans were the problem... but I disagree that they're the problem BECAUSE there is no God, rather it could be because they deny God or ignore God's advice and Laws.  Though then again, if you're pushing God away, I guess for them, there really is no God, because Hes' not welcome there.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yes, really. No, kings and royals did not starve because they got first dibs on the food. When there wasn't enough to go around it was peasants that starved first. Although, for some civilizations, the entire people starved to death including the privileged classes. I would highly recommend that you read Collapse by Jared Diamond where he details how various primitive cultures collapsed and in some cases went completely extinct. Lack of food due to climate change, poor farming practices, drought, floods, fires etc. has been one of the main causes in history. He lays out several case studies and is one of the most fascinating history books I have ever read.  

http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Societies-Choose-Succeed-Revised/dp/0143117009

(mods please edit link to give the site $$) 

I supported the idea that there were famines in history... that would include what you added above, but as you said, royals got first dibs and the first to starve were those lowest on the totem pole.  Thanks for the link though.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Are any of those effects observable by anyone other than you?

They've been observed by millions, so... yes.  if it was just me, I think I'd be going to therapy.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Not interested in god, just demons for now. 

same topic.. be it that God is the creator of all, you would understand why I brought God into the picture.  Demons and God are similar beings in the sense that they exist metaphysically.  the effects are also seen in similar manner

Beyond Saving wrote:

Oh really? Are you a psychologist? From what I have read psychologists have all sorts of rational explanations for why people change. 

I concentrated in psychology and work in the field of social emotional disorders, but this is not about me.  Of course they have all kinds of explanations, becasue they all exist... but one explanation does not negate another.  Psychology deduces the most likely cause and treats from there.   When that treatment doesn't work, they recheck the conclusion of cause... many times that conclusion changes if the results aren't as expected.  Sometimes it takes years of digging and sometimes they never get it.  None of that in any way counts out the possibility of demonic influence.

Beyond Saving wrote:

You obviously haven't researched very many religions then. There have been hundreds of religions that have nothing to do with the Abrahamic god.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions

Here is a decent list to start with. You will note that it conveniently separates the Abrahamic religions from all the others. 

Not directly maybe, but if you dig far enough, the root of the tree typically goes back to that origin... not to say erronius followings and religions haven't just sprung out of nowhere, they have... but that does not discount the claim.  IT's all the ones i've researched... I've researched mostly the larger ones and not the subcategories and random small community religions that pop up and dissapear throughout history.  

That link is just a list and doesn't go into the history and origins... I woudl have to link each one to it's own study and deduce from there... that would be quite a task... I've been studying them for years and have many years ahead.  

If you're looking at a good summary of that history, the book "The Next Christiandom" does a good job of it... though the main focus is the future of Christianity, the author felt it important to look at the history of religion in general... again that is not exhaustive either and talks about the origin and migration habits that have branched off the origin and helped the origin spread.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

So all you have is explanations that seem to make sense to you. Do you have any evidence? I don't care to argue about whether or not people believed in the Abrahamic god or not, it makes no difference to me and their beliefs have no bearing on whether or not he exists.

Just history on that topic.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I would expect both to be able to tell me that they can't solve the problem because it is spiritual. They are after all the ones who would most frequently witness the problem because they are the ones that people would call first. Whether or not they are capable of solving the problem is not relevant to whether or not they are capable of recognizing they cannot solve it. 

I agree with you here completely... and herein lies the problem... anyone who is a claimed expert in their field is going to have an extremely difficult time admitting when they are not capable of solving a problem that allegedly is happening in their field of expertise. 

Also, if they're not believers themselves, how could they possibly conclude a spiritual cause?  They would be racking their brains trying to figure out what they're missing and never find it.

Beyond Saving wrote:

That is why I am asking you where the evidence is because I don't care to spend my life looking for something when it probably doesn't exist. But since you say there is evidence out there, you must know where it is. Why are you keeping it so secret?

I'm not keeping it secret, but just like one of your links above explained... I need to find what evidence works for you.  There's a lot of it out there, but I'm not going to spend my time going through each aspect of it just for you to shoot it down because you can't see it as evidence... What you think might work might not, but then I will tell you and explain why.  Then I would hope we could go on from there and find something else that might be possible.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Then show me some evidence and explain to me why I should consider it evidence of demons rather than the most likely cause. 

This is why I thought we needed to go onto something else first... How do I convince you that something was the cause of a demon if you can't even accept the possibility of a metaphysical existence?

Beyond Saving wrote:

In my experience most of them are not. 

sadly that might be true

 


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

blacklight915 wrote:

Your words are very flattering...  Yes, that does make more sense.  However, your God could have avoided the whole mess by never allowing for the possibility of depression in the first place. Furthermore, you seem to be speaking as if I'm done with my 'tribulation' when I'm most certainly not...

I was just repeating what I understood that scripture to be saying...

IN no way was I suggesting you were done with your 'tribulation'... that's not how it works and that's not what it was saying... rather through your continued tribulation, your character grows stronger.

God could have avoided the whole mess, but then we also wouldn't be able to have choice.  I can't account for the original causes of imbalances such as this, but problems by choices are the likely cause as deduced by the  theory of the butterfly effect.

blacklight915 wrote:

Caposkia, assuming God is what you believe Him to be, it is my opinion that He deserves to be suffering hell right now. I'm very curious as to what your God has to say about my opinion. Will you pass my opinion along to Him and relay His response back to me? I'd really appreciate it. I'm being completely serious, by the way--I'd actually really like you to do that.

Ok.  I prayed about it before replying.  Immediately what came to mind is that He did... He suffered and died for you on the cross.  He went through a physical and emotional pain greater than any one of us could possibly understand so that we may live.  

He also referred me to the time Job challenged God in the same manner... the beginning of chapter 40 of the book of Job.  https://www.bible.com/bible/100/job.40.nasb.. the whole response starts on chapter 38, but it's long.  

blacklight915 wrote:
 

Whenever I relapse into depression my thought processes become distorted--sometimes for days at a time. Given I have such large spans of time where my "mind is weak", your hypothesis suggests I am likely to have been manipulated by at least one demon. How can I tell when it's a demon manipulating me and when it's just my own messed-up thoughts?

That's a tough question.  There's a lot more to it than the short answer I can give here, but the short answer would be when your thoughts turn to something that could be harmful to you or others, that's likely not you.  If there's a voice telling you to do something that you know is not ok, that's also an indication.    Feeling you have are just that, feelings.  Demons will take advantage of feelings and tell you negative things to further steep you in negative feelings. 

also, it's important for you to understand this... just because a demon might be manipulating you doesn't mean you're possessed... You're likely not.  They can manipulate you without being in you.  Like whispering in your ear.  The best you can do in those moments is pray for protection and guidance from God.  

f you feel there's a demon constantly bothering you, the solution typically is spiritual guidance, not exorcism...

blacklight915 wrote:

What keeps those people so vulnerable to abuse is their heavily restricted access to information--not their lack of belief in god(s). I mean, do you really think Beyond Saving finds such treatment acceptable?

I dont' find that acceptable... if I understood you correctly.. I don't think he would either.  '

it's again, probably power and control.  when working with such beings, they can manipulate anyone


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

caposkia wrote:

Glad you linked those... the first link makes a valid point; "evidence that your readers accept" basically meaning evidence isn't always evidence regardless if it's evidence or not.  What?  well, I've been trying to figure out what my readers here would accept as evidence... They've given me their take, but now I'm stuck with a new problem.   How do I explain to my readers that evidence they're looking for isn't realistic?  Also, how do I find new ground that might be more realistic with those same readers?

You have to understand that the claim you are making is extraordinary and as such is going to require extraordinary evidence. If your claim was something mundane like "I ate eggs for breakfast" I would probably be willing to accept your word for it because it is an extremely plausible claim. When you are making a claim about something that is highly improbable, people are going to expect more extensive evidence. Now I am as guilty as the next person at just throwing my knowledge out there without any evidence, for example that random information about the origins of psychiatric drugs is just random trivia that I happened to know and thought it applied to the conversation so I put it out there, but didn't bother providing evidence for it as my claim was neither extraordinary nor vital to the conversation.

Recently, I did make a rather extraordinary claim on this site. http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33861 I claimed that it could be possible to use a 3D printer to print human tissue, organs and in the future maybe entire limbs. So to support that claim I linked to several scientific journal articles which include detailed descriptions, pictures and each one references dozens (in one over 120) other similar works and all of them subjected to peer review. For the extreme skeptic who doesn't view such journals as an authority, which laboratory the experiments are being conducted in is clearly listed at the end of the article and you can easily call them up and ask for a tour- very few people take that much interest in what these scientists are doing they are more than happy to talk to you about it in most cases. Or for the die hards, you could even repeat the experiment yourself and see if you get the same results.

Now you are making an extraordinary claim and your evidence amounts to stories that you openly admit have explanations that are mundane and the only argument is that the most likely explanation might not be the actual explanation. I'm sure even you can see how that is not particularly persuasive?    

 

caposkia wrote:

this is exactly what i've been trying to get at... you want some sort of lab test, which depends on physical means for proof.   How do you expect to get physical results when studying something metaphysical?

You are the one who claims that these demons have physical manifestations, so even if you can't provide physical proof of a demon itself, you should be able to provide physical evidence of its manifestations and evidence that they are not caused by other physical explanations. 

 

caposkia wrote:

well, let's see, personal experience and eye-witness accounts are more claims rather than evidence... stories from history are just that and no history can be considered evidence, congruent claims are still just claims no matter how ironic.  Physical damage caused by demons are typically explained away by other means... be it that a demon has to use physical means to hurt in a physical way for physical evidence, that physical mean is usually to blame and not the source...  Also change in mental state, though typically has no one psycological answer still is explained away by a laundry list of psychological disorders and thus a non-believer would assume many things went randomly wrong with the person all of a sudden and/or the change though miraculous still had an unknown outside source...  The Bible falls under the history category...

 

Considering all of that.  We're running out of means of evidence for you.  I guess it would come down to you experiencing a demon first hand... that would not be a realistic means of proof and likely demons would not cooperate in a controlled environment... so I'm stumped... what else is there as far as evidence that you would accept if in fact a metaphysical existence actually is reality?  

 

Simple, show me evidence that your method of exorcism and praying to god cures certain physical problems better than medicine.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

The only other approach i can think of that has been done and can be retested is if you truly from the bottom of your heart seek out God and start walking in His ways.  The changes that happen in you would be the proof and the process you go through would allow you to see the evidences of a metaphysical existence.  This would require personal guidance as well as solo exploration.

Walking in his ways? No thanks. I enjoy drinking, gambling, multiple sex partners and generally living my life in hedonistic sin. Which I have been assured by many a theist that my life is "empty" and that I am not "really" happy. But when I look at their lives compared to mine, I am having a lot more fun and have few regrets so if this is "empty" and unhappy, I'll take it. Why would I want to change when I already enjoy life far more than most people I observe?

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

The logical thing to do is to look at the evidence and believe that the most probable explanation that is consistent with the evidence is true. 

though as I was saying, that's not always the case, so should we rather be wrong and assume the most probable explanation is the evidence, or should we investigate futher to make sure the conclusion is sound?

We should always continue investigating and when we find evidence that makes an alternative more probable than what we currently believe we should change our beliefs. That is how science works. But until you have evidence that supports an improbable conclusion, there is no reason to believe it. 

 

caposkia wrote:

If they do not wish to be educated, then it becomes their problem, not everyone elses, but there are milliions out there who would welcome the education and yet are not getting it... And we do throw out tons of food, you can research that yourself.

Well as humans some of us tend to have empathy even for those who are willfully ignorant. That is why many people spend their lives trying to convince people in Nigeria to use condoms to control the AIDS epidemic, even though the culture remains highly resistant to the use of condoms. I never disputed that we throw out tons of food, just pointed out that production is not our current problem.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

the task may be immense, but if we had done it from day 1, the task wouldn't be so bad... the longer we wait, the more immense the task becasue the larger the problem becomes

People have been working on it from day 1. We benefit now in that we have far more technologies available to us to actually help solve the problem. As a percentage of world population, the number of people suffering from malnutrition is about half of what it was in the 1970's (the farthest back UN stats go). Sure, still way too many but the solution remains stabilization of violent areas and the introduction of modern farming practices- not prayer. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

There probably are not enough resources for everyone in the world to live like you and me for very long. To feed everyone? We could theoretically get that done at least. Yes people make food, at least in order to have enough food to feed the whole world. Going out to your backyard garden and planting a few seeds and caring for the plant isn't going to produce enough. World food production requires man made chemicals, genetically engineered plants, modern tractors and modern preservation methods- all man made. 

There are studies that would dispute that.  This link shows the simple math aspect of the studies:  http://true-progress.com/the-earth-can-feed-clothe-and-house-12-billion-people-306.htm

That doesn't dispute what I said at all. In fact, it confirms it. They are basing their math on using "high productivity" grain and farming practices, which means modern farm equipment, fertilizers and genetically modified plants. Using what god supposedly provided us would be organic farming which has significantly lower crop yields. Studies have indicated that organic farming result in yields that are 11-35% lower per acre than conventional farming. (depending on the crop and soil. Areas with great soil have closer to conventional yields while areas with poor soil (most of Earth) have much lower yields)  http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nature11069  

This was in response to your question

 

caposkia wrote:

Do you really believe that the resources aren't here?  Do you believe people make food or do they just plant the seed and care for the plant?

 

My point was that what god supposedly gave us is not sufficient to feed the planet. The basics of planting a seed, watering it and letting sunlight do its thing is not enough. We have to create artificial fertilizers, modify the genetics of the plant and do an awful lot of making in order to have a viable food system for our species. So yes, humans make food because god didn't do it and the resources weren't here until we made them. God did not create nature well enough to provide humanity with our necessities- humans have managed to modify it enough.   

 

caposkia wrote:

My original point was that humans were the problem... but I disagree that they're the problem BECAUSE there is no God, rather it could be because they deny God or ignore God's advice and Laws.  Though then again, if you're pushing God away, I guess for them, there really is no God, because Hes' not welcome there.

Yet whether or not a person goes hungry has nothing to do with whether or not they are "pushing" god away. So to my original question, why thank god for food? He doesn't make it, he doesn't provide it, he didn't do anything.

 

caposkia wrote:

I supported the idea that there were famines in history... that would include what you added above, but as you said, royals got first dibs and the first to starve were those lowest on the totem pole.  Thanks for the link though.  

That was my only point. It is absurd to claim that god provided sufficient resources to feed the world when throughout most of human history there were not enough resources to feed the entire world. 

 

caposkia wrote:

I concentrated in psychology and work in the field of social emotional disorders, but this is not about me.  Of course they have all kinds of explanations, becasue they all exist... but one explanation does not negate another.  Psychology deduces the most likely cause and treats from there.   When that treatment doesn't work, they recheck the conclusion of cause... many times that conclusion changes if the results aren't as expected.  Sometimes it takes years of digging and sometimes they never get it.  None of that in any way counts out the possibility of demonic influence.

Nor does any of it make the possibility of demonic influence more likely. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

You obviously haven't researched very many religions then. There have been hundreds of religions that have nothing to do with the Abrahamic god.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions

Here is a decent list to start with. You will note that it conveniently separates the Abrahamic religions from all the others. 

Not directly maybe, but if you dig far enough, the root of the tree typically goes back to that origin... not to say erronius followings and religions haven't just sprung out of nowhere, they have... but that does not discount the claim.  IT's all the ones i've researched... I've researched mostly the larger ones and not the subcategories and random small community religions that pop up and dissapear throughout history.  

That link is just a list and doesn't go into the history and origins... I woudl have to link each one to it's own study and deduce from there... that would be quite a task... I've been studying them for years and have many years ahead.  

If you're looking at a good summary of that history, the book "The Next Christiandom" does a good job of it... though the main focus is the future of Christianity, the author felt it important to look at the history of religion in general... again that is not exhaustive either and talks about the origin and migration habits that have branched off the origin and helped the origin spread.  

Obviously the "major" religions all branch from the Abrahamic god. The Europeans conquered the world and nothing spreads religion like an empire. Since the major empires were Christian or Muslim, they spread their religion. Religions that developed independent of European influence are completely unrelated. All of the pre-Euro American religions, Indian religions and Asian religions have nothing in common with the Abrahamic god and either have multiple deities or none at all. Monotheism has gained dominance in the world the same way and for the same reason that the American dollar has dominance in the world financial markets. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Also, if they're not believers themselves, how could they possibly conclude a spiritual cause?  They would be racking their brains trying to figure out what they're missing and never find it.

So where are all the journal articles on these problems that they can't find solutions to? Name an uncured disease and I can find hundreds of articles of doctors specifying the experiments they tried that failed completely and those that show some promise.  

 

caposkia wrote:

I'm not keeping it secret, but just like one of your links above explained... I need to find what evidence works for you.  There's a lot of it out there, but I'm not going to spend my time going through each aspect of it just for you to shoot it down because you can't see it as evidence... What you think might work might not, but then I will tell you and explain why.  Then I would hope we could go on from there and find something else that might be possible.

I just want a comparative study for starters that demonstrates exorcisms are an effective treatment. None has been done. Why? If it is real, why has not a single exorcist bothered doing a basic before and after test comparing a treated group of people, to a control group and then to a placebo group? It is standard practice for every other medical technique or drug.

  

caposkia wrote:

This is why I thought we needed to go onto something else first... How do I convince you that something was the cause of a demon if you can't even accept the possibility of a metaphysical existence?

I accept it as a possibility. I just consider it highly improbable because there is no 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


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

caposkia wrote:

rather through your continued tribulation, your character grows stronger

Except that depression makes me emotionally fragile and vulnerable...  not to mention so much more statistically likely to commit suicide...

 

caposkia wrote:

God could have avoided the whole mess, but then we also wouldn't be able to have choice.

Why do so many Christians assume choice and free will are automatically good? Just as a start: I would prefer people not have the free will to murder, rape, or torture each other.

 

caposkia wrote:

He went through a physical and emotional pain greater than any one of us could possibly understand

There are many, many people who have suffered at least as much physical and emotional pain as Jesus allegedly did on the cross. I will be happy to provide examples if you so desire--I already have a few good ones in mind.

 

caposkia wrote:

He also referred me to the time Job challenged God in the same manner... the beginning of chapter 40 of the book of Job.  https://www.bible.com/bible/100/job.40.nasb.. the whole response starts on chapter 38, but it's long.

Why would your God refer you to something He knows I've already read and found quite...unsatisfactory. God's response to Job is basically "you have no right to question Me because I am so much more powerful and accomplished than you". Unless you think "might makes right", I really don't see how God's response justifies His actions.

 

caposkia wrote:

when your thoughts turn to something that could be harmful to you or others, that's likely not you.  If there's a voice telling you to do something that you know is not ok, that's also an indication.

It sounds like you think demons are quite active. I mean, thoughts of self-harm are incredibly common among people with depression. While I've never experienced voices telling me to do bad things, I believe "hearing voices" is quite common for some of the many schizo- disorders.

 

caposkia wrote:

it's again, probably power and control

That's correct. Do we agree, then, that the cause/motivation for these abuses is NOT a lack of belief in god(s)?

 


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

Anonymouse wrote:

Why should I explain something I never asked you to do ???

You are asking me to do it though.. You're asking me to prove to you demons are real in a very specific manner.  So I need you to explain how it's possible if demons were real.

Anonymouse wrote:

We already agreed it can only SEEM nonsensical/irrational/whatever next you think of.

we never agreed it can "ONLY" seem... rather that it "can" seem, yet that does not suggest all possible avenues of evidence to be possible

Anonymouse wrote:

How can you say that my proof "can't work" when we already agreed on the rules to determine what makes for acceptable proof in the first place ? 

those rules are a basis, they don't describe how your proof would work.. btw, it's been a while.. why don't you remind me the 3 possibilities for proof and number them... that way I can refer back to this post next time we tangent so far I forget some.  

Anonymouse wrote:

What I said was that it's 100% accurate to say that there's no proof for demons. I explained my reasoning behind coming up with acceptable proof for their existence, and you agreed my "rules" for that made sense. 

now you're mashing your reasoning... you did say that it was 100% accurate to say there's no proof for demons... your reasoning behind coming up with accetpable proof was a different post and that reasoning was "you can't fake it"... which isn't justifying it, only clarifying why your choices were so limited...  

Your "rules" were jsut that... they were not again justification of your expected proof and/or an explanation of how that would be possible if demons were real.

Anonymouse wrote:

I don't understand. Why would you need "an explanation" when you already agreed that my rules for determining what is acceptable proof make sense to you ? 

Your "rules" were just that... they were not again justification of your expected proof and/or an explanattion of how that woudl be possible if demons were real.

Anonymouse wrote:

Those days are behind us. I'm pretty sure you'll think twice before trying another false analogy, and now that you've agreed to my "rules", well, this is pretty much over.

be it that I debunked your false analogy excuse... nah.

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 You can't explain nonsense with nonsense,

And yet that is exactly what you just tried to do with your cool story. If you understand you shouldn't do it, then don't. It really is that simple. 

caposkia wrote:
but you also can't explain reality with nonsense.

Again, we already agreed it's going to SEEM like nonsense before someone produces it. 

caposkia wrote:
now you're changing it.. I thought it was "it would seem irrational before it's produced"?

And it will also seem nonsensical before it's produced. 

do you see how you contradicted yourself here???

Anonymouse wrote:

Because if you don't, well, that would mean there is no such thing as acceptable proof. 

you said it, not me

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
.. an answer is not "false analogy" or "it will seem like X before it's produced" or "you can't explain nonsense with nonsense" or "read what I said" or anything else you want to repeat

Ah, it's good to see you remember everything you did wrong. But um...try to remember it at the right time, okay ? 

I was repeating your alleged answers to the question... sorry that wasn't clear here.

Anonymouse wrote:

Here, once again, is what I actually claim : That it is 100% correct to say that there is no proof for demons. When asked what I would accept as acceptable proof I gave you the choice between producing an actual demon, a demon-controlling ring from the Solomon stories, or a demon-powered generator. 

Ah, ok, there's the three again...

a demon controlling ring... producing an actual demon.. or demon-powered generator... and... how do you propose these would be possible if demons were real?  This is what I need from you... I never claimed any of these things were possible.

But yes, I claim demons are real.  So if they really are... you must explain how those would be possible in order for me to show you that proof because again, I never claimed any of that was possible.    

Anonymouse wrote:

My point is you dismissed it without taking all their courses, or going through all the "information" they would consider essential for "understanding the truth" of their claims. 

And I'm telling you that's a very sensible approach to take, and I applaud you for it.

In fact, I'm taking that very same approach right now, with your "demon" claim. 

I've noticed... but instead of rationally dismissing it, like I would.. and I told you that i have not completely dismissed any of it, you have decided to take the ignorance approach by saying that you don't need to understand because you already know.

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
So your workable definition is "there isn't one"  nice...

Um...no, I clearly said there is no workable definition.

there isn't one... there is no workable definition... same difference

Anonymouse wrote:

So apart from you agreeing with my rules for determining what makes for acceptable proof, what else do I need ? 

to explain how what you're asking for could be possible if demons existed.  Simple if what you're asking for is truly rational.

Anonymouse wrote:

What do you mean "avenue of proof" ?? 

your request of evidence... the means by which you would accept this understanding.

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
You have only one aspect of proof you find acceptable.

And you agree that it's acceptable proof, let's try to keep that in mind. 

Ok, how does me agreeing to your rules suddenly make me agree that your proof is acceptable?  Explain this to me please.  I really don't understand.

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I need you to explain your nonsense.

Again, it will only SEEM like nonsense before it's produced. You seem to have trouble understanding that, which is weird, since you already agreed with it.  

no, what I seem to have trouble with here is why you can't explain how it's possible... either explain how it's possible if demons were real or admit that your possibly nonsensical proof is really nonsense.

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
.. telling me it's the only proof I can't fake is not explaining how it's possible and telling me it will seem like nonsense, irrational, etc before it's provided also will not help.  

?

But all those things you just mentioned are facts. Facts you don't even argue with !

How does that explain your avenue of proof as possible?  I need to understand how it's possible if what you claim is true about this being valid proof.

Anonymouse wrote:

If facts won't "help" you, then what do you want from me ? Lies ?

no, just a clear answer to the question I've repeated.

Anonymouse wrote:

Look, I'm sorry, but there is no way out of this for you. You will either produce the proof we both agree is acceptable, or you will admit there is none. 

somehow, I don't feel very trapped here.

Anonymouse wrote:

Heck, you're almost there, or didn't you notice that you almost admitted that acceptable proof for demons isn't possible ? 

Keep going, you can do this !

Just give me the answer I've been asking for and we're there


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

Antipatris wrote:

The abuse for which the belief gives them the excuse, or the very idea and the motivation in the first place. A belief which you support, so I will ask again :

You will take no responsibility at all, for what someone does after you convinced them that "demons" and "possession" aren't nonsense at all ? 

No, Teachers give hundreds, soemtimes thousands of people all kinds of knowledge that gets abused... should they take responsibility if a student they taught math to used it to sell drugs and build an international drug trade business?  That hardly makes sense.

Antipatris wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
No, I am trumpeting support for my belief in the existence of the God of the Bible and with that the understanding that demons exist.  I do not support those destructive beliefs

Yes, you do. You just repeated them.

you're confusing 2 different things here.. sounds like we have something more to discuss as well

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
You on the other hand are doing a great job at reconnecting them to the same belief.

Again, a simple lie. The connection is already there, made by the people actually committing those crimes. 

your connecting 2 different things to one... God denounces such behavior and yet you're promoting it within that belief system.

Antipatris wrote:

If that is the first thing you think of when I ask you to try facts, then I have to ask you again : How do you keep from believing EVERYTHING ?

study, reasoning, rationality

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
no, I use "includes" with you so you can't BS your way around the idea that it might not include medicine

I will repeat, why would you use such a vague term in a critical situation like that ??? If you say "include" people will ask "so what else ?", and if someone needs urgent medical help, you would be wasting critical time ! Why would you DO that ???

I wouldn't... I think you're again misconstruing it

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 My friend turning from a violent gang member to a devout Christian who has a passion for world missions.  He became someone who wants to help those he used to hurt.  There is nothing else in his life that can explain the change that took place within him.

If that was even remotely true, then it would be impossible for an atheist to make such a change in his life. And since that is not the case, your claim is nonsense, and that is not what I asked for.

Try again. 

nice try... this is real

Antipatris wrote:

Then please explain why you keep brining up abuse in general, when we're discussing something else entirely, and why you keep bothering Mouse with your "spirituality" ? 

I haven't been bringing up abuse. you have... if we're discussing abuse, we'd need to brign up all aspects and causes for it, not just this  Mouse keepts taking about spirituality

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 I wouldn't have planted the belief in her head.

I did not ask if you would have done that. I asked if you DID do that, would the resulting tragedy be enough to convince you of the toxic nature of your belief, or would you deny any responsibility and simply go on spreading your "belief" in "demons" and "possession" ?

i know, you assumed I had already done it, which I woudln't have, but ok, let's assume I did try to plant the idea in her head... and somehow it worked... If I had intentionally planted the idea, then I would have to say that I probably wouldnt' care about the results.  

However, just to be clear, I didn't and wouldn't.


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

You have to understand that the claim you are making is extraordinary and as such is going to require extraordinary evidence. If your claim was something mundane like "I ate eggs for breakfast" I would probably be willing to accept your word for it because it is an extremely plausible claim. When you are making a claim about something that is highly improbable, people are going to expect more extensive evidence. Now I am as guilty as the next person at just throwing my knowledge out there without any evidence, for example that random information about the origins of psychiatric drugs is just random trivia that I happened to know and thought it applied to the conversation so I put it out there, but didn't bother providing evidence for it as my claim was neither extraordinary nor vital to the conversation.

Recently, I did make a rather extraordinary claim on this site. http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33861 I claimed that it could be possible to use a 3D printer to print human tissue, organs and in the future maybe entire limbs. So to support that claim I linked to several scientific journal articles which include detailed descriptions, pictures and each one references dozens (in one over 120) other similar works and all of them subjected to peer review. For the extreme skeptic who doesn't view such journals as an authority, which laboratory the experiments are being conducted in is clearly listed at the end of the article and you can easily call them up and ask for a tour- very few people take that much interest in what these scientists are doing they are more than happy to talk to you about it in most cases. Or for the die hards, you could even repeat the experiment yourself and see if you get the same results.

Now you are making an extraordinary claim and your evidence amounts to stories that you openly admit have explanations that are mundane and the only argument is that the most likely explanation might not be the actual explanation. I'm sure even you can see how that is not particularly persuasive?    

I do understand how extraordinary the claim I'm making would seem to someone who doesn't believe in it... especially if they can't even grasp the concept of a metaphysical existence.  The stories I've presented are only as well known as they are because of their likely embellishments.  Otherwise what kind of story is; "jimmy was possessed with a demon, we performed the typical spiritual guidance and exorcism and the demon was gone".  The typical response to that is... sure ok, if that's what you want to believe and it is long forgotten.

Typical situations like this are also usually handled in the same way a doctor would handle a patient's medical records... they're typically not out on the internet for all to see.  This leads up to the idea of testing the possibility... but how do you test a being with choice?  Where do you begin?  We can't sample a spirit being... (or for the sake of arguement, demon) and put it under a microscope for observation, or lock it in a room, or even perform lab tests on it... so where does that leave us?  It takes away the basis of every atheists understanding of reality.  

Yes, I do realize the stories given  are not particularly persuasive and most people who don't believe or don't want to believe reason their way around any spiritual possibility.  This is why I've mentioned to a few people that we might need to discuss some other things first... like maybe the possibility of a metaphysical existence to begin with and see where that goes... it likely goes back to the issue of how to study that and so we deduce again with experinces and those who dedicate their lives to studying it by physical means... Ghost hunters are typically how they're understood.  The only evidence they have is EVP's and possible orbs or energy figures caught on film.  Of course there's criticism around all that and whether what they're hearing or seeing is really spirit or just energy imbalance... either that or maybe they faked the whole thing with some high tech editing software.  

How about the whole origin discussion.  Most non-believers have their own ideas of what was before the alleged "beginning"... that's typically where we take these conversations... no use arguing a big bang happening or not... If it did, it doesn't negate the possibility of intelligence behind it and if it didn't it also doesn't prove that there is intelligence behind it.  We then get into the discussion with some that it was all an endless cycle of expansion and contraction, or that it all came from nothing, or that multiple universe theory that claims that the expansion, contraction and explosion is happening constantly.  All of those to me take more faith to accept than accepting an intelligent being behind it all.  Especially seeing as more than 80% of people in the world claim to believe for one reason or another that there is a metaphysical existence.  At least 50% of them seem to have some personal experience with it.  Beyond that, there's many claimed spiritual books out there allegedly written or inspired by a metaphysical being.  Many of those when scrutinized run into many inconsistency issues and/or a clear basis of origin and parallel to a particular following of some sort.   This brings us to the Bible.  This is one of the most difficult things I have found for an atheist to discuss... mainly becasue a lot of them dont' seem to have a clear understanding of it and likely have not learned much about it.  I usually like to start with that.  If I can find a basis for discrediting scripture, we can find a basis for discrediting the possibility of a metaphysical existence be it that it's claimed to be inspired by a metaphysical being.  

Thank you for being able to take a step back from the flow of the thread and actually have some serious conversation.  I hope this clarifies a bit my position and why I take the approach I do... and why it's different with each individual person.  I hope also you can see why I ask for reasoning and offer alternatives when that reasoning isn't sound.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

You are the one who claims that these demons have physical manifestations, so even if you can't provide physical proof of a demon itself, you should be able to provide physical evidence of its manifestations and evidence that they are not caused by other physical explanations. 

What does a demon leave behind physically when it manifests itself?  This I honestly don't know.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Simple, show me evidence that your method of exorcism and praying to god cures certain physical problems better than medicine.

I don't believe I ever claimed that exorcism and/or praying to god cures problems "better" than medicine.  or cures physical problems at all, though I do believe praying can help.. we only discussed exorcisms to get rid of demons... which is where the demand for proof of demons came from.  I would never deny someone medical attention because I thought prayer would be the cure, rather I believe that through prayer, possibly medicine or a proceedure that might not have cured would ultimately cure.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Walking in his ways? No thanks. I enjoy drinking, gambling, multiple sex partners and generally living my life in hedonistic sin. Which I have been assured by many a theist that my life is "empty" and that I am not "really" happy. But when I look at their lives compared to mine, I am having a lot more fun and have few regrets so if this is "empty" and unhappy, I'll take it. Why would I want to change when I already enjoy life far more than most people I observe?

understand they're coming from the perspective that there's a life after this and that you're condemning yourself in that life to come.  BTW, I don't believe all of the above is against God's Laws... especially seeing as one of Jesus first miracles was creating wine from water so that an already half drunk party could have more to drink.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

We should always continue investigating and when we find evidence that makes an alternative more probable than what we currently believe we should change our beliefs. That is how science works. But until you have evidence that supports an improbable conclusion, there is no reason to believe it. 

I agree there... however this goes back to the subjectiveness of "evidence"

Beyond Saving wrote:

People have been working on it from day 1. We benefit now in that we have far more technologies available to us to actually help solve the problem. As a percentage of world population, the number of people suffering from malnutrition is about half of what it was in the 1970's (the farthest back UN stats go). Sure, still way too many but the solution remains stabilization of violent areas and the introduction of modern farming practices- not prayer. 

you're sure prayer had nothing to do with it what-so-ever?

Beyond Saving wrote:

That doesn't dispute what I said at all. In fact, it confirms it. They are basing their math on using "high productivity" grain and farming practices, which means modern farm equipment, fertilizers and genetically modified plants. Using what god supposedly provided us would be organic farming which has significantly lower crop yields. Studies have indicated that organic farming result in yields that are 11-35% lower per acre than conventional farming. (depending on the crop and soil. Areas with great soil have closer to conventional yields while areas with poor soil (most of Earth) have much lower yields)  http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nature11069  

This was in response to your question

I understand... point and case though is like you said, production is not the problem... in other words, there is enough food without synthetic means to feed the world.. and then some.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yet whether or not a person goes hungry has nothing to do with whether or not they are "pushing" god away. So to my original question, why thank god for food? He doesn't make it, he doesn't provide it, he didn't do anything.

well, to the contrary... if God is who we believe He is... then he did everything, because He had to create it to begin with.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Nor does any of it make the possibility of demonic influence more likely. 

or less likely...just making a point becasue you challenged my understanding of psychology

Beyond Saving wrote:

So where are all the journal articles on these problems that they can't find solutions to? Name an uncured disease and I can find hundreds of articles of doctors specifying the experiments they tried that failed completely and those that show some promise.  

Probably in the Thestic libraries... however, I dont' think it's really that common either.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I just want a comparative study for starters that demonstrates exorcisms are an effective treatment. None has been done. Why? If it is real, why has not a single exorcist bothered doing a basic before and after test comparing a treated group of people, to a control group and then to a placebo group? It is standard practice for every other medical technique or drug.

Hard to capture a demon probably.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I accept it as a possibility. I just consider it highly improbable because there is no evidence. 

 

...that you have seen right?  I accept that as a reasonable stance... I've been there.


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

blacklight915 wrote:

caposkia wrote:

rather through your continued tribulation, your character grows stronger

Except that depression makes me emotionally fragile and vulnerable...  not to mention so much more statistically likely to commit suicide...

you feel emotionally fragile and vulnerable, but considering what I said before, your'e still stronger than someone who does not deal with it as frequently as you do.  The thing to remember in those moments is how strong you're actually being though you feel weak.  Another scriptural reference is "for when I am weak, then I am strong" 2 Cor 12:10 and "power is perfected in weakness" 2 Cor 12:9

I know what you're saying though.  It's not something I can comprehend, but I understand and I know friends who deal with it just as severely, if not worse.  

blacklight915 wrote:

Why do so many Christians assume choice and free will are automatically good? Just as a start: I would prefer people not have the free will to murder, rape, or torture each other.

That would also mean you wouldn't have the choice not to do those things if this god in control decided He wanted you to do that.  It goes both ways.. that's why we assume choice is a good thing... It doesn't mean people are going to make good choices with it, rather we are responsible for the results of our own choices and God holds us to it in the end.

blacklight915 wrote:

There are many, many people who have suffered at least as much physical and emotional pain as Jesus allegedly did on the cross. I will be happy to provide examples if you so desire--I already have a few good ones in mind.

Jesus took on the sins of the whole world and in his darkest moment, God abandoned Him due to the sin on Him, as far as horrible ways to die, the cross is among the top for sure and Jesus endured a beating to near death before having to haul the cross to the place of his death...   

I am curious of who your examples are that can compare to such combined horror to the point of death.  I can't imagine more emotional pain than the one you rely on the most abandoning you at your weakest neediest moment.  

blacklight915 wrote:

Why would your God refer you to something He knows I've already read and found quite...unsatisfactory. God's response to Job is basically "you have no right to question Me because I am so much more powerful and accomplished than you". Unless you think "might makes right", I really don't see how God's response justifies His actions.

I find that when you read scripture, you always find something new.  for example, the Job 40 reference I gave you was of importance to you.  You're not happy with your condition so you feel that God should be punished for it... This applies to you in vs. 9; "Will you really annul My judgement?  will you condemn me that you may be justified?"

Your answer is apparently yes... so then we go down to vs. 14 where God says if you're able to condemn him with such certainty and have the power to determine that, then you also have the power to save yourself from your transgression; "then I will also confess to you, That your own right hand can save you".  

The point being, if what you say is true, then you also have the ability to solve your own problem... if not, then God is suggesting you might understand less than you think about why you are the way you are and there might be a lot more to learn from it... also more room to grow from it.  

blacklight915 wrote:

It sounds like you think demons are quite active. I mean, thoughts of self-harm are incredibly common among people with depression. While I've never experienced voices telling me to do bad things, I believe "hearing voices" is quite common for some of the many schizo- disorders.

I do wonder how many 'schizo-disorders' are actual disorders and how many are demons trying to manipulate.  I do believe they are quite active.  It shows in the world.

blacklight915 wrote:

That's correct. Do we agree, then, that the cause/motivation for these abuses is NOT a lack of belief in god(s)?

well.. possibly.. but my God teaches to not seek power and control, so lack of belief in Him would lead to someone abusing to gain power and control... My God also teaches to love your neighbor as yourself and love your enemies... I can't understand how abuse is love in any way... it's not... I don't care what excuse one might try to bring up... no abuse can be help or love and abuse is greatly condemned by my God.  

It is possible that other gods out there could tell their followers to be in control of as many people as possible by any means and then I guess a belief in those gods would be motivation, but all in all, in my understanding, most power and control is gained by lack of belief in any deity that might trump the power and/or control of that person.  


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

caposkia wrote:
You are asking me to do it though.. You're asking me to prove to you demons are real in a very specific manner.

What I am asking you for is acceptable evidence, and you already said you have no problem with my method to determine what acceptable proof is.

That's going to come up a lot, isn't it ? Thank jebus for cut and paste.

caposkia wrote:
So I need you to explain how it's possible if demons were real.

I already told you and you already agreed : If demons are real, then there is acceptable evidence. It really is that simple. 

And again, since we already agreed on my method for determining what makes for acceptable proof, it then makes no sense to suddenly describe it as "in a very specific manner". 

Do I have to explain that ? Because I will if I have to.

caposkia wrote:
we never agreed it can "ONLY" seem... rather that it "can" seem, yet that does not suggest all possible avenues of evidence to be possible

We have already limited our "avenues of evidence" to acceptable proof, the qualifications of which we have also agreed upon. And I already gave you several choices that fit those qualifications. If it's not "possible" to produce this acceptable proof, there is only one conclusion left :

That there is no proof. 

caposkia wrote:
those rules are a basis, they don't describe how your proof would work

See, this is a recurring problem you can't seem to shake : Do you really not realize that "how the proof would work" is not my problem, since I'm not the one defending this ridiculous claim ? 

A: "Dragon's are real !"

B: "Okay, let's see one then"

A: "Um..how would that work ? Cuz I have no idea. Tell me"

B: "?"

You are effectively asking me to produce the proof for you, and you apparently don't even realize how utterly ridiculous that is. This really is quite fascinating, in a strange sort of way. 

caposkia wrote:
.. btw, it's been a while.. why don't you remind me the 3 possibilities for proof and number them... that way I can refer back to this post next time we tangent so far I forget some.

If you don't like tangents, then don't go off on so many. I mean, look at how hard you made me work just to make you admit your "irrational proof" excuse didn't work. You could have just agreed with me from the start.

And you can pick either an actual demon, solomon's demon-controlling ring (or any other demon-controlling device), or you can just make me a demon-powered generator. Number them as you wish. 

And please remember, all these fall under acceptable evidence, following the rules we already agreed upon, so don't waste my time trying to dismiss them. 

caposkia wrote:
now you're mashing your reasoning

No, you're just trying to obfuscate to win time. No worries, though. I'll rephrase...as soon as I can figure out what you're trying to misinterpret this time. 

caposkia wrote:
... you did say that it was 100% accurate to say there's no proof for demons... your reasoning behind coming up with accetpable proof was a different post

Um, yeah, "different post"..still talking about the same thing, though. 

caposkia wrote:
and that reasoning was "you can't fake it"

I also mentioned that explaining fiction with yet more fiction would also not be acceptable. You agreed this made sense. 

caposkia wrote:
.. which isn't justifying it, only clarifying why your choices were so limited...  

What do you mean "justifying" ? You AGREED with my reasoning ! Why would I need to "justify" rules you already agreed with ?! 

caposkia wrote:
Your "rules" were jsut that... they were not again justification of your expected proof and/or an explanation of how that would be possible if demons were real. 

Again, you agreed with my rules, so what "justification" are you even talking about ? And also, AGAIN, why would I need to explain to you how proof we both agree would be acceptable, should be "possible" ? If they exist then ALL acceptable proof is possible ! It can only be impossible if they don't exist ! 

caposkia wrote:
be it that I debunked your false analogy excuse... nah.

Nope, you did no such thing. Simply denying you did something that anyone who can read can check, is not "debunking". It's lying. 

caposkia wrote:
but you also can't explain reality with nonsense.

And you can't prove something is "reality" just by claiming it is. Only acceptable proof will help you there. Which does not include cool stories, no matter how much you like 'em.

caposkia wrote:
do you see how you contradicted yourself here???

Lol ! It's a "contradiction" to say something that seems "irrational", will also seem "nonsensical" ? This should be good. Please do explain.

caposkia wrote:
you said it, not me

Well, your only remaining argument seems to be that I should do all your work for you, so yeah, I said it. 

caposkia wrote:
I was repeating your alleged answers to the question... sorry that wasn't clear here.

? You were "repeating" "alleged answers" to a question I hadn't had a chance to answer yet ?? Uh, yeah, that wasn't very clear at all. Apology accepted.

caposkia wrote:
Ah, ok, there's the three again...

a demon controlling ring... producing an actual demon.. or demon-powered generator... and... how do you propose these would be possible if demons were real?  This is what I need from you... I never claimed any of these things were possible.

You most certainly did. You claimed there was acceptable proof, and you agreed on my rules for determining said acceptable proof. So again, if demons are real, then there is acceptable proof, and it is possible to produce it. If it's not possible to produce said proof, then there is no acceptable proof for demons.

The only real mystery here is why you are unable to admit this. 

caposkia wrote:
But yes, I claim demons are real.  So if they really are... you must explain how those would be possible in order for me to show you that proof.

This makes no sense at all. Why would the person who's asking you for acceptable proof for your supernatural claim, have to explain to you how that is even possible ? 

caposkia wrote:
because again,I never claimed any of that was possible.

And again, yes, you did. You claimed there was acceptable proof, and you agreed on my rules for determining said acceptable proof. So again, if demons are real, then there is acceptable proof, and it is possible to produce it. If it's not possible to produce said proof, then there is no acceptable proof for demons.

Do you need this simplified even further ? Because I can do that. 

caposkia wrote:
I've noticed... but instead of rationally dismissing it, like I would.. and I told you that i have not completely dismissed any of it

Okay, now this is downright bizarre. Why say "rationally dismissing it, like I would", and then admit that you've not completely dismissed any of it ??? Are you saying you have not completely dismissed scientology's amusingly insane science fiction stories ???

Btw, would you like to buy a diamond mine ? Some prime Florida real estate ? A bridge ? A really big French statue ? 

caposkia wrote:
you have decided to take the ignorance approach by saying that you don't need to understand because you already know.

And now it's "ignorant" to dismiss supernatural claims that don't have any acceptable proof ? You know what the word "ignorant" means, right ? Because I'm starting to wonder. 

caposkia wrote:
there isn't one... there is no workable definition... same difference

You said "your workable definition", so no, not "same difference". 

caposkia wrote:
to explain how what you're asking for could be possible if demons existed.

Simple, if demons exist, then there is acceptable proof for this claim, so it would be possible to produce it. If it's not possible, then there is no such thing as acceptable proof, and it would be about time for you to admit this simple fact. Or produce the proof I asked for. Either is fine.

caposkia wrote:
Simple if what you're asking for is truly rational.

If your claim is true, then yes, it would be simple for you to produce acceptable proof. And again, we already agree that it is rational to ask for acceptable proof for a supernatural claim, and we also agree that the proof I ask for qualifies as acceptable, so you will either produce it, or admit that there is no acceptable proof.

Like you said, simple.

caposkia wrote:
your request of evidence... the means by which you would accept this understanding.

? But we already agreed on what makes for acceptable proof. Geez, how many times ? 

caposkia wrote:
Ok, how does me agreeing to your rules suddenly make me agree that your proof is acceptable?  Explain this to me please.  I really don't understand.

?????? Seriously ? 

Because the rules determined what makes proof acceptable. And the proof I asked for follows those rules. Understand now ? 

caposkia wrote:
no, what I seem to have trouble with here is why you can't explain how it's possible.

No, the incredibly simple fact that you're not grasping, is that it's not the job of the person asking for acceptable proof of a supernatural claim, to explain to the person who believes said claim how this is even possible. 

caposkia wrote:
.. either explain how it's possible if demons were real or admit that your possibly nonsensical proof is really nonsense.

The acceptable proof I asked for can only be "nonsense" if your claim is as well. If you're finally ready to admit that, then please do. 

caposkia wrote:
How does that explain your avenue of proof as possible?  I need to understand how it's possible if what you claim is true about this being valid proof.

Again, it's not the job of the person asking for acceptable proof of a supernatural claim, to explain to the person who believes said claim how this is even possible. If it's your opinion that it's not possible to produce acceptable proof, then I really don't understand why you're having such trouble admitting that there isn't any. 

caposkia wrote:
no, just a clear answer to the question I've repeated.

You got that, many times over. But I guess I'll have to rephrase a couple of times before it sinks in. No problem. You've already shown that you're capable of understanding some of the things I had to explain to you, so I have high hopes. 

caposkia wrote:
somehow, I don't feel very trapped here.

Reality is not a "trap". Reality is your friend. 

caposkia wrote:
Just give me the answer I've been asking for and we're there

Then I guess we're there.

..unless you didn't get the "correct" answer again. Like I said, no worries. The last time you didn't "get" something, it took a while too, but you got there in the end. 


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

Antipatris wrote:
You will take no responsibility at all, for what someone does after you convinced them that "demons" and "possession" aren't nonsense at all ?

caposkia wrote:
No,

 

Thank you for this clear and unambiguous answer to a simple question. 

I will now deal with your feeble justifications for this very revealing admission. 

 

caposkia wrote:
Teachers give hundreds, soemtimes thousands of people all kinds of knowledge that gets abused.

You are not qualified to teach medicine. 

 

caposkia wrote:
.. should they take responsibility if a student they taught math to used it to sell drugs and build an international drug trade business?  That hardly makes sense.

False analogy. At no point would math be presented as an alternative option to modern medicine. 

And again, you are not qualified to teach medicine. This is an extremely important fact that you would do well to remember, so that you might start caring about the consequences of your actions. 

 

caposkia wrote:
you're confusing 2 different things here.. sounds like we have something more to discuss as well

No, I was of course referring to your repeated claim that "demons" exist. Stay with the subject, please. Thank you.

 

caposkia wrote:
your connecting 2 different things to one...

No, again, the connection is made by the people who commit these horrible crimes. 

 

caposkia wrote:
God denounces such behavior

Only after the facts have already occurred, strangely enough.

 

caposkia wrote:
and yet you're promoting it within that belief system.

Again, a lie, and a completely incomprehensible one at that, given how I haven't exactly been shy about expressing my disgust regarding this "belief system".

 

caposkia wrote:
study, reasoning, rationality

You can find "study" material about anything, so study alone will never be enough. Reasoning and rationality would demand proof, of which you have none, so again, how do you keep from believing everything ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
I wouldn't... I think you're again misconstruing it

Oh really ? Then please do explain, why would you use the word "include" in such a situation, if not to indicate that there were other viable options ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
nice try... this is real

"nice try" ???? That is an absurd non sequitur. Just saying "this is real" doesn't make it real !!

Are you actually saying that it's impossible for an atheist to change like your friend did, or for your friend to have other reasons for his change ? 

Because if that is what you're saying, I will gladly explain just how ridiculous that is.

 

caposkia wrote:
I haven't been bringing up abuse. you have...

No, I have been bringing up abuse caused by this very specific religious superstition. 

 

caposkia wrote:
if we're discussing abuse,

No, we are not discussing abuse in general, we are discussing abuse caused and excused by this very specific religious nonsense. 

 

caposkia wrote:
we'd need to brign up all aspects and causes for it, not just this

No, because (again) we are not discussing abuse in general, we are discussing abuse caused and excused by this very specific religious nonsense. 

 

caposkia wrote:
 Mouse keepts taking about spirituality

??????????

Are you actually claiming that he brought it up first ????? 

 

caposkia wrote:
i know, you assumed I had already done it,

No, I assumed no one took you seriously enough to deny their sick relatives proper medical care.

 

caposkia wrote:
which I woudln't have,

??? You wouldn't have ? But when I asked you to simply keep your insipid beliefs to yourself, you refused !

 

caposkia wrote:
but ok, let's assume I did try to plant the idea in her head... and somehow it worked.

Isn't that your intention when you're "sharing" these things you believe in ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
.. If I had intentionally planted the idea, then I would have to say that I probably wouldnt' care about the results.

Then you really are an extraordinarily callous and shamelessly cruel human being. 

So what about what your fellow believers did after Anneliese was dead and buried ? Would that be a bridge too far for you, or would you be okay with that as well ? Just trying to find out just exactly how shameless you are.

 

caposkia wrote:
However, just to be clear, I didn't and wouldn't.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You either share your toxic belief or you don't.

But since you already admitted that you wouldn't care about the consequences if you did, well, then I guess we have our answer.

 

Thank you for making your true nature so crystal clear. 


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

caposkia wrote:

That would also mean you wouldn't have the choice not to do those things if this god in control decided He wanted you to do that.  It goes both ways.. that's why we assume choice is a good thing... It doesn't mean people are going to make good choices with it, rather we are responsible for the results of our own choices and God holds us to it in the end.

Hmm, I suppose I should have worded my statement differently...  Here you go: "I would prefer for it to be impossible for people to murder, rape, or torture each other."

 

caposkia wrote:

You're not happy with your condition so you feel that God should be punished for it...

That's quite an assumption you made there, caposkia. You're quite wrong, however: I feel your God should be punished because He decided to create this universe--knowing full well the amount of suffering that could result.

 

caposkia wrote:

God says if you're able to condemn him with such certainty and have the power to determine that, then you also have the power to save yourself from your transgression

Well, since I've (so far) been able to get every single person I've ever wronged to forgive me for doing so, I would say I do "have the power to save [my]self from [my] transgression".

 

caposkia wrote:

The point being, if what you say is true, then you also have the ability to solve your own problem...

I rather doubt your above statement is true. However, to be clear, what "problem" of mine are you referring to?

 

caposkia wrote:

but my God teaches to not seek power and control, so lack of belief in Him would lead to someone abusing to gain power and control

I have a hard time believing you don't know how false your above statement is. I doubt you could even give evidence that non-theists "abuse to gain power and control" at a higher rate than Christians.

 

I'm pretty tired right now; I should be able to respond to the rest of your statements before the end of tomorrow, though.

 


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

caposkia wrote:

I do understand how extraordinary the claim I'm making would seem to someone who doesn't believe in it... especially if they can't even grasp the concept of a metaphysical existence.  The stories I've presented are only as well known as they are because of their likely embellishments.  Otherwise what kind of story is; "jimmy was possessed with a demon, we performed the typical spiritual guidance and exorcism and the demon was gone".  The typical response to that is... sure ok, if that's what you want to believe and it is long forgotten.

I would think that if demons are real and all the crazy stories are embellished that there would be a plethora of mundane stories. Where are they? Where are the real exorcists, attempting to solve real problems saying "hey wait a minute, that isn't how demons really work." Whenever there is a popular misunderstanding or myths about any scientific field I can find dozens of articles from scientists pointing out that it doesn't really work that way. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Typical situations like this are also usually handled in the same way a doctor would handle a patient's medical records... they're typically not out on the internet for all to see.  

Medical cases are reported on the internet all the time, often the identity of the patient is kept confidential but whenever a patient exhibits what might be a new disease they usually get at least a medical journal article.

 

caposkia wrote:

This leads up to the idea of testing the possibility... but how do you test a being with choice?  Where do you begin?  We can't sample a spirit being... (or for the sake of arguement, demon) and put it under a microscope for observation, or lock it in a room, or even perform lab tests on it... so where does that leave us?  It takes away the basis of every atheists understanding of reality.

As long as the being interacts with things we can observe it is possible to create hypothesis' and test them. Dark matter is a good example of something that scientists have not been able to study directly but have been able to conduct experiments that provide evidence suggesting its existence and potential properties. While we can't say for sure whether or not it actually exists, there is evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that it might.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

How about the whole origin discussion.  Most non-believers have their own ideas of what was before the alleged "beginning"... that's typically where we take these conversations... no use arguing a big bang happening or not... If it did, it doesn't negate the possibility of intelligence behind it and if it didn't it also doesn't prove that there is intelligence behind it.  

It does prove the Bible is wrong in the order things were created, so it proves that the bible is not 100% true. It does not negate the possibility of some sort of being with godlike powers.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

We then get into the discussion with some that it was all an endless cycle of expansion and contraction, or that it all came from nothing, or that multiple universe theory that claims that the expansion, contraction and explosion is happening constantly.  All of those to me take more faith to accept than accepting an intelligent being behind it all.  

All of those have physical evidence that increases their probability. They also have the benefit that they are all falsifiable so through continued observation of our own universe and the strong possibility that at some point in the future we might have the opportunity to witness the creation of other universes, we will eventually have a really good idea of exactly how our universe formed-assuming the human race survives long enough. All of those theories also have significantly more evidence than you have been able to provide for demons.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Especially seeing as more than 80% of people in the world claim to believe for one reason or another that there is a metaphysical existence.  At least 50% of them seem to have some personal experience with it.  Beyond that, there's many claimed spiritual books out there allegedly written or inspired by a metaphysical being.  Many of those when scrutinized run into many inconsistency issues and/or a clear basis of origin and parallel to a particular following of some sort.  

80% of people also can't explain to you how an internal combustion engine works let alone have an intelligent discussion about existence.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

This brings us to the Bible.  This is one of the most difficult things I have found for an atheist to discuss... mainly becasue a lot of them dont' seem to have a clear understanding of it and likely have not learned much about it.  I usually like to start with that.  If I can find a basis for discrediting scripture, we can find a basis for discrediting the possibility of a metaphysical existence be it that it's claimed to be inspired by a metaphysical being.

What is wrong with the Koran? 

 

caposkia wrote:

What does a demon leave behind physically when it manifests itself?  This I honestly don't know.

Well apparently they mess with lights and create symptoms extremely similar to mental disorders. If you don't know then how can you believe in demons? 

 

caposkia wrote:

I don't believe I ever claimed that exorcism and/or praying to god cures problems "better" than medicine.  or cures physical problems at all, though I do believe praying can help.. we only discussed exorcisms to get rid of demons... which is where the demand for proof of demons came from.  I would never deny someone medical attention because I thought prayer would be the cure, rather I believe that through prayer, possibly medicine or a proceedure that might not have cured would ultimately cure.

Yet you claimed before that many mental problems were caused by demons. So if they are caused by demons, one would expect that exorcisms would work better than standard medical practices. Right?

 

caposkia wrote:

understand they're coming from the perspective that there's a life after this and that you're condemning yourself in that life to come.

I would rather suffer in hell with people I love and respect than live in eternal bliss knowing that the people I love are suffering. 

 

caposkia wrote:

BTW, I don't believe all of the above is against God's Laws... especially seeing as one of Jesus first miracles was creating wine from water so that an already half drunk party could have more to drink.

That is a pretty cool party trick.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

People have been working on it from day 1. We benefit now in that we have far more technologies available to us to actually help solve the problem. As a percentage of world population, the number of people suffering from malnutrition is about half of what it was in the 1970's (the farthest back UN stats go). Sure, still way too many but the solution remains stabilization of violent areas and the introduction of modern farming practices- not prayer. 

you're sure prayer had nothing to do with it what-so-ever?

Only to the extent that prayer may have helped people with their mental attitude. I think prayer can be helpful as a form of meditation. Nothing to do with it in the sense of some supernatural being coming and answering them. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yet whether or not a person goes hungry has nothing to do with whether or not they are "pushing" god away. So to my original question, why thank god for food? He doesn't make it, he doesn't provide it, he didn't do anything.

well, to the contrary... if God is who we believe He is... then he did everything, because He had to create it to begin with.

Yet the evidence suggests that everything was done by humans. Even granting god's existence for the sake of discussion, he has as much to do with what I do as my great great great great great grandmother. Funny how you are so eager to give him credit for humans doing mundane tasks, yet when it comes to the evils of the world god isn't to blame because of free will. And again, if god creates it for us now, why didn't he create sufficient food for our ancestors?

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I just want a comparative study for starters that demonstrates exorcisms are an effective treatment. None has been done. Why? If it is real, why has not a single exorcist bothered doing a basic before and after test comparing a treated group of people, to a control group and then to a placebo group? It is standard practice for every other medical technique or drug.

Hard to capture a demon probably.

Why would it be difficult to find people who are possessed?

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I accept it as a possibility. I just consider it highly improbable because there is no evidence.  

...that you have seen right?  I accept that as a reasonable stance... I've been there.

It is the only reasonable stance. So where is the evidence so I can see it? 

 

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:I already

Anonymouse wrote:

I already told you and you already agreed : If demons are real, then there is acceptable evidence. It really is that simple. 

agreed, however, we aren't both on the same page in regards to what you're asking for.  You feel it's acceptable evidence, I feel it's nonsense.  I need you to explain how it's possible if in fact demons are real.  I don't know how what you're asking for would be possible.  

Anonymouse wrote:

And again, since we already agreed on my method for determining what makes for acceptable proof, it then makes no sense to suddenly describe it as "in a very specific manner". 

Do I have to explain that ? Because I will if I have to.

You have to explain how what we agreed on suddenly validates your alleged proof if demons are real.  I need to understand how it's possible.  

Anonymouse wrote:

We have already limited our "avenues of evidence" to acceptable proof, the qualifications of which we have also agreed upon. And I already gave you several choices that fit those qualifications. If it's not "possible" to produce this acceptable proof, there is only one conclusion left :

That there is no proof. 

acceptable to you, not to me.  Honestly, if someone had a "demon powered generator" and told me they were running their house on it... I would have a hard time believing the power was coming from demons.  In fact... I probably wouldn't believe them at all...  

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
those rules are a basis, they don't describe how your proof would work

See, this is a recurring problem you can't seem to shake : Do you really not realize that "how the proof would work" is not my problem, since I'm not the one defending this ridiculous claim ? 

You are though.. you are the one defending the claim that if demons were real than the fantastic three would also be possible.  I don't understand how you make that connection.  I need an explanation from you.  It is your problem.... unless you want to try something else as far as reasonable evidence for demons.

Anonymouse wrote:

A: "Dragon's are real !"

B: "Okay, let's see one then"

A: "Um..how would that work ? Cuz I have no idea. Tell me"

B: "?"

well, let's see, to ask to see one would typically require a trip to the dragon's layer be it that dragons are considered physical beings and not spiritual beings.  I would likely tell you where I know one lives and take you there.... I would then let you walk into its layer and let me know how it turns out Eye-wink

Anonymouse wrote:

You are effectively asking me to produce the proof for you, and you apparently don't even realize how utterly ridiculous that is. This really is quite fascinating, in a strange sort of way. 

be it that you asked for these things that I've told you basically aren't realistic, yea, you need to show me how that proof works... or admit that the proof your asking for is "utterly rediculous"

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
.. btw, it's been a while.. why don't you remind me the 3 possibilities for proof and number them... that way I can refer back to this post next time we tangent so far I forget some.

If you don't like tangents, then don't go off on so many. I mean, look at how hard you made me work just to make you admit your "irrational proof" excuse didn't work. You could have just agreed with me from the start.

really... it's hard work for you to write 3 things down?  how long does it take you to reply to each post then?  a couple days?

Anonymouse wrote:

And you can pick either an actual demon, solomon's demon-controlling ring (or any other demon-controlling device), or you can just make me a demon-powered generator. Number them as you wish. 

Just like with your dragon, you'll have to find someone who summons demons in your area... I don't and won't do that.  I don't just mess around with demons like they're a novelty.  That's not how it works.  

Anonymouse wrote:

And please remember, all these fall under acceptable evidence, following the rules we already agreed upon, so don't waste my time trying to dismiss them. 

they do?  see this is where I don't follow

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
now you're mashing your reasoning

No, you're just trying to obfuscate to win time. No worries, though. I'll rephrase...as soon as I can figure out what you're trying to misinterpret this time. 

you can keep trying to put the blame on me, but unfortunately for you, I've already told you I'm not avoiding anything. I am making you confront your absurdities... we're almost there...

Anonymouse wrote:

I also mentioned that explaining fiction with yet more fiction would also not be acceptable. You agreed this made sense. 

...and yet you're asking me to explain fact with fiction... how does that fit in?  You are stuck on fiction, when what I've been trying to pull you towards is fact.

Anonymouse wrote:

What do you mean "justifying" ? You AGREED with my reasoning ! Why would I need to "justify" rules you already agreed with ?! 

You need to justify your means of proof

Anonymouse wrote:

Nope, you did no such thing. Simply denying you did something that anyone who can read can check, is not "debunking". It's lying. 

I have not denied anything... what is it you think i'm denying here?  my debunking is also there for everyone to read... I think you're hoping you can tangent yourself far enough away from those posts that people will forget.

Anonymouse wrote:

And you can't prove something is "reality" just by claiming it is. Only acceptable proof will help you there. Which does not include cool stories, no matter how much you like 'em.

exactly.. so let's see if we can make progress here:

as you said, you can't prove something is reality just by claiming it is... your'e claiming that if demons are reality, then a demon controlling device and/or a demon powered generator is also reality.  You are indirectly claiming to me, who accepts that demons are reality that those things are also reality.   I can't see how they are... you're claiming they are, then ignoring me when I ask you for an explanation.  Are you not doing the very thing you keep trying to accuse me of doing?

Anonymouse wrote:

Well, your only remaining argument seems to be that I should do all your work for you, so yeah, I said it. 

no, all you need to do is explain how your "acceptable proof" is reality if demons are real.  I'll take it from there.

Anonymouse wrote:

? You were "repeating" "alleged answers" to a question I hadn't had a chance to answer yet ?? Uh, yeah, that wasn't very clear at all. Apology accepted.

ah, I didn't think they were actual answers.   Had me worried for a second

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Ah, ok, there's the three again...

a demon controlling ring... producing an actual demon.. or demon-powered generator... and... how do you propose these would be possible if demons were real?  This is what I need from you... I never claimed any of these things were possible.

You most certainly did. You claimed there was acceptable proof, and you agreed on my rules for determining said acceptable proof. So again, if demons are real, then there is acceptable proof, and it is possible to produce it. If it's not possible to produce said proof, then there is no acceptable proof for demons.

The only real mystery here is why you are unable to admit this. 

I think the question I have is how is it acceptable proof... and the "it's the only proof you can't fake" is not an answer on how that becomes reality.  I can't fake a Harry Potter appiration either, but it's also not possible.   That is essentially what you're asking me to do.  It's like you want me to get the Bloods to visit your house.  Not something i'm willing to tamper with.  

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
But yes, I claim demons are real.  So if they really are... you must explain how those would be possible in order for me to show you that proof.

This makes no sense at all. Why would the person who's asking you for acceptable proof for your supernatural claim, have to explain to you how that is even possible ? 

you're asking me for proof that you can control demons, or that I can make them appear to you, or that I can create a generator that runs off their... I dont' know, plasma or something, none of that is a reasonable means of proving demons exist.  None of that is based on spiritual law or spiritual understanding.  It's not based on logic.

I'm glad you see it makes no sense.  

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
you have decided to take the ignorance approach by saying that you don't need to understand because you already know.

And now it's "ignorant" to dismiss supernatural claims that don't have any acceptable proof ? You know what the word "ignorant" means, right ? Because I'm starting to wonder. 

I know what it means, and no, I was saying it's ignorant to claim that you don't need to understand the subject matter because you already know the answer or the result. 

Anonymouse wrote:

Simple, if demons exist, then there is acceptable proof for this claim, so it would be possible to produce it. If it's not possible, then there is no such thing as acceptable proof, and it would be about time for you to admit this simple fact. Or produce the proof I asked for. Either is fine.

Thanks for finally answering, but do you see where this doesn't make sense?  Let's run through it.

"if demons exist, then there's acceptable proof for this claim"... ok follow you so far... "so it would be possible to produce it"... sure ok.. "if it's not possible, then there's no such thing as acceptable proof"... ok "...and it would be about time for you to admit this simple fact.  Or produce the proof I asked for.."  ok, here's where I lose you.  acceptable proof yea,  but where in our conversations did we both agree that what you're asking for is acceptable proof?  It seems the term is subjective here.

Anonymouse wrote:

Because the rules determined what makes proof acceptable. And the proof I asked for follows those rules. Understand now ? 

they don't though... if i asked you to produce for me a supernova to prove to me it's real, would it be acceptable proof?  Would it also be rational for me to deny their existence if you couldn't produce it for me?


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

Antipatris wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
Teachers give hundreds, soemtimes thousands of people all kinds of knowledge that gets abused.

You are not qualified to teach medicine. 

who said I was?  The point still stands

Antipatris wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
.. should they take responsibility if a student they taught math to used it to sell drugs and build an international drug trade business?  That hardly makes sense.

False analogy. At no point would math be presented as an alternative option to modern medicine. 

it was a question, not an analogy... nice try though.  Could you answer it now though?

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
God denounces such behavior

Only after the facts have already occurred, strangely enough.

that's like saying to a 2 year old not to touch the stove after he burned himself.  God denounces it, he teaches against it, not advises after the fact.

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
and yet you're promoting it within that belief system.

Again, a lie, and a completely incomprehensible one at that, given how I haven't exactly been shy about expressing my disgust regarding this "belief system".

not a lie, you are associating it with the belief system, you are promoting it within it... you have connect it where it previously wasn't connected.

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
study, reasoning, rationality

You can find "study" material about anything, so study alone will never be enough. Reasoning and rationality would demand proof, of which you have none, so again, how do you keep from believing everything ? 

study, reasoning, rationality

Antipatris wrote:

Oh really ? Then please do explain, why would you use the word "include" in such a situation, if not to indicate that there were other viable options ? 

there are other possibilities, but that wasn't waht was in question.  you seem to take it as those were the only signs.

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
nice try... this is real

"nice try" ???? That is an absurd non sequitur. Just saying "this is real" doesn't make it real !!

Right, and just saying "this is fake" doesn't make it fake

Antipatris wrote:

Are you actually saying that it's impossible for an atheist to change like your friend did, or for your friend to have other reasons for his change ? 

Because if that is what you're saying, I will gladly explain just how ridiculous that is.

no

Antipatris wrote:

 

No, I have been bringing up abuse caused by this very specific religious superstition. 

is it caused by the religion, or the disposition in the person?

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 Mouse keepts taking about spirituality

??????????

Are you actually claiming that he brought it up first ????? 

no, just that he keeps talking about it

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
but ok, let's assume I did try to plant the idea in her head... and somehow it worked.

Isn't that your intention when you're "sharing" these things you believe in ? 

no, is it your intention when you share truths?  Or are you just trying to get people to understand

Antipatris wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
.. If I had intentionally planted the idea, then I would have to say that I probably wouldnt' care about the results.

Then you really are an extraordinarily callous and shamelessly cruel human being. 

exactly

Antipatris wrote:

So what about what your fellow believers did after Anneliese was dead and buried ? Would that be a bridge too far for you, or would you be okay with that as well ? Just trying to find out just exactly how shameless you are.

oh please don't start changing who I am, I understood that we were talkign hypothetically... realistically, I wouldn't have planted the idea... but you weren't satisfied with that answer, so I gave you the hypothetical.

Antipatris wrote:

 

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You either share your toxic belief or you don't.

well, to be honest... If I didn't have my cake... I wouldn't be able to eat it, so I would prefer to have it first.

Antipatris wrote:

But since you already admitted that you wouldn't care about the consequences if you did, well, then I guess we have our answer.

 

Thank you for making your true nature so crystal clear. 

good job trying to change who I am online.  I think most people will see through that though.


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

blacklight915 wrote:

Hmm, I suppose I should have worded my statement differently...  Here you go: "I would prefer for it to be impossible for people to murder, rape, or torture each other."

I would too, but choice is either all or none

blacklight915 wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

You're not happy with your condition so you feel that God should be punished for it...

That's quite an assumption you made there, caposkia. You're quite wrong, however: I feel your God should be punished because He decided to create this universe--knowing full well the amount of suffering that could result.

well, I figured that fit into what you just said,. sorry for misunderstanding.  God knew what the universe could be like without him and what it could be like with Him.  But God also wanted beings that loved him by choice and accepted him by choice, not by force.  YOu can't receive true love and praise when forcing someone to do it.

blacklight915 wrote:

Well, since I've (so far) been able to get every single person I've ever wronged to forgive me for doing so, I would say I do "have the power to save [my]self from [my] transgression".

Then why do you still suffer it?

blacklight915 wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

The point being, if what you say is true, then you also have the ability to solve your own problem...

I rather doubt your above statement is true. However, to be clear, what "problem" of mine are you referring to?

the depression you mentioned

blacklight915 wrote:

I have a hard time believing you don't know how false your above statement is. I doubt you could even give evidence that non-theists "abuse to gain power and control" at a higher rate than Christians.

I never said that.. I guess I should have said "can lead to"

blacklight915 wrote:

 

I'm pretty tired right now; I should be able to respond to the rest of your statements before the end of tomorrow, though.

 

that's fine, take your time


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

Beyond Saving wrote:
I would think that if demons are real and all the crazy stories are embellished that there would be a plethora of mundane stories. Where are they? Where are the real exorcists, attempting to solve real problems saying "hey wait a minute, that isn't how demons really work." Whenever there is a popular misunderstanding or myths about any scientific field I can find dozens of articles from scientists pointing out that it doesn't really work that way. 

They're working in the field instead of trying to convince those who don't have to deal with it directly.

There is a plethora of mundane stories, like medical records, not available for the public to see... you'd have to find them likely in church documents... and you'd have to have good reason to be asking for them for the church to just hand them over.  They are personal.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Medical cases are reported on the internet all the time, often the identity of the patient is kept confidential but whenever a patient exhibits what might be a new disease they usually get at least a medical journal article.

the thing here is this "disease" is centuries old.. nothing new.  There are stories that we've seen online, others that I haven't found I"m sure.  Then there are records probably like your medical records that wouldn't be found online

Beyond Saving wrote:

As long as the being interacts with things we can observe it is possible to create hypothesis' and test them. Dark matter is a good example of something that scientists have not been able to study directly but have been able to conduct experiments that provide evidence suggesting its existence and potential properties. While we can't say for sure whether or not it actually exists, there is evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that it might.

Then dark matter is the analogy we can take.  There have been observable cases such as some that have been posted... other situations as well.  Those who know what they're looking for see them, others many times dont' think twice about it.  e.g. a leaf falls, how many people are thinking in that moment "gravity at work"... very few if any.  it's a given, you see it every day.  same with these occurances.

Beyond Saving wrote:

It does prove the Bible is wrong in the order things were created, so it proves that the bible is not 100% true. It does not negate the possibility of some sort of being with godlike powers.

I've had the order discussion.  There are many reasons why that doesn't suggest the bible is not 100%... at least at that point.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

All of those have physical evidence that increases their probability. They also have the benefit that they are all falsifiable so through continued observation of our own universe and the strong possibility that at some point in the future we might have the opportunity to witness the creation of other universes, we will eventually have a really good idea of exactly how our universe formed-assuming the human race survives long enough. All of those theories also have significantly more evidence than you have been able to provide for demons.

I haven't tried to put my whole library on here... if you remember, we've been stuck on the magic ring theory or the demon generator thing.

Beyond Saving wrote:

80% of people also can't explain to you how an internal combustion engine works let alone have an intelligent discussion about existence.

who said you had to be a mechanic or a philosopher to accept metaphysics?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

What is wrong with the Koran? 

It's inspired by OT scripture and written by one person who was a Jew/Christian claiming to have new insight.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well apparently they mess with lights and create symptoms extremely similar to mental disorders. If you don't know then how can you believe in demons? 

I've seen their effects and the changes when getting rid of them

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yet you claimed before that many mental problems were caused by demons. So if they are caused by demons, one would expect that exorcisms would work better than standard medical practices. Right?

only if a demon was the cause... less common than one might think.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I would rather suffer in hell with people I love and respect than live in eternal bliss knowing that the people I love are suffering. 

There would be no love and respect in hell though... how would that work out?  it is simply the absense of good

Beyond Saving wrote:

Only to the extent that prayer may have helped people with their mental attitude. I think prayer can be helpful as a form of meditation. Nothing to do with it in the sense of some supernatural being coming and answering them. 

ok, that's reasonable

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Yet the evidence suggests that everything was done by humans. Even granting god's existence for the sake of discussion, he has as much to do with what I do as my great great great great great grandmother. Funny how you are so eager to give him credit for humans doing mundane tasks, yet when it comes to the evils of the world god isn't to blame because of free will. And again, if god creates it for us now, why didn't he create sufficient food for our ancestors?

He had..

but again, evil is something that happens to someone, not something we can tangibly discuss, it is the absense of good.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why would it be difficult to find people who are possessed?

I understand that it is not as common as one might think.

Beyond Saving wrote:

It is the only reasonable stance. So where is the evidence so I can see it? 

 

some would say it's all around you.  Such a broad understanding, you see why I try to narrow it down.


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:
I would think that if demons are real and all the crazy stories are embellished that there would be a plethora of mundane stories. Where are they? Where are the real exorcists, attempting to solve real problems saying "hey wait a minute, that isn't how demons really work." Whenever there is a popular misunderstanding or myths about any scientific field I can find dozens of articles from scientists pointing out that it doesn't really work that way. 

They're working in the field instead of trying to convince those who don't have to deal with it directly.

There is a plethora of mundane stories, like medical records, not available for the public to see... you'd have to find them likely in church documents... and you'd have to have good reason to be asking for them for the church to just hand them over.  They are personal.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Medical cases are reported on the internet all the time, often the identity of the patient is kept confidential but whenever a patient exhibits what might be a new disease they usually get at least a medical journal article.

the thing here is this "disease" is centuries old.. nothing new.  There are stories that we've seen online, others that I haven't found I"m sure.  Then there are records probably like your medical records that wouldn't be found online

And the church has never had anyone do an in depth study of these records? It is perfectly possible to protect patient confidentiality, yet still supply detailed information of the disease. It is routinely done for academic purposes in the medical industry. Why doesn't the church have something similar? You expect me to believe that demonic possession has been around since the beginning of time and not one doctor or scientist has taken note of it and been able to provide any evidence of it. Furthermore, you make guesses that the Catholic Church has records hidden somewhere with such information, but from what I can gather you have never seen it yourself. Do you know of anyone who has seen it and has perhaps provided a summary of what they found? 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

Then dark matter is the analogy we can take.  There have been observable cases such as some that have been posted... other situations as well.  Those who know what they're looking for see them, others many times dont' think twice about it.  e.g. a leaf falls, how many people are thinking in that moment "gravity at work"... very few if any.  it's a given, you see it every day.  same with these occurances.

Yet you have already admitted that the observable cases you have posted were at the very least "exaggerated"; so if even you don't believe them, why should I? So state later in your post that demonic possession "isn't as common as one might think", here you are saying it is an everyday occurrence like gravity. Make up your mind, which is it?

Note: A few people have watched a leaf fall and thought "hmmm, I wonder why it does that" and went on to create detailed hypotheses on how it might work. Many detailed experiments have been done to test them and we have some idea of how it works. To this day, many scientists continue experimenting with gravity and create new ideas of how it works. I wonder why all the people who see demonic possession don't think it should be as researched as gravity is. Is there not a single curious person who has witnessed demonic possession? Even though it has been around since the beginning of time?....

But wait, it turns out many a psychologist has studied demonic possession. It also turns out that what demon possesses you and what type of exorcism helps you lies solely on what religion you are (sneaky little demons only possess people who believe in them). Several scientific journal articles have been written examining the phenomenon. Interestingly, not one has offered evidence that demonic possession is real, none have shown that exorcisms work other than perhaps as a placebo effect, and they all have been able to tie the supposed symptoms to well known psychological disorders (except for symptoms like levitating which have never been proven to actually occur).

http://www.shsu.edu/~piic/winter2008/Thomason.html

http://web.mit.edu/pmaceves/Public/beep/psychodynamics.pdf

http://easap.asia/journal_file/0001_V10N1_p14.pdf   

You will also note that Dr. Chiu Siu Ning who wrote the article in the last link specifically holds open the possibility of demons, although over the last 13 years of study in this area has not been able to provide a shred of evidence. 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

I haven't tried to put my whole library on here... if you remember, we've been stuck on the magic ring theory or the demon generator thing.

I know you have four conversations going on simultaneously, but I have already stated I don't care for either a magic ring or demon generator. I am not particularly picky, just provide me some type of research where someone did some experiments that had results suggesting that demons might be real. You don't even need to prove to me 100% that they exist, just something that increases the probability that they exist to a level where I can say "hey, that isn't a batshit crazy idea" 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

What is wrong with the Koran? 

It's inspired by OT scripture and written by one person who was a Jew/Christian claiming to have new insight.

So? Is it impossible for an omnipotent being to approach and inspire a single person? 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yet you claimed before that many mental problems were caused by demons. So if they are caused by demons, one would expect that exorcisms would work better than standard medical practices. Right?

only if a demon was the cause... less common than one might think.

Then where is the research of exorcists attempting to figure out how to determine whether symptoms have a psychological cause or a demon one? Isn't it rather irresponsible to do an exorcism if the exorcist doesn't even know if a demon is the cause? If demons were real I would expect several detailed articles and books on the subject of determining if a demon was really the problem. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I would rather suffer in hell with people I love and respect than live in eternal bliss knowing that the people I love are suffering. 

There would be no love and respect in hell though... how would that work out?  it is simply the absense of good

If I am in heaven, I presumably still have love for the people I loved while alive right? So I would be sitting there playing my harp in the clouds or basking in god's love or whatever your conception of heaven is; meanwhile, I would know that my Grandma and several of my dearest friends are suffering in hell. To me, that would be worse punishment than anything I could possibly imagine. Could you be happy in heaven for eternity if someone you loved suffered in hell? What does god do? Brainwash everyone so they don't remember that their loved ones didn't get to the VIP section?

 

   

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

Yet the evidence suggests that everything was done by humans. Even granting god's existence for the sake of discussion, he has as much to do with what I do as my great great great great great grandmother. Funny how you are so eager to give him credit for humans doing mundane tasks, yet when it comes to the evils of the world god isn't to blame because of free will. And again, if god creates it for us now, why didn't he create sufficient food for our ancestors?

He had..

but again, evil is something that happens to someone, not something we can tangibly discuss, it is the absense of good.

So it was because of human evil that we couldn't invent things like tractors before the 19th century? And suddenly humans were less evil so we finally get to enjoy god's gifts of tractors, fertilizers and genetic modification so that we can finally feed the whole world almost 2000 years after Christ supposedly sacrificed himself for all of our sins? Maybe being omnipresent god just doesn't appreciate how long 2000 years is for humans.

 

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why would it be difficult to find people who are possessed?

I understand that it is not as common as one might think.

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

It is the only reasonable stance. So where is the evidence so I can see it?  

some would say it's all around you.  Such a broad understanding, you see why I try to narrow it down.

Which is it? Is it uncommon or is it all around me? 

 

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


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Oh, Saint Thecla, blessed Thecla preserve us !

Oh, Saint Thecla, blessed Thecla preserve us !

(Image off Movie Ghost Busters)

p.s. -- Thecla plea, may be entirely serious (yes yes sir)


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Damn Zuul I spilled my drink

"Ol' Zuula you nut, now c'mon. C'mon. I want to talk to Dana. Dana. Just relax, c'mon. Dana. Dana. Can I talk to Dana?"

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
Beyond Saving wrote:And the

Beyond Saving wrote:

And the church has never had anyone do an in depth study of these records? It is perfectly possible to protect patient confidentiality, yet still supply detailed information of the disease. It is routinely done for academic purposes in the medical industry. Why doesn't the church have something similar? You expect me to believe that demonic possession has been around since the beginning of time and not one doctor or scientist has taken note of it and been able to provide any evidence of it. Furthermore, you make guesses that the Catholic Church has records hidden somewhere with such information, but from what I can gather you have never seen it yourself. Do you know of anyone who has seen it and has perhaps provided a summary of what they found? 

I don't know... probably not... unlike the diseases we face day to day, the symptoms though different for every person don't change or modify... I guess there really wouldn't be anything to study... unless they were trying to study whether demons were real or not, but anyone in the know would also understand that studying possession cases is not going to appropriately give you that answer.  The best result you would get is the documented cases had consistent symptom patterns.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yet you have already admitted that the observable cases you have posted were at the very least "exaggerated"; so if even you don't believe them, why should I? So state later in your post that demonic possession "isn't as common as one might think", here you are saying it is an everyday occurrence like gravity. Make up your mind, which is it?

I'm pretty sure I said "exorcisms" happen every day... actual possession cases I believe don't happen as often... exorcisms can be performed to rid a nusance as well rather than only possessions. 

Why should you believe any true case that has exaggerations? 

Here you're looking at the black and white of it.  Do exaggerations automatically nullify the occurance?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Note: A few people have watched a leaf fall and thought "hmmm, I wonder why it does that" and went on to create detailed hypotheses on how it might work. Many detailed experiments have been done to test them and we have some idea of how it works. To this day, many scientists continue experimenting with gravity and create new ideas of how it works. I wonder why all the people who see demonic possession don't think it should be as researched as gravity is. Is there not a single curious person who has witnessed demonic possession? Even though it has been around since the beginning of time?....

well to compare gravity studies to demonic studies, first of all there are people out there who do study it every day... The issue with taking a scientific method approach is that gravity is a constant, demons are not.

Beyond Saving wrote:

But wait, it turns out many a psychologist has studied demonic possession. It also turns out that what demon possesses you and what type of exorcism helps you lies solely on what religion you are (sneaky little demons only possess people who believe in them). Several scientific journal articles have been written examining the phenomenon. Interestingly, not one has offered evidence that demonic possession is real, none have shown that exorcisms work other than perhaps as a placebo effect, and they all have been able to tie the supposed symptoms to well known psychological disorders (except for symptoms like levitating which have never been proven to actually occur).

http://www.shsu.edu/~piic/winter2008/Thomason.html

http://web.mit.edu/pmaceves/Public/beep/psychodynamics.pdf

http://easap.asia/journal_file/0001_V10N1_p14.pdf   

You will also note that Dr. Chiu Siu Ning who wrote the article in the last link specifically holds open the possibility of demons, although over the last 13 years of study in this area has not been able to provide a shred of evidence. 

Could it be??? maybe??? that demons only possess or suggest to those who believe in them??? or could it be maybe that those who do not believe in them never consider that to be the culprit... which in turn then would make the results of a study conclude that only those who believe in them actually get possessed.  Tough call. or not Eye-wink

It is reasonable also to consider that different religions would have different ways of dealing with such an occurance be it that different religions are taught different things about what they are and how to deal with them.  

The first link goes through a rather extensive history, then talks about how psychologists and therapists have used exorcisms.  They consider that even if demons aren't real, when modern medicine fails, the placebo affect (my words) likely would help them improve.  That makes a lot of sense.  

I find it curious that it does also mention how there's no "harm" in trying an exorcism, yet says that a lot of people have gotten hurt or even killed... I would say all those examples sound like attempted murder situations and not exorcisms... I would love to see where they found the instructions to put a plastic bag over someone's head to rid them of demons.  That's a new one for me... also the stomping thing was also a new way of approaching it.  

I doubt the levetation aspect of it too... I'm guessing the person may have proped themselves up in such a way that made it look like levetation.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I know you have four conversations going on simultaneously, but I have already stated I don't care for either a magic ring or demon generator. I am not particularly picky, just provide me some type of research where someone did some experiments that had results suggesting that demons might be real. You don't even need to prove to me 100% that they exist, just something that increases the probability that they exist to a level where I can say "hey, that isn't a batshit crazy idea" 

Ok, that still leaves it quite broad, but let's see.  Stories of experience won't work for you right?  

Strange spiritual scenarios don't work becasue you weren't there and it's not repeatable... do they have to be repeatable?  

As I've said to others, the only truly repeatable scenario..(I think I said it to you too) is to truly seek out God with your whole heart and follow His ways.  If you do that, you will eventually understand.

But that's not a likely path for a non-believer.  Do EVP's or non-debunked video of possible spirits work?  

what about the thereputic process of prayer and/or spiritual interaction?  

What about the study that has concluded that there's a 'god gene' in our brain... the study doesn't suggest that there is actually a God, but rather that our brains are wired to accept such a belief... Some skeptical scientists believe it has formed through the centuries over 1000's of years of belief in gods, others believe that its' a finger print of the creator.  This one I'd have to do some homework on again.  it has been quite a while

Let's see where these go first.. if these don't strike you, can you narrow it down a bit as to what... direction I should be going in?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

So? Is it impossible for an omnipotent being to approach and inspire a single person? 

no, that happened throughout scripture, so why then is the Koran so different?  and why wait until after Jesus' coming?  Also, what kind of angel forces an illiterate person to write by physical torture?  That seems inconsistant with... well... any religions beliefs for that matter... When you can't find congruencies with other religions, especially with the ones it likely came from, there is question as to its validity.  

If we're questioning that, we'd also need to question the book of mormon and the Jehovah's Witnesses NWT as to why they're not valid.  Much of it is context and congruency.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Then where is the research of exorcists attempting to figure out how to determine whether symptoms have a psychological cause or a demon one? Isn't it rather irresponsible to do an exorcism if the exorcist doesn't even know if a demon is the cause? If demons were real I would expect several detailed articles and books on the subject of determining if a demon was really the problem. 

they're in the churches.

It would be irresponsible for an exorcist to perform an exorcism on someone who may not have a demon.  A real practiced exorcist would be sure.  It takes an expert to know for sure.  Obviously there are ways to study it.  Again, they're in the churches.

Beyond Saving wrote:

If I am in heaven, I presumably still have love for the people I loved while alive right? So I would be sitting there playing my harp in the clouds or basking in god's love or whatever your conception of heaven is; meanwhile, I would know that my Grandma and several of my dearest friends are suffering in hell. To me, that would be worse punishment than anything I could possibly imagine. Could you be happy in heaven for eternity if someone you loved suffered in hell? What does god do? Brainwash everyone so they don't remember that their loved ones didn't get to the VIP section?

that's  not quite how it works, there's a whole lot more to it.  Including the second resurrection in Revelation.  Basically, everyone gets the chance to defend themselves "before the court" if you will.  You believe your whole family is in hell?  That's quite amazing to me, not even your grandma was a believer?  The thing is, family... if you're that close to them, would notice the changes made in you and be very curious... typically they will follow suit if the changes in you are real and valid.  Friends too, therefore, likely they would be with you as well, but beyond that, heaven is understood to be where no tears are shed and no more pain is suffered... I'm not sure what it's like, but I do know that as much as you think you'd be dwelling on those who didn't choose God, you would not... I dont' believe it'd be a brainwashing either.  

it's a subject I can't directly answer because I'm not sure exactly how that works... but the thing with hell is you can compare it to light and dark.  where light is something tangeable and able to be studied, but dark is literally just the absense of light.  You cannot study dark.  Heaven is light, hell is dark.

Beyond Saving wrote:

So it was because of human evil that we couldn't invent things like tractors before the 19th century? And suddenly humans were less evil so we finally get to enjoy god's gifts of tractors, fertilizers and genetic modification so that we can finally feed the whole world almost 2000 years after Christ supposedly sacrificed himself for all of our sins? Maybe being omnipresent god just doesn't appreciate how long 2000 years is for humans.

um... you're talking about learning... God created, then put us in charge of the creation.  As far as the materials to create a tractor are concerned, they were always here, but it took humans until the 19th century to figure out how to put them together to make such a thing.  Humans survived just fine without it, but now they can make a business out of it.  As much good that has come of them, just as much bad has come of them as well.  We cant' take inventions and say that we learned of them becasue now we're more good than before.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Which is it? Is it uncommon or is it all around me? 

possession is uncommon... but spiritual evidence is all around you.  We're talking about 2 different things here.

 


GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:there are

caposkia wrote:

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.

 

Please start this thread - I think it's important that your lack of knowledge regarding genetics is laid bare and you can learn from it before you start banding around quotes like the above which are incorrect, and hanging ridiculous ideas like intelligent design off the back of them.

Perfect opportunity to learn something here.

 


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

caposkia wrote:
agreed, however, we aren't both on the same page in regards to what you're asking for.  You feel it's acceptable evidence, I feel it's nonsense.

Our "feelings" don't matter here, and we already agreed that what I asked for would qualify as acceptable proof.

caposkia wrote:
 I need you to explain how it's possible if in fact demons are real.
 

If I could explain to you how to go about producing acceptable proof for demons, then I could produce it myself, and would have no reason not to believe in demons in the first place. Heck, I'd be rich.

caposkia wrote:
I don't know how what you're asking for would be possible.
 

Then why can't you admit that there is no acceptable proof ??

caposkia wrote:
You have to explain how what we agreed on suddenly validates your alleged proof if demons are real.
 

"..validates..", "..alleged.."..Using those words here makes no sense. You're talking about this acceptable proof as if it already exists, but you still haven't produced it.

We agreed on the rules that determine what would qualify as acceptable proof, and we agree that the proof for demons that I asked for follows those rules. 

caposkia wrote:
 I need to understand how it's possible.
  

If it's not possible, then there is no acceptable proof. It's that simple. Admitting it seems to be the hard part.

caposkia wrote:
acceptable to you, not to me.
  

No, sorry. We already agreed on the rules that determine what would qualify as acceptable proof, and we agree that the proof for demons that I asked for follows those rules. 

Not sure how that slipped your mind, considering how many times I had to repeat it already. 

caposkia wrote:
 Honestly, if someone had a "demon powered generator" and told me they were running their house on it... I would have a hard time believing the power was coming from demons.  In fact... I probably wouldn't believe them at all...
 

And yet when someone tells you their sick child is "possessed by a demon", you are willing to seriously consider that "option".

Think about that for a few seconds. 

caposkia wrote:
You are though.. you are the one defending the claim that if demons were real than the fantastic three would also be possible.
 

?? 

Excuse me, but do you seriously not understand that it's a fact, not a "claim", that you can't just accept the existence of supernatural creatures without acceptable proof ?? Why would I, or anyone else, need to "defend" that simple fact ?

Please do explain. Should be fascinating.

caposkia wrote:
 I don't understand how you make that connection.

Yeah, that's almost obscenely weird, since I've explained that to you again and again and again...Okay, one more time : Because those were the only things I could think of that you can't fake. 

caposkia wrote:
I need an explanation from you.
 

If you could fake it, it wouldn't be acceptable proof. I have now explained something to you that you already agreed with.

caposkia wrote:
It is your problem.
 

No, I'm sorry, but it is beyond absurd to even suggest that it's somehow the other person's "problem" to produce acceptable proof for YOUR supernatural belief. 

If you really don't understand that (and I mean understand what I just said, not something else), then you're going to have to tell me, so I can explain. 

caposkia wrote:
... unless you want to try something else as far as reasonable evidence for demons.
 

"Something else" would be something you could fake, so it wouldn't be acceptable proof. 

caposkia wrote:
well, let's see, to ask to see one would typically require a trip to the dragon's layer be it that dragons are considered physical beings and not spiritual beings.  I would likely tell you where I know one lives and take you there.... I would then let you walk into its layer and let me know how it turns out Eye-wink
 

Absolutely incredible. I made it almost absurdly simple, and you still managed to miss the point. Okay, back to capitals and underlining stuff.

The point is this : IT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE TO SAY THERE IS ACCEPTABLE PROOF FOR A SUPERNATURAL CLAIM, WHEN AT THE SAME TIME YOU CLAIM TO BE UTTERLY CLUELESS WHEN IT COMES TO PRODUCING SAID PROOF. 

DO YOU UNDERSTAND ? IF NOT, THEN SAY SO

caposkia wrote:
be it that you asked for these things that I've told you basically aren't realistic, yea, you need to show me how that proof works... or admit that the proof your asking for is "utterly rediculous"
 

Again, it can only seem "utterly ridiculous". It can't be anything yet, until you actually produce it. Which you haven't yet. 

How much longer are you going to go on about "not realistic", before you realize you're talking about your "demons" ? 

caposkia wrote:
really... it's hard work for you to write 3 things down?  how long does it take you to reply to each post then?  a couple days?
 

About ten minutes. How long before you forget something I told you more than once ? Also ten minutes ? 

caposkia wrote:
Just like with your dragon, you'll have to find someone who summons demons in your area...
 

Yeah, see, here's the thing : I already did that. That's the first thing I ask of anyone who claims to believe in this nonsense. Haven't gotten anything in return except a whole lot of excuses.

And excuses don't count as acceptable proof.

caposkia wrote:
I don't and won't do that.

Ha ! You mean you can ? 

caposkia wrote:
 I don't just mess around with demons like they're a novelty.  That's not how it works.

Excuses don't count as acceptable proof.

And I hope you realize you're trying something any child would try when asked to produce proof for the existence of their imaginary friend: Make up more imaginary rules.

caposkia wrote:
they do?  see this is where I don't follow

But that makes no sense at all. You agreed. That's all there is to it. You're free to change your mind, of course, but I can't read minds, so if that's what happened, you're just going to have to tell me. 

caposkia wrote:
you can keep trying to put the blame on me, but unfortunately for you, I've already told you I'm not avoiding anything. I am making you confront your absurdities... we're almost there...

Oh dear...I'm going to have to burst yet another bubble.

caposkia wrote:
...and yet you're asking me to explain fact with fiction... how does that fit in?

It doesn't "fit" because that's not what I'm asking you to do. I'm asking you to provide acceptable proof for a supernatural claim. 

caposkia wrote:
You are stuck on fiction, when what I've been trying to pull you towards is fact.

Nope, we are trying to determine if something is fact or fiction, and we need acceptable proof for that, which you don't have. 

caposkia wrote:
You need to justify your means of proof

No, wrong yet again. It is a fact that a supernatural claim needs acceptable evidence before we can consider it anything more than fiction. 

If you don't understand why this fact doesn't need to be justified, then tell me. 

caposkia wrote:
I have not denied anything... what is it you think i'm denying here?

You denied using a false analogy, which was a baldfaced lie. 

caposkia wrote:
 my debunking is also there for everyone to read.

You have "debunked" claims I never made, which only further accentuates your dishonesty. 

caposkia wrote:
.. I think you're hoping you can tangent yourself far enough away from those posts that people will forget.

Lol ! Since I'm constantly having to repeat myself, I think there's very little chance that anyone who's reading this is in any danger of forgetting.

Well, anyone except for you, that is.

caposkia wrote:

exactly.. so let's see if we can make progress here:

as you said, you can't prove something is reality just by claiming it is... your'e claiming that if demons are reality, then a demon controlling device and/or a demon powered generator is also reality.  You are indirectly claiming to me, who accepts that demons are reality that those things are also reality.   I can't see how they are... you're claiming they are, then ignoring me when I ask you for an explanation.  Are you not doing the very thing you keep trying to accuse me of doing?

Lol, no ! 

See, what you did there is, once again, ignore that YOU're the one who's making the claim, and I'm the one who's asking for acceptable proof, and we already agreed on how to determine what would make said proof acceptable, and what I ask for qualifies. 

Notice the word "if" in your sentence ? As in "..if demons are reality.." ? So unlike you, I never claimed something "is reality", and left it at that. I claimed that IF something is real, then it is possible to produce acceptable proof. 

Understand now, or do I have to explain again ? 

caposkia wrote:
no,

Sorry, but yes, so far your only argument still comes down to "you do it, cuz I can't" , which is almost as good as openly admitting that there is no acceptable proof.

Almost...but not quite.

caposkia wrote:
all you need to do is explain how your "acceptable proof" is reality if demons are real.  I'll take it from there.

First of all, putting "acceptable proof" in quotation marks after you already agreed my proof would qualify as acceptable makes no sense at all.

Second, if you don't understand that if a supernatural claim is true, it then follows that it's possible to produce acceptable proof, then you're just going to have to tell me. Again, try to remember the " if "  

caposkia wrote:
ah, I didn't think they were actual answers.   Had me worried for a second

Nope, sorry, that reply has absolutely no connection at all to what I said. 

caposkia wrote:
I think the question I have is how is it acceptable proof.

No, we already answered that question : Because those are the only things you wouldn't be able to fake.

caposkia wrote:
.. and the "it's the only proof you can't fake" is not an answer on how that becomes reality.

Again, it's not my job to provide acceptable proof for YOUR supernatural claim. 

YOUR supernatural claim will only become reality if you produce acceptable proof, and you haven't been able to do that just yet. 

caposkia wrote:
 I can't fake a Harry Potter appiration either, but it's also not possible.

Well gee, then I guess there is no acceptable proof for those things either. 

caposkia wrote:
That is essentially what you're asking me to do.

??

No, I'm not asking you to fake anything.

Again : What I'm asking you to do is produce acceptable proof for your supernatural claim. 

caposkia wrote:
It's like you want me to get the Bloods to visit your house.  Not something i'm willing to tamper with.

I have no idea what "the bloods" are. If that's another crazy thing you believe in, then we'll deal with that next.

caposkia wrote:
you're asking me for proof that you can control demons, or that I can make them appear to you, or that I can create a generator that runs off their... I dont' know, plasma or something, none of that is a reasonable means of proving demons exist.

Completely wrong, and here's why : It's acceptable proof, because you can't fake it, and it's reasonable to demand acceptable proof for a supernatural claim. 

caposkia wrote:
None of that is based on spiritual law or spiritual understanding.

Please stop bringing up arguments that I've already dealt with. I mean, it's as if you simply don't listen to me at all.

AGAIN : You can't explain nonsense with nonsense. Your "spirituality" is less than useless because the term itself lacks a definitive definition.

caposkia wrote:
 It's not based on logic.

Since when is it not logical to demand acceptable proof for a supernatural claim ??

caposkia wrote:
I'm glad you see it makes no sense.  

I said it makes no sense for a person who's asking you for acceptable proof for your supernatural claim, to have to explain to you how that is even possible.

So you agree now ????? Oh, okay. 

caposkia wrote:
I know what it means, and no, I was saying it's ignorant to claim that you don't need to understand the subject matter because you already know the answer or the result.  

Oh really ? So it would be "ignorant" to claim scientology's "sacred truths" are puerile science fiction, without first having taken all their courses ?

caposkia wrote:
Thanks for finally answering,  

"Finally answering" ?? Lol ! Dude, I lost count how many times I already told you that.

caposkia wrote:
but do you see where this doesn't make sense?  

Since you already agreed with all of it, this should be good. Do go on. 

caposkia wrote:
Let's run through it. 

Let's !

caposkia wrote:
"if demons exist, then there's acceptable proof for this claim"... ok follow you so far... "so it would be possible to produce it"... sure ok.. "if it's not possible, then there's no such thing as acceptable proof"... ok ". 

Yeeeees ?

caposkia wrote:
..and it would be about time for you to admit this simple fact.  Or produce the proof I asked for.."  ok, here's where I lose you.  acceptable proof yea,  but where in our conversations did we both agree that what you're asking for is acceptable proof?  It seems the term is subjective here. 

That would be the part where I told you my rules for determining what qualifies as "acceptable proof" and you said they made sense. Would you like to change your mind ?

caposkia wrote:
they don't though... if i asked you to produce for me a supernova to prove to me it's real, would it be acceptable proof? Would it also be rational for me to deny their existence if you couldn't produce it for me?

False analogy again. You're comparing proof for a cosmological event to proof for a supernatural claim.

It's strange how you keep using them, even after more than one person has repeatedly and patiently explained to you why they are a logical fallacy.

 

Please produce acceptable proof for demons, or admit that there isn't any.


 

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I don't

caposkia wrote:

I don't know... probably not... unlike the diseases we face day to day, the symptoms though different for every person don't change or modify... I guess there really wouldn't be anything to study... unless they were trying to study whether demons were real or not, but anyone in the know would also understand that studying possession cases is not going to appropriately give you that answer.  The best result you would get is the documented cases had consistent symptom patterns.

Consistent symptom patterns would at least be a start. It would indicate that there is at the very least some problem that mental health experts have not solved. Or in the case of demons obsessed with electronics, a problem that electricians have not been able to solve. (I am happy to report that Boeing has solved their battery problems for their 787s, fortunately the problem wasn't demons.) So if studying possession cases is not appropriate for giving me the answer as to whether or not demons exist, what will? 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

I'm pretty sure I said "exorcisms" happen every day... actual possession cases I believe don't happen as often... exorcisms can be performed to rid a nusance as well rather than only possessions. 

Why should you believe any true case that has exaggerations? 

Here you're looking at the black and white of it.  Do exaggerations automatically nullify the occurance?

When someone tells me a story and I catch an outright lie in the story, I tend to be even more skeptical of everything else they tell me; especially when I find the other things they are telling me hard to believe anyway. Now if everything they tell me that is verifiable turns out to be true, I am going to be more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt on the things that are impossible to verify. Since it is generally impossible, or at least incredibly laborious, to independently verify everything that people tell you, I think that giving more credibility to sources that have proven accurate and less to sources that have proven wrong/misleading is a great way to save time. While a source that has been wrong about somethings may be right about others, it is prudent to be more skeptical with them. 

 

caposkia wrote:

well to compare gravity studies to demonic studies, first of all there are people out there who do study it every day... The issue with taking a scientific method approach is that gravity is a constant, demons are not.

Scientists study things that are not constants all the time. Many believe that gravity is not as constant as previous gravitational theory has suspected. And Dark Matter may or may not be constant. We don't know because we haven't even proved that it exists yet. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Could it be??? maybe??? that demons only possess or suggest to those who believe in them??? or could it be maybe that those who do not believe in them never consider that to be the culprit... which in turn then would make the results of a study conclude that only those who believe in them actually get possessed.  Tough call. or not Eye-wink

It is reasonable also to consider that different religions would have different ways of dealing with such an occurance be it that different religions are taught different things about what they are and how to deal with them.

Let us assume for the sake of the next couple paragraphs that demons are real and they do possess people. There are two possibilities, either demons possess anyone or demons only possess believers. If the former, symptoms like speaking in a low voice and claiming to be a demon would not be limited to believers. You would expect to see such symptoms in anyone who is possessed. Furthermore, exorcism working as a cure would not be limited to believers, it would work on anyone who is possessed (or at least have the same success rate). So why don't we see non-believers exhibit these symptoms?

If the latter possibility, that demons only possess people who believe in them, wouldn't the quickest and best way to eliminate demons be to stop believing in them? Kind of like the Matrix where the best way to not get hurt is to believe you will not be hurt.

 

caposkia wrote:
  

The first link goes through a rather extensive history, then talks about how psychologists and therapists have used exorcisms.  They consider that even if demons aren't real, when modern medicine fails, the placebo affect (my words) likely would help them improve.  That makes a lot of sense.  

I find it curious that it does also mention how there's no "harm" in trying an exorcism, yet says that a lot of people have gotten hurt or even killed... I would say all those examples sound like attempted murder situations and not exorcisms... I would love to see where they found the instructions to put a plastic bag over someone's head to rid them of demons.  That's a new one for me... also the stomping thing was also a new way of approaching it.

I agree it makes perfect sense that exorcism can work as a placebo since most of the problems it intends to solve are mental. I don't know if any of the links I posted address it, but I have read articles from psychologists on both sides of that fence. Some argue it doesn't hurt anything, so why not; others argue that performing an exorcism just allows the patient to stick their head in the sand and ignore a potentially serious issue causing more harm in the long run. In my non-expert opinion, I think both sides raise valid points and which approach is better depends strongly on the specific patient. For myself, I prefer to deal with what is real than believe in a fantasy. Although in my life I have met people who clearly ignore reality and are apparently happy to believe in the fantasy they created. If it works for them, I am not going to burst their bubble. As I stated before, I believe that religion is a fantasy, but I know many people who have personally benefited from their beliefs.

 

caposkia wrote:

Ok, that still leaves it quite broad, but let's see.  Stories of experience won't work for you right?  

Strange spiritual scenarios don't work becasue you weren't there and it's not repeatable... do they have to be repeatable?  

As I've said to others, the only truly repeatable scenario..(I think I said it to you too) is to truly seek out God with your whole heart and follow His ways.  If you do that, you will eventually understand.

If it occurs among multiple people it is repeatable. If it only happened once and will never happen again, then I don't see a reason why we should worry about whether it actually happened or not.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

But that's not a likely path for a non-believer.  Do EVP's or non-debunked video of possible spirits work?  

EVPs have already been debunked thousands of times and considering that in our modern world in any given location there are hundreds to thousands of voices flying around the air from radios, CBs, cell phones, satellites, wifi etc. plus the white noise effect which is the equivalent of the childhood past time of staring at clouds and seeing shapes in them (do kids do that anymore? Probably not with all the new video games and such.) It is hardly surprising that you are going to occasionally pick up a voice or two over any electronic device. For some reason, high quality recording equipment which is capable of filtering out noises and focusing on one channel at a time have not found any ghosts, demons or spirits.

The only non-debunked videos are the ones that no one has bothered spending time to debunk. The inherent problem with skepticism is that it is a lot easier and faster to make stuff up and fake it than it is to prove it was a fake, so skeptics are always a little bit behind. Plus with the internet and everyone carrying a camera in their cellphone there is simply so much bull out there that most of it isn't worth the time to debunk.

 

caposkia wrote:
  

what about the thereputic process of prayer and/or spiritual interaction?

Many studies have been conducted and some have shown small positive results. Prayer is certainly capable of changing a person's mindset, as is meditation and general optimism. Studies in which other people prayed for a particular person without that person knowing have shown that it makes no difference whatsoever. If you can show me evidence where prayer has a substantial effect on something that the person praying has no control over and the persons mindset cannot influence it would certainly be worth looking at. For example, if you could show that prayer increases the odds of winning the lottery or make you a winner long term at roulette etc. it would certainly be surprising to me. I have witnessed many a person praying to god at the poker table; it doesn't seem to help.

 

caposkia wrote:
  

What about the study that has concluded that there's a 'god gene' in our brain... the study doesn't suggest that there is actually a God, but rather that our brains are wired to accept such a belief... Some skeptical scientists believe it has formed through the centuries over 1000's of years of belief in gods, others believe that its' a finger print of the creator.  This one I'd have to do some homework on again.  it has been quite a while

I believe you are talking about the VMAT2 gene which was hypothesized by Dr. Dean Hamer to be correlated with religious beliefs (not any specific belief but just supernatural beliefs in general)

http://www.amazon.com/God-Gene-Faith-Hardwired-Genes/dp/0385720319

My understanding is that even Dr. Hamer has separated himself from the claim that the single gene plays a significant role in religious beliefs. Although, our understanding of precisely how much we are controlled by our genetics vs. our environment is a very young area of science and there is little doubt that in 50 years we will be looking back and laughing at how wrong we were with all of our theories. I do find it quite plausible that there might be a series of genes that make a person more likely to be religious/spiritual. We don't know what much of our genetic code does yet. 

If there is a gene or combination of genes that makes a person more likely to believe, I would think that is a serious conflict for most Christian denominations because how could a loving God punish a person for not believing when their ability to believe is directly controlled by their DNA? IOW if belief is controlled by genetics then it is as much a choice as any disease caused by genetics, which totally destroys the idea of freewill that most Christians have. 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

So? Is it impossible for an omnipotent being to approach and inspire a single person? 

no, that happened throughout scripture, so why then is the Koran so different?  and why wait until after Jesus' coming?  Also, what kind of angel forces an illiterate person to write by physical torture?  That seems inconsistant with... well... any religions beliefs for that matter... When you can't find congruencies with other religions, especially with the ones it likely came from, there is question as to its validity.  

If we're questioning that, we'd also need to question the book of mormon and the Jehovah's Witnesses NWT as to why they're not valid.  Much of it is context and congruency.  

We should be questioning the Book of Mormon the NWT and all other religious texts that you dismiss. I hold them all to the same standard and have the same opinion of them all. You believe the Bible but dismiss all the others. What kind of an angel uses torture? Maybe one that comes from the same god whose idea to save humanity was to create a son for the sole purpose of being tortured to death on a cross as a method for him to forgive the rest of humanity. Maybe the same one who decided that a good way to straighten out humanity was to have a gigantic flood that killed almost every living person on the planet along with virtually every animal. Maybe the same one who thinks that sending people to hell for not believing in him is a good idea. Maybe the same one who likes to test the faith of his followers by asking them to do things like sacrifice their son. Or destroys everything in a righteous man's life including killing his ten children- not because he did anything wrong, but because Satan was talking smack. Given God's history as given in the Bible, I think the story is perfectly consistent with his character. 

 

caposkia wrote:

they're in the churches.

It would be irresponsible for an exorcist to perform an exorcism on someone who may not have a demon.  A real practiced exorcist would be sure.  It takes an expert to know for sure.  Obviously there are ways to study it.  Again, they're in the churches.

Well last year the Vatican announced they were going to digitize a million+ pages of their library so maybe we will find something there. I find it hard to believe there is anything worthwhile on demonology and none of the academics who have been there studying in the Vatican library haven't seen fit to write a journal article on it.

 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

If I am in heaven, I presumably still have love for the people I loved while alive right? So I would be sitting there playing my harp in the clouds or basking in god's love or whatever your conception of heaven is; meanwhile, I would know that my Grandma and several of my dearest friends are suffering in hell. To me, that would be worse punishment than anything I could possibly imagine. Could you be happy in heaven for eternity if someone you loved suffered in hell? What does god do? Brainwash everyone so they don't remember that their loved ones didn't get to the VIP section?

that's  not quite how it works, there's a whole lot more to it.  Including the second resurrection in Revelation.  Basically, everyone gets the chance to defend themselves "before the court" if you will.  You believe your whole family is in hell?  That's quite amazing to me, not even your grandma was a believer?  The thing is, family... if you're that close to them, would notice the changes made in you and be very curious... typically they will follow suit if the changes in you are real and valid.  Friends too, therefore, likely they would be with you as well, but beyond that, heaven is understood to be where no tears are shed and no more pain is suffered... I'm not sure what it's like, but I do know that as much as you think you'd be dwelling on those who didn't choose God, you would not... I dont' believe it'd be a brainwashing either.  

it's a subject I can't directly answer because I'm not sure exactly how that works... but the thing with hell is you can compare it to light and dark.  where light is something tangeable and able to be studied, but dark is literally just the absense of light.  You cannot study dark.  Heaven is light, hell is dark.

Oh, much of my family is going to heaven no doubt. At least that is what they tell me. I am going to hell. My Grandma, the person in my life I cared for the most by far, is deceased and died an atheist and unapologetic sinner. Given a choice between spending eternity with most of my family or being in hell with grandma, my friends and my lovers- it simply is not a difficult choice. I see most of my family once a year and that is by design. Perhaps if I converted I could get a few other people to convert; I doubt it, but it is possible. However, those who are deceased have already sealed their fates. 

I am curious about your thoughts on why I wouldn't dwell on the people who didn't choose god if somehow I was converted and saved and get to go to heaven. It is inescapable that some people I love will go to hell and others will (probably) go to heaven. I am friends with a few bible thumpers. So, regardless of where I go, I am going to be separated from someone I care about. Are you saying that heaven is so great that I would no longer care about everyone who got sent to hell? Frankly, that would be a huge change from the person I am to a person I have no desire to be. There is no way god could make me like that without completely destroying my freewill.

And going a bit further off topic here, I do not think that living life in eternal bliss would be all it is cracked up to be. I think discomfort, pain, sadness, anger, tears etc. are all a fulfilling part of life. You don't really enjoy pleasures and comforts without experiencing pain in between. Love means nothing without also being able to experience a lack of love, pleasure means nothing without the lack of pleasure, warm means nothing without cold etc. Living in a place which is constantly perfect would be incredibly tedious and boring. Living for eternity for that matter would be incredibly boring. Life is precious precisely because it is limited.   

 

caposkia wrote:

um... you're talking about learning... God created, then put us in charge of the creation.  As far as the materials to create a tractor are concerned, they were always here, but it took humans until the 19th century to figure out how to put them together to make such a thing.  Humans survived just fine without it, but now they can make a business out of it.  As much good that has come of them, just as much bad has come of them as well.  We cant' take inventions and say that we learned of them becasue now we're more good than before.

Humans did not "survive just fine without it", humans starved to death, froze to death, dehydrated, were malnourished and died. As a species we survived, but many individuals lost out in the race for resources through no fault of their own. Which family you were born into was the primary predictor of how much you ate. Yes we can say we are more good than before. There is no question that life in a modern country today is far better than life 1000 years ago. Heck, our big "problem" now is that we eat too much, a much better problem than not having enough every day which was the case for most of human history for most people. So why didn't god leave some good agricultural advice in the Bible? For example, he could have suggested a few crop rotation techniques that increase production and reduce pest problems which would have saved us a few thousand years of trial and error; Such advice would have prevented several serious famines in history. Or he could have including information on canning techniques which would have allowed for longer term storage during bountiful years and reduce climate caused famines. (The dehydration and pickling techniques that existed were sufficient to prepare for a winter but not enough to prepare for 2-3 years of bad crops)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines

You will note that most famines we know of in early history were caused by weather and a lack of agricultural knowledge/technology to deal with it even in areas of the world that were relatively advanced. Modern day famines are almost exclusively caused by human violence. Whole countries were depopulated on the order of 15-50% of their people dying. So did god decide to cause the famine and kill them? Or is god not responsible for providing food? (in which case, why thank him for it?).   

 

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:who said I

caposkia wrote:
who said I was?  The point still stands

No, you have no point at all. You cannot simply ignore the fact that you would be meddling with a medical matter. A situation in which you would have nothing to "teach" whatsoever.

 

caposkia wrote:
it was a question, not an analogy... nice try though.  Could you answer it now though?

Using a false analogy in a question doesn't change what it is. Also, your continued use of the phrase "nice try" is completely meaningless.

There are no parallels between your hypothetical situation and the many facts I confronted you with because, as I already told you, at no point would math be presented as an alternative for modern medicine.

But if a math teacher ever performed an exorcism, then sure, he would be just as responsible for any negative consequences as you would be.

 

caposkia wrote:
that's like saying to a 2 year old not to touch the stove after he burned himself.

?

No, that comparison makes no sense at all.

 

caposkia wrote:
 God denounces it, he teaches against it, not advises after the fact.

You are conveniently ignoring that we only hear from god through his believers, who will quite shamelessly backpedal if any of their predictions or advice turns out bad.

"The kid I tried to exorcise went and died on me ? Oh well, then it was probably satan who told me to do it. Not god. My mistake. Guess I'd better study scripture some more. Gosh, I hope I get to be stronger in my faith this time"

 

 

caposkia wrote:
not a lie, you are associating it with the belief system,you are promoting it within it... you have connect it where it previously wasn't connected.

No, again, the connection was made by the people committing these crimes before I even heard of them. So your accusation that I'm somehow "promoting" it, is not only a lie, but completely ridiculous to boot.

 

caposkia wrote:
study, reasoning, rationality

No, please don't repeat answers I debunked in the very comment you're replying to.

You can find "study" material about anything, so study alone will never be enough. If you do not understand why that is so, then tell me 

Reasoning and rationality would demand proof, of which you have none. If you do not understand that, then tell me.

So again, how do you keep from believing everything ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
there are other possibilities, but that wasn't waht was in question.  you seem to take it as those were the only signs.

??? "Only signs" ??? What are you talking about ? Please be more clear. This is about you meddling in medical emergencies with your superstitious nonsense.

 

caposkia wrote:
Right, and just saying "this is fake" doesn't make it fake

Indeed, and as you well know, that is NOT what I said.  

I asked you if you were actually claiming if it was impossible for an atheist to change as your friend had, or if it was impossible for your friend to have other reasons for his change.

An honest answer to either of those questions would once again expose the fact that you still haven't found a single example of belief in "demons" and "possession" leading to even a single positive effect that could not have occurred without it.

 

caposkia wrote:
no

And thank you for that honest answer to a simple question.

It's official then : You cannot find even a single example of belief in "demons" and "possession" leading to even a single positive effect that could not have occurred without it. 

There is absolutely nothing.

Which leaves you with all the examples of the crimes it led to.

Which brings up the question : Why openly support such an exclusively toxic belief ?


 

caposkia wrote:
is it caused by the religion, or the disposition in the person?

It is caused by a belief in "demons" and "possession". Or do you know another situation in which someone would deny a loved one urgent medical care in favor of a religious ritual ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
no, just that he keeps talking about it

??

Only after you bring it up as an "argument". He's supposed to just ignore you ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
no,

"no" ?????? So when you share your beliefs, it's NOT your intention to plant those beliefs in other's minds ??? Then why not simply shut up and achieve the same result ???

 

caposkia wrote:
is it your intention when you share truths?

Well, yes, obviously. If what I'm saying doesn't reach your mind, then why even bother ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
Or are you just trying to get people to understand

For people to understand what you're saying, you'd need to get through to their minds first, dontcha think ??

 

caposkia wrote:
.. If I had intentionally planted the idea, then I would have to say that I probably wouldnt' care about the results.

Antipatris wrote:
Then you really are an extraordinarily callous and shamelessly cruel human being. 

caposkia wrote:
exactly

As long as you're aware of it, that's something, I suppose.

 


caposkia wrote:
oh please don't start changing who I am,

Excuse me, what ?????

 

caposkia wrote:
I understood that we were talkign hypothetically... realistically, I wouldn't have planted the idea... but you weren't satisfied with that answer, so I gave you the hypothetical.

No, "realistically" you wouldn't have 20/20 hindsight as you have now, and you DID defend this case as being genuine, and you DID refuse to keep your insane beliefs to yourself, so what possible reason could there even be for you not sharing your beliefs in "demons" and "possessions" as that person did ? 

And you did not answer or understand my question : What happened to Anneliese after she was dead and buried, because of the interference of yet another believer in "demons" and "possession", would that be a bridge too far for you, or would you consider that okay as well ? 

 

 

caposkia wrote:
well, to be honest... If I didn't have my cake... I wouldn't be able to eat it, so I would prefer to have it first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can't_have_your_cake_and_eat_it

I was of course referring to your claim that you wouldn't share your "demon" and "possession" ideas with people like Anneliese, and your earlier refusal to simply shut up about it.

You can't do both. 


 


 

caposkia wrote:
good job trying to change who I am online.

I didn't "change" a damn thing. I asked you a question and you answered. 

 

 

caposkia wrote:
I think most people will see through that though.

Will they ? Oh good.

Then for the benefit of "most people", here's your answer to that question again :

 

caposkia wrote:
.. If I had intentionally planted the idea, then I would have to say that I probably wouldnt' care about the results.

Antipatris wrote:
Then you really are an extraordinarily callous and shamelessly cruel human being.

caposkia wrote:
exactly


 

 

 


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

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Please start this thread - I think it's important that your lack of knowledge regarding genetics is laid bare and you can learn from it before you start banding around quotes like the above which are incorrect, and hanging ridiculous ideas like intelligent design off the back of them.

Perfect opportunity to learn something here.

I'm assuming you have a major understanding of it, so I'd be willing to discuss it with you.  Just for the record though, I'm not "hanging...intelligent design off the back" of this.


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

Anonymouse wrote:

Our "feelings" don't matter here, and we already agreed that what I asked for would qualify as acceptable proof.

and here again, I don't remember agreeing specifically to accepting what you're asking for as "acceptable proof" rather I only agreed to the rules you put in place.... maybe I had too much to drink that night

Anonymouse wrote:

If I could explain to you how to go about producing acceptable proof for demons, then I could produce it myself, and would have no reason not to believe in demons in the first place. Heck, I'd be rich.

...so then you're admitting that what you're asking for is nonsense then and not just presumably so?

Anonymouse wrote:

Then why can't you admit that there is no acceptable proof ??

because then I'd be lying

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
You have to explain how what we agreed on suddenly validates your alleged proof if demons are real.
 

"..validates..", "..alleged.."..Using those words here makes no sense. You're talking about this acceptable proof as if it already exists, but you still haven't produced it.

We agreed on the rules that determine what would qualify as acceptable proof, and we agree that the proof for demons that I asked for follows those rules. 

it makes perfect sense, by your reasoning your rules have validated your proof as acceptable.

Anonymouse wrote:

If it's not possible, then there is no acceptable proof. It's that simple. Admitting it seems to be the hard part.

so if a fantasy is not possible, then there's no acceptable proof for reality... got it

Anonymouse wrote:

And yet when someone tells you their sick child is "possessed by a demon", you are willing to seriously consider that "option".

Think about that for a few seconds. 

....   ...  ... ok... I did that.. now what?

Anonymouse wrote:

Excuse me, but do you seriously not understand that it's a fact, not a "claim", that you can't just accept the existence of supernatural creatures without acceptable proof ?? Why would I, or anyone else, need to "defend" that simple fact ?

Please do explain. Should be fascinating.

what you determined are your acceptable means of proof are not because they do not coenside with what demons are and how they work.    I accept acceptable proof.which means acceptable proof is subjective and not an objective approach to the subject matter... therefore we need to start looking at this objectively

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 I don't understand how you make that connection.

Yeah, that's almost obscenely weird, since I've explained that to you again and again and again...Okay, one more time : Because those were the only things I could think of that you can't fake. 

...and if I could fake the other stuff, how is it that you couldn't prove I was faking it?  That should be the easy part if in fact i do fake evidence. 

Also, how do you produce unrealistic evidence?  I mean I don't know how any of those projected evidences would work, be it that you're determined that is acceptable proof that can't be faked, you must be able to produce it yourself... or admit that what you are asking for is actually nonsense.

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I need an explanation from you.
 

If you could fake it, it wouldn't be acceptable proof. I have now explained something to you that you already agreed with.

if I can't fake it, how does it make all requests acceptable?  I can't fake a gravitational pull upward, does that make it an acceptable proof for demons?

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
It is your problem.
 

No, I'm sorry, but it is beyond absurd to even suggest that it's somehow the other person's "problem" to produce acceptable proof for YOUR supernatural belief. 

not when the other person is making the claim that the proof they're asking for is possible and acceptable when it doesn't have anything to do with spriitual reality.

Anonymouse wrote:

"Something else" would be something you could fake, so it wouldn't be acceptable proof. 

I'm curious, what is this other evidence that I can allegedly fake?

Anonymouse wrote:

Absolutely incredible. I made it almost absurdly simple, and you still managed to miss the point. Okay, back to capitals and underlining stuff.

The point is this : IT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE TO SAY THERE IS ACCEPTABLE PROOF FOR A SUPERNATURAL CLAIM, WHEN AT THE SAME TIME YOU CLAIM TO BE UTTERLY CLUELESS WHEN IT COMES TO PRODUCING SAID PROOF. 

DO YOU UNDERSTAND ? IF NOT, THEN SAY SO

I'm clueless about the proof you're asking for becasue what you're asking for is something I've never heard of attempting or even considering as proof for spirits.  Therefore, if you truly think it's possible, then you need to tell me how

Anonymouse wrote:

Again, it can only seem "utterly ridiculous". It can't be anything yet, until you actually produce it. Which you haven't yet. 

How much longer are you going to go on about "not realistic", before you realize you're talking about your "demons" ? 

long enough for you to realize your proof is right in line with your false analogies claims.

Anonymouse wrote:

About ten minutes. How long before you forget something I told you more than once ? Also ten minutes ? 

usually somewhere between 3-4 posts of tangents

Anonymouse wrote:

Yeah, see, here's the thing : I already did that. That's the first thing I ask of anyone who claims to believe in this nonsense. Haven't gotten anything in return except a whole lot of excuses.

And excuses don't count as acceptable proof.

then I guess you haven't found the right people yet.  You need to be looking for demon worshipers... serious ones, not just those who claim they are so they can get into a Marylin Manson concert.

Anonymouse wrote:

Ha ! You mean you can ? 

probably just as easy as i can get shot from the US government for pretending to attack a gov't official... but i won't do it.... it would make just as much sense

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 I don't just mess around with demons like they're a novelty.  That's not how it works.

Excuses don't count as acceptable proof.

I'm glad you finally understand, so how about coming up with something new that I can't fake

Anonymouse wrote:

And I hope you realize you're trying something any child would try when asked to produce proof for the existence of their imaginary friend: Make up more imaginary rules.

show me 

Anonymouse wrote:

But that makes no sense at all. You agreed. That's all there is to it. You're free to change your mind, of course, but I can't read minds, so if that's what happened, you're just going to have to tell me.

I agreed to your rules, not your evidence.  build me a couch powered generator and then we'll talk.  Your request for proof is just as rediculous to a believer.

Anonymouse wrote:
 

caposkia wrote:
...and yet you're asking me to explain fact with fiction... how does that fit in?

It doesn't "fit" because that's not what I'm asking you to do. I'm asking you to provide acceptable proof for a supernatural claim. 

no, you're asking me to explain fact with fiction...  unless you've figured out how your evidence is possible

Anonymouse wrote:

Lol ! Since I'm constantly having to repeat myself, I think there's very little chance that anyone who's reading this is in any danger of forgetting.

Well, anyone except for you, that is.

if you hadn't repeated your request for evidence a few posts back, I pretty much guarantee most had forgotten what you asked for.

Anonymouse wrote:

See, what you did there is, once again, ignore that YOU're the one who's making the claim, and I'm the one who's asking for acceptable proof, and we already agreed on how to determine what would make said proof acceptable, and what I ask for qualifies. 

I've only claimed that demons exist... you've taken it to the next level by saying that we can connect them to a generator and make power from them.  What is your plane of reality?  Obviously it's quite wide.

Anonymouse wrote:

Again, it's not my job to provide acceptable proof for YOUR supernatural claim. 

and again, it is your job to explain how the proof you're asking for is even possible in connection to the topic at hand... I'll even help you start... k, here it goes:

a demon powered generator is possible if demons are real because......  your turn..

Anonymouse wrote:

I have no idea what "the bloods" are. If that's another crazy thing you believe in, then we'll deal with that next.

they're a street gang... wow you're just looking for reasons to invalidate anything aren't you.  This is what I said about you from the very beginning, you're not interested in discussing the topic ratinoally, you're interested in proving your reality

Anonymouse wrote:

Since when is it not logical to demand acceptable proof for a supernatural claim ??

it is logical to ask for acceptable proof of a supernatural claim, so why aren't you doing that?

Anonymouse wrote:

Oh really ? So it would be "ignorant" to claim scientology's "sacred truths" are puerile science fiction, without first having taken all their courses ?

...or at least studying the details of what they are... I mean by your standards, one of their sacred truths could be that the grass turns green in the summer and you've already dismissed that as reality.  

Point and case, how can you not be ignorant in claiming anything science fiction without understanding of the subject matter?

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
..and it would be about time for you to admit this simple fact.  Or produce the proof I asked for.."  ok, here's where I lose you.  acceptable proof yea,  but where in our conversations did we both agree that what you're asking for is acceptable proof?  It seems the term is subjective here. 

That would be the part where I told you my rules for determining what qualifies as "acceptable proof" and you said they made sense. Would you like to change your mind ?

no, but your rules don't make any random request for proof acceptable.  You still need grounds for your approach... as to which you seem to have none

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
they don't though... if i asked you to produce for me a supernova to prove to me it's real, would it be acceptable proof? Would it also be rational for me to deny their existence if you couldn't produce it for me?

False analogy again. You're comparing proof for a cosmological event to proof for a supernatural claim.

no I asked you a strait question... stop with the false analogy excuses and just answer it


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

I don't know... probably not... unlike the diseases we face day to day, the symptoms though different for every person don't change or modify... I guess there really wouldn't be anything to study... unless they were trying to study whether demons were real or not, but anyone in the know would also understand that studying possession cases is not going to appropriately give you that answer.  The best result you would get is the documented cases had consistent symptom patterns.

Consistent symptom patterns would at least be a start. It would indicate that there is at the very least some problem that mental health experts have not solved. Or in the case of demons obsessed with electronics, a problem that electricians have not been able to solve. (I am happy to report that Boeing has solved their battery problems for their 787s, fortunately the problem wasn't demons.) So if studying possession cases is not appropriate for giving me the answer as to whether or not demons exist, what will? 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

I'm pretty sure I said "exorcisms" happen every day... actual possession cases I believe don't happen as often... exorcisms can be performed to rid a nusance as well rather than only possessions. 

Why should you believe any true case that has exaggerations? 

Here you're looking at the black and white of it.  Do exaggerations automatically nullify the occurance?

When someone tells me a story and I catch an outright lie in the story, I tend to be even more skeptical of everything else they tell me; especially when I find the other things they are telling me hard to believe anyway. Now if everything they tell me that is verifiable turns out to be true, I am going to be more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt on the things that are impossible to verify. Since it is generally impossible, or at least incredibly laborious, to independently verify everything that people tell you, I think that giving more credibility to sources that have proven accurate and less to sources that have proven wrong/misleading is a great way to save time. While a source that has been wrong about somethings may be right about others, it is prudent to be more skeptical with them. 

 

caposkia wrote:

well to compare gravity studies to demonic studies, first of all there are people out there who do study it every day... The issue with taking a scientific method approach is that gravity is a constant, demons are not.

Scientists study things that are not constants all the time. Many believe that gravity is not as constant as previous gravitational theory has suspected. And Dark Matter may or may not be constant. We don't know because we haven't even proved that it exists yet. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Could it be??? maybe??? that demons only possess or suggest to those who believe in them??? or could it be maybe that those who do not believe in them never consider that to be the culprit... which in turn then would make the results of a study conclude that only those who believe in them actually get possessed.  Tough call. or not Eye-wink

It is reasonable also to consider that different religions would have different ways of dealing with such an occurance be it that different religions are taught different things about what they are and how to deal with them.

Let us assume for the sake of the next couple paragraphs that demons are real and they do possess people. There are two possibilities, either demons possess anyone or demons only possess believers. If the former, symptoms like speaking in a low voice and claiming to be a demon would not be limited to believers. You would expect to see such symptoms in anyone who is possessed. Furthermore, exorcism working as a cure would not be limited to believers, it would work on anyone who is possessed (or at least have the same success rate). So why don't we see non-believers exhibit these symptoms?

If the latter possibility, that demons only possess people who believe in them, wouldn't the quickest and best way to eliminate demons be to stop believing in them? Kind of like the Matrix where the best way to not get hurt is to believe you will not be hurt.

 

caposkia wrote:
  

The first link goes through a rather extensive history, then talks about how psychologists and therapists have used exorcisms.  They consider that even if demons aren't real, when modern medicine fails, the placebo affect (my words) likely would help them improve.  That makes a lot of sense.  

I find it curious that it does also mention how there's no "harm" in trying an exorcism, yet says that a lot of people have gotten hurt or even killed... I would say all those examples sound like attempted murder situations and not exorcisms... I would love to see where they found the instructions to put a plastic bag over someone's head to rid them of demons.  That's a new one for me... also the stomping thing was also a new way of approaching it.

I agree it makes perfect sense that exorcism can work as a placebo since most of the problems it intends to solve are mental. I don't know if any of the links I posted address it, but I have read articles from psychologists on both sides of that fence. Some argue it doesn't hurt anything, so why not; others argue that performing an exorcism just allows the patient to stick their head in the sand and ignore a potentially serious issue causing more harm in the long run. In my non-expert opinion, I think both sides raise valid points and which approach is better depends strongly on the specific patient. For myself, I prefer to deal with what is real than believe in a fantasy. Although in my life I have met people who clearly ignore reality and are apparently happy to believe in the fantasy they created. If it works for them, I am not going to burst their bubble. As I stated before, I believe that religion is a fantasy, but I know many people who have personally benefited from their beliefs.

 

caposkia wrote:

Ok, that still leaves it quite broad, but let's see.  Stories of experience won't work for you right?  

Strange spiritual scenarios don't work becasue you weren't there and it's not repeatable... do they have to be repeatable?  

As I've said to others, the only truly repeatable scenario..(I think I said it to you too) is to truly seek out God with your whole heart and follow His ways.  If you do that, you will eventually understand.

If it occurs among multiple people it is repeatable. If it only happened once and will never happen again, then I don't see a reason why we should worry about whether it actually happened or not.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

But that's not a likely path for a non-believer.  Do EVP's or non-debunked video of possible spirits work?  

EVPs have already been debunked thousands of times and considering that in our modern world in any given location there are hundreds to thousands of voices flying around the air from radios, CBs, cell phones, satellites, wifi etc. plus the white noise effect which is the equivalent of the childhood past time of staring at clouds and seeing shapes in them (do kids do that anymore? Probably not with all the new video games and such.) It is hardly surprising that you are going to occasionally pick up a voice or two over any electronic device. For some reason, high quality recording equipment which is capable of filtering out noises and focusing on one channel at a time have not found any ghosts, demons or spirits.

The only non-debunked videos are the ones that no one has bothered spending time to debunk. The inherent problem with skepticism is that it is a lot easier and faster to make stuff up and fake it than it is to prove it was a fake, so skeptics are always a little bit behind. Plus with the internet and everyone carrying a camera in their cellphone there is simply so much bull out there that most of it isn't worth the time to debunk.

 

caposkia wrote:
  

what about the thereputic process of prayer and/or spiritual interaction?

Many studies have been conducted and some have shown small positive results. Prayer is certainly capable of changing a person's mindset, as is meditation and general optimism. Studies in which other people prayed for a particular person without that person knowing have shown that it makes no difference whatsoever. If you can show me evidence where prayer has a substantial effect on something that the person praying has no control over and the persons mindset cannot influence it would certainly be worth looking at. For example, if you could show that prayer increases the odds of winning the lottery or make you a winner long term at roulette etc. it would certainly be surprising to me. I have witnessed many a person praying to god at the poker table; it doesn't seem to help.

 

caposkia wrote:
  

What about the study that has concluded that there's a 'god gene' in our brain... the study doesn't suggest that there is actually a God, but rather that our brains are wired to accept such a belief... Some skeptical scientists believe it has formed through the centuries over 1000's of years of belief in gods, others believe that its' a finger print of the creator.  This one I'd have to do some homework on again.  it has been quite a while

I believe you are talking about the VMAT2 gene which was hypothesized by Dr. Dean Hamer to be correlated with religious beliefs (not any specific belief but just supernatural beliefs in general)

http://www.amazon.com/God-Gene-Faith-Hardwired-Genes/dp/0385720319

My understanding is that even Dr. Hamer has separated himself from the claim that the single gene plays a significant role in religious beliefs. Although, our understanding of precisely how much we are controlled by our genetics vs. our environment is a very young area of science and there is little doubt that in 50 years we will be looking back and laughing at how wrong we were with all of our theories. I do find it quite plausible that there might be a series of genes that make a person more likely to be religious/spiritual. We don't know what much of our genetic code does yet. 

If there is a gene or combination of genes that makes a person more likely to believe, I would think that is a serious conflict for most Christian denominations because how could a loving God punish a person for not believing when their ability to believe is directly controlled by their DNA? IOW if belief is controlled by genetics then it is as much a choice as any disease caused by genetics, which totally destroys the idea of freewill that most Christians have. 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

So? Is it impossible for an omnipotent being to approach and inspire a single person? 

no, that happened throughout scripture, so why then is the Koran so different?  and why wait until after Jesus' coming?  Also, what kind of angel forces an illiterate person to write by physical torture?  That seems inconsistant with... well... any religions beliefs for that matter... When you can't find congruencies with other religions, especially with the ones it likely came from, there is question as to its validity.  

If we're questioning that, we'd also need to question the book of mormon and the Jehovah's Witnesses NWT as to why they're not valid.  Much of it is context and congruency.  

We should be questioning the Book of Mormon the NWT and all other religious texts that you dismiss. I hold them all to the same standard and have the same opinion of them all. You believe the Bible but dismiss all the others. What kind of an angel uses torture? Maybe one that comes from the same god whose idea to save humanity was to create a son for the sole purpose of being tortured to death on a cross as a method for him to forgive the rest of humanity. Maybe the same one who decided that a good way to straighten out humanity was to have a gigantic flood that killed almost every living person on the planet along with virtually every animal. Maybe the same one who thinks that sending people to hell for not believing in him is a good idea. Maybe the same one who likes to test the faith of his followers by asking them to do things like sacrifice their son. Or destroys everything in a righteous man's life including killing his ten children- not because he did anything wrong, but because Satan was talking smack. Given God's history as given in the Bible, I think the story is perfectly consistent with his character. 

 

caposkia wrote:

they're in the churches.

It would be irresponsible for an exorcist to perform an exorcism on someone who may not have a demon.  A real practiced exorcist would be sure.  It takes an expert to know for sure.  Obviously there are ways to study it.  Again, they're in the churches.

Well last year the Vatican announced they were going to digitize a million+ pages of their library so maybe we will find something there. I find it hard to believe there is anything worthwhile on demonology and none of the academics who have been there studying in the Vatican library haven't seen fit to write a journal article on it.

 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

If I am in heaven, I presumably still have love for the people I loved while alive right? So I would be sitting there playing my harp in the clouds or basking in god's love or whatever your conception of heaven is; meanwhile, I would know that my Grandma and several of my dearest friends are suffering in hell. To me, that would be worse punishment than anything I could possibly imagine. Could you be happy in heaven for eternity if someone you loved suffered in hell? What does god do? Brainwash everyone so they don't remember that their loved ones didn't get to the VIP section?

that's  not quite how it works, there's a whole lot more to it.  Including the second resurrection in Revelation.  Basically, everyone gets the chance to defend themselves "before the court" if you will.  You believe your whole family is in hell?  That's quite amazing to me, not even your grandma was a believer?  The thing is, family... if you're that close to them, would notice the changes made in you and be very curious... typically they will follow suit if the changes in you are real and valid.  Friends too, therefore, likely they would be with you as well, but beyond that, heaven is understood to be where no tears are shed and no more pain is suffered... I'm not sure what it's like, but I do know that as much as you think you'd be dwelling on those who didn't choose God, you would not... I dont' believe it'd be a brainwashing either.  

it's a subject I can't directly answer because I'm not sure exactly how that works... but the thing with hell is you can compare it to light and dark.  where light is something tangeable and able to be studied, but dark is literally just the absense of light.  You cannot study dark.  Heaven is light, hell is dark.

Oh, much of my family is going to heaven no doubt. At least that is what they tell me. I am going to hell. My Grandma, the person in my life I cared for the most by far, is deceased and died an atheist and unapologetic sinner. Given a choice between spending eternity with most of my family or being in hell with grandma, my friends and my lovers- it simply is not a difficult choice. I see most of my family once a year and that is by design. Perhaps if I converted I could get a few other people to convert; I doubt it, but it is possible. However, those who are deceased have already sealed their fates. 

I am curious about your thoughts on why I wouldn't dwell on the people who didn't choose god if somehow I was converted and saved and get to go to heaven. It is inescapable that some people I love will go to hell and others will (probably) go to heaven. I am friends with a few bible thumpers. So, regardless of where I go, I am going to be separated from someone I care about. Are you saying that heaven is so great that I would no longer care about everyone who got sent to hell? Frankly, that would be a huge change from the person I am to a person I have no desire to be. There is no way god could make me like that without completely destroying my freewill.

And going a bit further off topic here, I do not think that living life in eternal bliss would be all it is cracked up to be. I think discomfort, pain, sadness, anger, tears etc. are all a fulfilling part of life. You don't really enjoy pleasures and comforts without experiencing pain in between. Love means nothing without also being able to experience a lack of love, pleasure means nothing without the lack of pleasure, warm means nothing without cold etc. Living in a place which is constantly perfect would be incredibly tedious and boring. Living for eternity for that matter would be incredibly boring. Life is precious precisely because it is limited.   

 

caposkia wrote:

um... you're talking about learning... God created, then put us in charge of the creation.  As far as the materials to create a tractor are concerned, they were always here, but it took humans until the 19th century to figure out how to put them together to make such a thing.  Humans survived just fine without it, but now they can make a business out of it.  As much good that has come of them, just as much bad has come of them as well.  We cant' take inventions and say that we learned of them becasue now we're more good than before.

Humans did not "survive just fine without it", humans starved to death, froze to death, dehydrated, were malnourished and died. As a species we survived, but many individuals lost out in the race for resources through no fault of their own. Which family you were born into was the primary predictor of how much you ate. Yes we can say we are more good than before. There is no question that life in a modern country today is far better than life 1000 years ago. Heck, our big "problem" now is that we eat too much, a much better problem than not having enough every day which was the case for most of human history for most people. So why didn't god leave some good agricultural advice in the Bible? For example, he could have suggested a few crop rotation techniques that increase production and reduce pest problems which would have saved us a few thousand years of trial and error; Such advice would have prevented several serious famines in history. Or he could have including information on canning techniques which would have allowed for longer term storage during bountiful years and reduce climate caused famines. (The dehydration and pickling techniques that existed were sufficient to prepare for a winter but not enough to prepare for 2-3 years of bad crops)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines

You will note that most famines we know of in early history were caused by weather and a lack of agricultural knowledge/technology to deal with it even in areas of the world that were relatively advanced. Modern day famines are almost exclusively caused by human violence. Whole countries were depopulated on the order of 15-50% of their people dying. So did god decide to cause the famine and kill them? Or is god not responsible for providing food? (in which case, why thank him for it?).   

 


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

Antipatris wrote:

You are conveniently ignoring that we only hear from god through his believers, who will quite shamelessly backpedal if any of their predictions or advice turns out bad.

what believers are you talking about?  You must be listening to those Southern Baptists huh

Antipatris wrote:

"The kid I tried to exorcise went and died on me ? Oh well, then it was probably satan who told me to do it. Not god. My mistake. Guess I'd better study scripture some more. Gosh, I hope I get to be stronger in my faith this time"

ya know, sadly, some would say that

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
study, reasoning, rationality

No, please don't repeat answers I debunked in the very comment you're replying to.

If you had debunked them, I wouldn't have repeated them

Antipatris wrote:

You can find "study" material about anything, so study alone will never be enough. If you do not understand why that is so, then tell me 

Reasoning and rationality would demand proof, of which you have none. If you do not understand that, then tell me.

So again, how do you keep from believing everything ? 

Study, reasoning and rationality.  

You are right, studying alone will never be enough, reasoning and rationality would demand proof, you only assume I don't have any, I've asked you for rational means that you'd accept.  I have talked to others about evidences as well.

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
there are other possibilities, but that wasn't waht was in question.  you seem to take it as those were the only signs.

??? "Only signs" ??? What are you talking about ? Please be more clear. This is about you meddling in medical emergencies with your superstitious nonsense.

refer back to the op for the subject

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Right, and just saying "this is fake" doesn't make it fake

Indeed, and as you well know, that is NOT what I said.  

actually, i quoted it because it is what you said

Antipatris wrote:

I asked you if you were actually claiming if it was impossible for an atheist to change as your friend had, or if it was impossible for your friend to have other reasons for his change.

An honest answer to either of those questions would once again expose the fact that you still haven't found a single example of belief in "demons" and "possession" leading to even a single positive effect that could not have occurred without it.

I thought I did answer thsoe... oh well, I'll say it again anyway

it is possible for an atheist to change as my friend had.  Due to the drastic changes and how he changed, I would say it is pretty damn near impossible, but I guess when it comes to changes in a human being, nothing is literally impossible right?

Antipatris wrote:

Which brings up the question : Why openly support such an exclusively toxic belief ?

your conclusions don't justify the means.  my answer in no way can lead you to those conclusions... yes, you'll have to explain that one to me.  Why openly deny reality?

Antipatris wrote:

It is caused by a belief in "demons" and "possession". Or do you know another situation in which someone would deny a loved one urgent medical care in favor of a religious ritual ? 

seriously?  name the sect!  let's go to Christian Science for starters.

Antipatris wrote:

Only after you bring it up as an "argument". He's supposed to just ignore you ? 

no, but taht's what he's been doing

Antipatris wrote:

"no" ?????? So when you share your beliefs, it's NOT your intention to plant those beliefs in other's minds ??? Then why not simply shut up and achieve the same result ???

because it's important for them to understand.  Planting to me sounds like brainwashing, is that what you mean?

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
is it your intention when you share truths?

Well, yes, obviously. If what I'm saying doesn't reach your mind, then why even bother ? 

I don't, but you're still talking to me, so I'm still responding.  those who walk away are free to do so without another word from me.  

Antipatris wrote:

For people to understand what you're saying, you'd need to get through to their minds first, dontcha think ??

absolutely

Antipatris wrote:

No, "realistically" you wouldn't have 20/20 hindsight as you have now, and you DID defend this case as being genuine, and you DID refuse to keep your insane beliefs to yourself, so what possible reason could there even be for you not sharing your beliefs in "demons" and "possessions" as that person did ? 

common sense...

Antipatris wrote:

And you did not answer or understand my question : What happened to Anneliese after she was dead and buried, because of the interference of yet another believer in "demons" and "possession", would that be a bridge too far for you, or would you consider that okay as well ? 

what happened in general is that many more came to know God.

As far as believers are aware, she was taken to God.

Antipatris wrote:

I didn't "change" a damn thing. I asked you a question and you answered. 

your hypothetical planting idea... If you remember, I originally said I wouldn't do that, but you weren't satisfied with that answer, so I played to your hypothetical.. you then tried to make that out to be who I am.  Nice try, but it's there for everyone to see.

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
.. If I had intentionally planted the idea, then I would have to say that I probably wouldnt' care about the results.

Antipatris wrote:
Then you really are an extraordinarily callous and shamelessly cruel human being.

caposkia wrote:
exactly

I guess the key word there would be "IF"  suggesting that if I were to be such a person that was determined to plant ideas into peoples minds, then why would I care of the result, all I would then care about is making sure the idea is securely planted in their mind.  If you look in history, this is consistent with anyone who prefers to plant vs. educate.  AS I said, i call it brainwashinig.  who in history who has brainwashed another truly cared about the consequences of doing so?  I'm honestly curious

 


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

caposkia wrote:
and here again, I don't remember agreeing specifically to accepting what you're asking for as "acceptable proof" rather I only agreed to the rules you put in place.... maybe I had too much to drink that night

My acceptable proof follows the rules you agreed with. 

caposkia wrote:
...so then you're admitting that what you're asking for is nonsense then and not just presumably so?

? No, as I already explained and repeated many times, it can only SEEM nonsense because you, or anyone else, haven't produced it yet. 

Try to understand this very simple fact : THE PROOF I ASKED FOR HASN'T BEEN PRODUCED YET. 

caposkia wrote:
because then I'd be lying

No, then you'd be finally admitting that you're unable to produce acceptable proof for demons. 

You've been demonstrating your failure to do so for weeks now, so I'm not entirely sure why admitting it would be so hard for you.

caposkia wrote:
it makes perfect sense, by your reasoning your rules have validated your proof as acceptable.

So have you. And once again, you keep failing to produce said proof. 

caposkia wrote:
so if a fantasy is not possible, then there's no acceptable proof for reality... got it

You keep stubbornly making the same dumb mistake, as if anyone would even believe you really are that stupid. What you just wrote there is not what I said, and you know it.

It's only a fantasy if there's no acceptable proof, and it's only reality if there is acceptable proof. And since you still haven't produced acceptable proof, it's still a fantasy. 

caposkia wrote:
....   ...  ... ok... I did that.. now what?

At this point an honest person would realize that it's ridiculous to accept one supernatural explanation without acceptable proof, and simply dismiss another, which also doesn't have any.

caposkia wrote:
what you determined are your acceptable means of proof are not because they do not coenside with what demons are and how they work.

"..and not because they do not coincide..." ???

I'm sorry, but you can't just decide "how demons work" before you have provided acceptable proof that they even exists. That would simply be writing fiction, which is not what I asked for. 

caposkia wrote:
 I accept acceptable proof.which means acceptable proof is subjective and not an objective approach to the subject matter.

Excuse me, what ? Acceptable proof is not an objective approach ? Then what is ? Unacceptable proof ??????

caposkia wrote:
.. therefore we need to start looking at this objectively

We already are. Or would you like to argue that "something you can't fake" isn't objective enough ?

caposkia wrote:
...and if I could fake the other stuff, how is it that you couldn't prove I was faking it?  That should be the easy part if in fact i do fake evidence. 

What "other stuff" ? I didn't ask you for "other stuff". I specifically asked you for stuff you can't fake.

caposkia wrote:
Also, how do you produce unrealistic evidence?  

Once again : It will only SEEM "unrealistic " until someone produces it. It can't BE anything until someone produces it. 

Why is this so hard to understand ??

caposkia wrote:
 I mean I don't know how any of those projected evidences would work,

If you have no idea how acceptable proof "would work", then why defend the claim that there is acceptable proof in the first place ? Your position here makes no sense at all. 

caposkia wrote:
be it that you're determined that is acceptable proof that can't be faked, you must be able to produce it yourself. 

No, what you just said there is complete and utter nonsense. I'll explain why (again) : If I could produce acceptable proof, then why would I ask for it ? If ANYONE who asked for acceptable proof for ANYTHING, would be able to produce it themselves, then WHY WOULD ANYONE, EVER, EVEN NEED TO ASK FOR ACCEPTABLE PROOF FOR ANYTHING ?

Get it now ?

caposkia wrote:
.. or admit that what you are asking for is actually nonsense.

See above. I will be genuinely surprised if you still don't get it, and I will happily explain again. 

caposkia wrote:
if I can't fake it, how does it make all requests acceptable?
 

Because if you could fake it, it wouldn't be proof, so not all requests are acceptable. 

caposkia wrote:
I can't fake a gravitational pull upward, does that make it an acceptable proof for demons?

How would "a gravitational pull upward" prove that demons exist ?????

caposkia wrote:
not when the other person is making the claim that the proof they're asking for is possible and acceptable

Oh ? Why not then ? 

caposkia wrote:
when it doesn't have anything to do with spriitual reality.

Why do you keep dragging this "spirituality" into this, when I've already explained so many times why that excuse doesn't work ? Do I have to explain again ? 

caposkia wrote:
I'm curious, what is this other evidence that I can allegedly fake?

You already asked, and I already answered, but sure, I'll do it again (and again, and again, and again..) 

That would be every single reported reported occurrence in every single case of "demonic possession". All of it can, and has been faked. I already gave you an example of people doing exactly that. 

caposkia wrote:
I'm clueless about the proof you're asking for becasue what you're asking for is something I've never heard of attempting or even considering as proof for spirits.

I'm not surprised that nobody's ever done it, since there is no acceptable proof for this nonsense. But "never even considered" ? That's idiotic. If acceptable proof is never even considered, then you would believe anything. 

caposkia wrote:
 Therefore, if you truly think it's possible, then you need to tell me how

No, because it makes no sense to ask the person who's asking you for proof for YOUR supernatural claim, to produce the proof for you. 

As I explained above, and many times before, if people could produce proof for other people's supernatural claims, then ALL supernatural claims would have acceptable proof. Do I really have to explain why that wouldn't make sense ? 

Because I will if I have to. 

caposkia wrote:
long enough for you to realize your proof is right in line with your false analogies claims.

Then that would make my proof acceptable to you, since your false analogies, where you desperately tried to link proof for cars to proof for demons, are still there for anyone to read.

Are you actually going as far as to deny you wrote those sentences ? Because that would be rather sad. 

caposkia wrote:
usually somewhere between 3-4 posts of tangents

If you don't want "tangents", then don't ask irrelevant questions or make irrelevant remarks. 

caposkia wrote:
then I guess you haven't found the right people yet.  You need to be looking for demon worshipers... serious ones, not just those who claim they are so they can get into a Marylin Manson concert.

Again, I already have. These people aren't as hard to find as you might think. Like all believers in "demons" and such nonsense, they crave attention. 

So again, nothing but excuses. 

caposkia wrote:
probably just as easy as i can get shot from the US government for pretending to attack a gov't official... but i won't do it.... it would make just as much sense

Yes or no, please. Can you summon a demon ? 

caposkia wrote:
I'm glad you finally understand,

I'm not the one who keeps coming up with the excuses. Just look at your answer to the question I just asked. 

caposkia wrote:
so how about coming up with something new that I can't fake

Why would I need something new when you already failed ??

caposkia wrote:
show me 

Show you what ? A demon ? Again, you're the one who believes there is acceptable proof for this, even though you can't figure out how to produce it. 

caposkia wrote:
I agreed to your rules, not your evidence.

The rules you agreed to determine what makes for acceptable proof, so yes, you most certainly did agree to my proof. 

caposkia wrote:
build me a couch powered generator and then we'll talk.  Your request for proof is just as rediculous to a believer.

Then your "believer" can't tell the difference between a couch and a demon ?

caposkia wrote:
no, you're asking me to explain fact with fiction...

*sigh*

Will you please STOP trying to put words in my mouth ?? I mean, for pete's sake, what I actually said was RIGHT THERE !!

Here, I'll quote it again :

Anonymouse wrote:
I'm asking you to provide acceptable proof for a supernatural claim. 

How hard is it to just read what I write ???

caposkia wrote:
 unless you've figured out how your evidence is possible

Again, if it was my job to figure that out, then ALL supernatural claims would have acceptable proof. 

caposkia wrote:
if you hadn't repeated your request for evidence a few posts back, I pretty much guarantee most had forgotten what you asked for.

Sorry, but your "guarantees" have so far been pretty worthless. 

caposkia wrote:
I've only claimed that demons exist...

A claim for which you have no acceptable proof, which makes it complete nonsense. 

caposkia wrote:
you've taken it to the next level by saying that we can connect them to a generator and make power from them.

No, asking someone for acceptable proof for their supernatural claim is not "the next level". It is the first step. 

caposkia wrote:
What is your plane of reality?  Obviously it's quite wide.

My "plane of reality" will only include demons once you produce the acceptable proof we agreed on. Since you can't do that, your "plane" is considerably wider than mine, since it makes room for pure fiction. 

caposkia wrote:
and again, it is your job to explain how the proof you're asking for is even possible in connection to the topic at hand...

And yet again : If your claim is true , then acceptable proof is possible. If the person asking you to produce acceptable proof could explain how to do it, then they wouldn't need to ask you in the first place. 

caposkia wrote:
I'll even help you start... k, here it goes:a demon powered generator is possible if demons are real because......  your turn..

Because a demon, or a demon controlling ring, or a demon powered generator would be acceptable proof for the existence of demons, because neither of these things could be faked, and if something is real, then acceptable proof is possible. 

Seriously, why keep asking me things I already told you ? 

caposkia wrote:
they're a street gang... wow you're just looking for reasons to invalidate anything aren't you.

Me not catching your irrelevant references counts as "looking for reasons to invalidate anything" ????

caposkia wrote:
 This is what I said about you from the very beginning, you're not interested in discussing the topic ratinoally, you're interested in proving your reality

??? 

Again, me not catching your strange references makes me "not interested in discussing the topic rationally", and only "interested in proving my reality" ???

And you've been saying that "from the very beginning" ???? 

I can't even count the ways in which that makes no sense.

caposkia wrote:
it is logical to ask for acceptable proof of a supernatural claim, so why aren't you doing that?

I did, and you agreed on my rules on what makes for acceptable proof, and the proof I asked for follows those rules.

So what you just said is just plain weird. 

caposkia wrote:
...or at least studying the details of what they are...

No, that is not what I asked. I asked if it would be ignorant to dismiss their claims without first taking ALL their courses, which they claim are necessary to "really" understand their belief. 

caposkia wrote:
I mean by your standards, one of their sacred truths could be that the grass turns green in the summer and you've already dismissed that as reality.

No, my standards skip the brainwashing and go straight to what they actually claim to believe. Like you, I skipped all their courses. 

Again, how is this "ignorant" ? 

caposkia wrote:
Point and case

You keep saying that, but you never make either a point or a case.

caposkia wrote:
, how can you not be ignorant in claiming anything science fiction without understanding of the subject matter?

Because, like you, I do not need to take all their courses to know a scam when I see it. 

caposkia wrote:
no, but your rules don't make any random request for proof acceptable.

No, there is nothing "random" here. There are rules. Rules we already agreed upon.

caposkia wrote:
You still need grounds for your approach... as to which you seem to have none

Again, the rules for determining acceptable proof are already here, and you agreed. 

caposkia wrote:
no I asked you a strait question...

No, you did not. You made a false analogy, by comparing proof for demons to proof for a cosmological event, and then you turned it into a question.

caposkia wrote:
stop with the false analogy excuses and just answer it

No, pointing out that your argument is a fallacy is not "an excuse".

If you, for some reason, do not understand why comparing proof for demons to proof for a cosmological event amounts to a false analogy, then please do tell me, so I can explain.

 

In the meantime, please feel free to produce acceptable proof for demons, or admit there isn't any.

 


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

caposkia wrote:
what believers are you talking about?  You must be listening to those Southern Baptists huh

I am talking about every single believer out there, unless you know of one who ever admitted they were just making it up themselves.

 

caposkia wrote:
ya know, sadly, some would say that

Some ? You know of one who freely admitted they were just making at all up ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
If you had debunked them, I wouldn't have repeated them

No, I clearly explained why your arguments didn't work. If you don't understand my explanation, then say so. Don't just repeat your answer. 

So again, "study, reasoning and rationality" doesn't answer the question "how do you keep from believing everything ?", because :

1. you can find study material on anything.

2. reasoning and rationality would demand acceptable proof, of which you have none.

If you do not understand either of these points, then tell me.  

 

caposkia wrote:
You are right, studying alone will never be enough,

Good. Then you can now stop mentioning it every time I repeat the question. 

 

caposkia wrote:
reasoning and rationality would demand proof, you only assume I don't have any, I've asked you for rational means that you'd accept.  I have talked to others about evidences as well.

No, there is no need to assume. Others have asked you for proof, and you have not been able to provide any. And it has been thoroughly explained to you why what you did provide, does not count as proof for "demons" or "possession".

So reasoning and rationality are not in your corner here. And yet you still believe, so the question has to be asked again :

How do you keep from believing everything (keeping in mind that it has been explained why "study" alone is insufficient, and how neither "reasoning" or "rationality" are being applied by you, where "demons" or "possession" are concerned) ?

 

caposkia wrote:
refer back to the op for the subject

No, this is about your refusal to keep your belief in "demons" and "possession" to yourself during a medical emergency. It's a little too late to start feeling ashamed of yourself now. 


 

caposkia wrote:
actually, i quoted it because it is what you said

??? No, you didn't quote me. You just typed "this is fake", which is not what I said. 

 

caposkia wrote:
I thought I did answer thsoe... oh well, I'll say it again anyway

Not at the point where I had to repeat the question. Try to remember that we're both working our way down in these replies.

 

caposkia wrote:
it is possible for an atheist to change as my friend had.  Due to the drastic changes and how he changed, I would say it is pretty damn near impossible, but I guess when it comes to changes in a human being, nothing is literally impossible right?

Since people change their behavior (especially self-destructive behavior) all the time, I'm not quite sure where you get "pretty damn near impossible".

 

caposkia wrote:
your conclusions don't justify the means.
 

First of all, what "means" ???

Second, after admitting atheists could make such a change as well, you were again left without a single example of anything positive that could result from a belief in "demons" or "possession", that could not have occurred without it. 

So unless you'd like to try again, we're only left with the many crimes your belief has led to, and nothing else, which leaves only one conclusion, namely that your belief is exclusively toxic.

Which leads to the question : Why would anyone openly support such a belief, knowing full well that, at best, it will lead to nothing, but also that the very real possibility exists that it will lead to the most appalling tragedy ? 

 

 

caposkia wrote:
my answer in no way can lead you to those conclusions... yes, you'll have to explain that one to me.
 

I just did. If you do not understand the explanation, then please say so.

 

caposkia wrote:
Why openly deny reality?
 

The "demon" and "possession" believer is accusing me of denying reality. Okay then, what "reality" am I denying ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
seriously?  name the sect!  let's go to Christian Science for starters.
 

And guess what ? I have exactly the same problem with their beliefs as I have with yours. Exclusively toxic, with a list of victims that would rival the one your belief has managed so far.

 

caposkia wrote:
no, but taht's what he's been doing
 

No, he has addressed and debunked every single argument you made, even the weird and irrelevant ones, like your continued mention of "spirituality". Hell, you did it again in your latest reply, and he explained again why it doesn't work.

 

caposkia wrote:
because it's important for them to understand.  Planting to me sounds like brainwashing, is that what you mean?

That would depend on how much time you would invest in "making them understand", how many times they've been confronted with these nonsensical ideas already, and if they were already accustomed to simply accepting supernatural claims without demanding acceptable evidence.

But generally, no, that's not what I mean. So let's be clear : When you present this idea as something more than nonsense, then it IS your intention that people believe you and take you seriously ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
I don't, but you're still talking to me, so I'm still responding.

You don't ??????

It's not your intention to get through to a person's mind when you're talking to them ???? Then why talk at all ????

 

caposkia wrote:
those who walk away are free to do so without another word from me.

We are talking about the people who walk away BELIEVING the idiotic things you told them.

 

Antipatris wrote:
For people to understand what you're saying, you'd need to get through to their minds first, dontcha think ??

caposkia wrote:
absolutely

So then it IS your intention to make people believe in "demons" and "possession" ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
common sense...

No, your "common sense" doesn't seem to work here, since you defended this case as a genuine example of "demonic possession", something there was absolutely no proof for. 

Still, you were convinced, so why would you not have done exactly what the person who first told Anneliese about this "possibility" did ?

 

caposkia wrote:
what happened in general is that many more came to know God.

As far as believers are aware, she was taken to God.

Okay, I know we have already sufficiently explored your remarkable lack of knowledge about this case that you labeled as genuine, but it appears we haven't yet reached the end of your ignorance here.

So I'm going to give you a chance to look this up, and I will ask you again.

What happened after Anneliese was dead and buried, due to the interference of yet another believer in "demons" and "possession", would that be a bridge too far for you, or would you consider that okay as well ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
your hypothetical planting idea...

The only hypothesis here is that you might someday "share" your toxic beliefs with someone who would actually take you seriously. As the case you brought up yourself shows, this is far from impossible. 

 

caposkia wrote:
If you remember, I originally said I wouldn't do that, but you weren't satisfied with that answer, so I played to your hypothetical..

And I explained why your answer didn't make sense. If you disagree with my explanation, then make an argument, don't just dismiss it.  

 

caposkia wrote:
you then tried to make that out to be who I am.

No, I let your answers speak for themselves. It's not my fault that you don't like your own answers, and what they imply about you.

 

caposkia wrote:
 Nice try,

Once again, simply going "nice try", is completely meaningless.

 

caposkia wrote:
but it's there for everyone to see.

Well yes, your answers to my questions are certainly there for everyone to see. I believe I already thanked you for that. 

 

caposkia wrote:
I guess the key word there would be "IF"  suggesting that if I were to be such a person that was determined to plant ideas into peoples minds, then why would I care of the result, all I would then care about is making sure the idea is securely planted in their mind.  If you look in history, this is consistent with anyone who prefers to plant vs. educate.  AS I said, i call it brainwashinig.  who in history who has brainwashed another truly cared about the consequences of doing so?  I'm honestly curious

Again, you don't need to brainwash people to plant an idea into their minds.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
I'm sorry.  I realize that

I'm sorry.  I realize that the post I wrote in response to this one did not come up, rather it just came up as a copy of what you responded with... I don't know what happened, but I'll respond to it again now.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Consistent symptom patterns would at least be a start. It would indicate that there is at the very least some problem that mental health experts have not solved. Or in the case of demons obsessed with electronics, a problem that electricians have not been able to solve. (I am happy to report that Boeing has solved their battery problems for their 787s, fortunately the problem wasn't demons.) So if studying possession cases is not appropriate for giving me the answer as to whether or not demons exist, what will? 

well, if you're saying that consistent symptom patterns would be a start, then maybe that will work... at least as a start.  We'd have to find churches that have people who specialize in such cases and then find out whether we could give probable cause to needing the documentation on it.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

When someone tells me a story and I catch an outright lie in the story, I tend to be even more skeptical of everything else they tell me; especially when I find the other things they are telling me hard to believe anyway. Now if everything they tell me that is verifiable turns out to be true, I am going to be more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt on the things that are impossible to verify. Since it is generally impossible, or at least incredibly laborious, to independently verify everything that people tell you, I think that giving more credibility to sources that have proven accurate and less to sources that have proven wrong/misleading is a great way to save time. While a source that has been wrong about somethings may be right about others, it is prudent to be more skeptical with them. 

A lot of the stories that make it to the mainstream only make it there because of their embellishments.   Usually it's not the people directly involved writing down those stories either.  Rather the author probably gets access to notes and recordings and deduces a creative story out of it.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Scientists study things that are not constants all the time. Many believe that gravity is not as constant as previous gravitational theory has suspected. And Dark Matter may or may not be constant. We don't know because we haven't even proved that it exists yet. 

...but there's good reason to believe it's there right?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Let us assume for the sake of the next couple paragraphs that demons are real and they do possess people. There are two possibilities, either demons possess anyone or demons only possess believers. If the former, symptoms like speaking in a low voice and claiming to be a demon would not be limited to believers. You would expect to see such symptoms in anyone who is possessed. Furthermore, exorcism working as a cure would not be limited to believers, it would work on anyone who is possessed (or at least have the same success rate). So why don't we see non-believers exhibit these symptoms?

If the latter possibility, that demons only possess people who believe in them, wouldn't the quickest and best way to eliminate demons be to stop believing in them? Kind of like the Matrix where the best way to not get hurt is to believe you will not be hurt.

well.. i have seen non-believers exhibit these symptoms.  I would say we typically don't see it because it's less common than one might think... also these people are likely in mental institutions.  

You are right, exorcism working as a cure would not be limited to believers, but non-believers also don't feel the need to go through an exorcism due to their disbelief, so they typically don't seek out that means of cure.

Beyond Saving wrote:

If it occurs among multiple people it is repeatable. If it only happened once and will never happen again, then I don't see a reason why we should worry about whether it actually happened or not.

following God with your whole heart is a repeatable scenario.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Many studies have been conducted and some have shown small positive results. Prayer is certainly capable of changing a person's mindset, as is meditation and general optimism. Studies in which other people prayed for a particular person without that person knowing have shown that it makes no difference whatsoever. If you can show me evidence where prayer has a substantial effect on something that the person praying has no control over and the persons mindset cannot influence it would certainly be worth looking at. For example, if you could show that prayer increases the odds of winning the lottery or make you a winner long term at roulette etc. it would certainly be surprising to me. I have witnessed many a person praying to god at the poker table; it doesn't seem to help.

The problem with studying prayer is prayer is subject to choice both of the person (where their heart is in the prayer) and God (whether He wants to answer it in the way the person is asking or not)  

If someone is praying sincerely for money because they want money out of greed, it makes sense that God would not answer that, however, if someone prayed sincerely for money to provide water for a people group that has no access to clean water, God will provide... however, contrary to popular belief, the provisions might not come from the poker table where the prayer was prayed.  I find that God typically uses sources you wouldn't have thought of.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

I believe you are talking about the VMAT2 gene which was hypothesized by Dr. Dean Hamer to be correlated with religious beliefs (not any specific belief but just supernatural beliefs in general)

http://www.amazon.com/God-Gene-Faith-Hardwired-Genes/dp/0385720319

My understanding is that even Dr. Hamer has separated himself from the claim that the single gene plays a significant role in religious beliefs. Although, our understanding of precisely how much we are controlled by our genetics vs. our environment is a very young area of science and there is little doubt that in 50 years we will be looking back and laughing at how wrong we were with all of our theories. I do find it quite plausible that there might be a series of genes that make a person more likely to be religious/spiritual. We don't know what much of our genetic code does yet. 

If there is a gene or combination of genes that makes a person more likely to believe, I would think that is a serious conflict for most Christian denominations because how could a loving God punish a person for not believing when their ability to believe is directly controlled by their DNA? IOW if belief is controlled by genetics then it is as much a choice as any disease caused by genetics, which totally destroys the idea of freewill that most Christians have. 

The study I read suggested that it is in every single person believer or not.  It also doesn't dictate your choices, rather it's just a place for God in your brain.  Kind of like there's a place in your brain for site, and a different place for touch.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

We should be questioning the Book of Mormon the NWT and all other religious texts that you dismiss. I hold them all to the same standard and have the same opinion of them all. You believe the Bible but dismiss all the others. What kind of an angel uses torture? Maybe one that comes from the same god whose idea to save humanity was to create a son for the sole purpose of being tortured to death on a cross as a method for him to forgive the rest of humanity. Maybe the same one who decided that a good way to straighten out humanity was to have a gigantic flood that killed almost every living person on the planet along with virtually every animal. Maybe the same one who thinks that sending people to hell for not believing in him is a good idea. Maybe the same one who likes to test the faith of his followers by asking them to do things like sacrifice their son. Or destroys everything in a righteous man's life including killing his ten children- not because he did anything wrong, but because Satan was talking smack. Given God's history as given in the Bible, I think the story is perfectly consistent with his character. 

I have not dismissed any of those other books without studying first.  

Considering your take on Jesus being tortured to death on the cross.  Jesus chose that path.  He chose to take on our punishment for our sins so that we may have life with Him.  It's as if Jesus stood up in front of a court of law and pled guilty to everything wrong we did in our lives. 

The flood wasn't to "straiten out humanity" rather it was to destroy humanity because God was saddened by what humans had become.  They were doing nothing right and destroying themselves in the process.  God only spared Noah and his family becasue he found that Noah was still trying to follow God.  

Hell is considered the absense of good.  God is good.  Those who choose to stay away or walk away from God are choosing Hell, God doesn't necessarily "put" them there. If you don't want to be with God, that is life without God. 

Considering teh son sacrifice, it was a test of the faith of a person who was to be the father of the majority of people on Earth.  Is it wrong to test the ability of a person to do a certain job you want to make sure they do right?  God never allowed Him to sacrifice his son, rather God has always asked that love for Him comes first.  

God gave everything Job had to Job, the point was that Job's faith would not falter because God takes everything away that was given to him.  This is a reflection of a true follower, someone who loses everything who still has faith in God and loves God is a true follower.  Job got everything back X3.  I'm not sure how souls work, but I know He had more children.  I also know that God took care of those that lost their lives.  That's something that comes with faith.  

Despite your suggested parallels, the Koran angel is not consistent with the God of the Bible in that sense.   Not once did God forcefully ask someone to write down anything for Him.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well last year the Vatican announced they were going to digitize a million+ pages of their library so maybe we will find something there. I find it hard to believe there is anything worthwhile on demonology and none of the academics who have been there studying in the Vatican library haven't seen fit to write a journal article on it.

it'll be interesting to see what comes out

Beyond Saving wrote:

Oh, much of my family is going to heaven no doubt. At least that is what they tell me. I am going to hell. My Grandma, the person in my life I cared for the most by far, is deceased and died an atheist and unapologetic sinner. Given a choice between spending eternity with most of my family or being in hell with grandma, my friends and my lovers- it simply is not a difficult choice. I see most of my family once a year and that is by design. Perhaps if I converted I could get a few other people to convert; I doubt it, but it is possible. However, those who are deceased have already sealed their fates. 

...and those who have died had a lifetime of choices to make that gave them any number of chances to know and follow God. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

I am curious about your thoughts on why I wouldn't dwell on the people who didn't choose god if somehow I was converted and saved and get to go to heaven. It is inescapable that some people I love will go to hell and others will (probably) go to heaven. I am friends with a few bible thumpers. So, regardless of where I go, I am going to be separated from someone I care about. Are you saying that heaven is so great that I would no longer care about everyone who got sent to hell? Frankly, that would be a huge change from the person I am to a person I have no desire to be. There is no way god could make me like that without completely destroying my freewill.

first, God wouldn't make you into anything, the changes would happen within you due to the presence of God in your life.  Beyond that, i can only speculate as to what that kind of life would be like.  I know what the Bible says about it, it's a life that is inimmaginable right now.  It would be a completely different way of life that is almost nothing like how we're living now.

Beyond Saving wrote:

And going a bit further off topic here, I do not think that living life in eternal bliss would be all it is cracked up to be. I think discomfort, pain, sadness, anger, tears etc. are all a fulfilling part of life. You don't really enjoy pleasures and comforts without experiencing pain in between. Love means nothing without also being able to experience a lack of love, pleasure means nothing without the lack of pleasure, warm means nothing without cold etc. Living in a place which is constantly perfect would be incredibly tedious and boring. Living for eternity for that matter would be incredibly boring. Life is precious precisely because it is limited.   

we can again only speculate because no one has ever lived a life of eternal bliss.  Through our current lives and through death I'm pretty sure every person knows discomfort, pain, sadness, anger tears, etc... knowing all that, you will have a greater appreciation for the bliss that is said to come.  Getting consumed in it of course one can loose focus on what was.  That is a thought that has crossed my mind many times, but again I am reminded that this new life is going to be nothing like what we know, so I'm sure God has considered all of that.  

I think back to being a kid and growing up when I thought mommy and daddy were perfect.  The only pain you knew was a scrape or bruise which was healed by a bandaid and/or a kiss.  Maybe anger when you didn't get your way, but that's about it.  Granted my family was far from perfect and that world was eventually shattered, but in those early years, life was bliss, everything was taken care of and there was nothing to worry about.  Not even death was a reality yet.  It's such a fog to think back that far now, but I've tried not to forget.  It allows me to understand that there is a possibility of enjoying life without knowing the pains of life.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Humans did not "survive just fine without it", humans starved to death, froze to death, dehydrated, were malnourished and died. As a species we survived, but many individuals lost out in the race for resources through no fault of their own. Which family you were born into was the primary predictor of how much you ate. Yes we can say we are more good than before. There is no question that life in a modern country today is far better than life 1000 years ago. Heck, our big "problem" now is that we eat too much, a much better problem than not having enough every day which was the case for most of human history for most people. So why didn't god leave some good agricultural advice in the Bible? For example, he could have suggested a few crop rotation techniques that increase production and reduce pest problems which would have saved us a few thousand years of trial and error; Such advice would have prevented several serious famines in history. Or he could have including information on canning techniques which would have allowed for longer term storage during bountiful years and reduce climate caused famines. (The dehydration and pickling techniques that existed were sufficient to prepare for a winter but not enough to prepare for 2-3 years of bad crops)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines

You will note that most famines we know of in early history were caused by weather and a lack of agricultural knowledge/technology to deal with it even in areas of the world that were relatively advanced. Modern day famines are almost exclusively caused by human violence. Whole countries were depopulated on the order of 15-50% of their people dying. So did god decide to cause the famine and kill them? Or is god not responsible for providing food? (in which case, why thank him for it?).   

We could look into the future and any possible list of future technologies and deduce that we're not "surviving just fine" now.  Speculating that, it seems that we will never survive just fine without the presence of God that is promised in Revelation.  

Why thank God?  You're alive aren't you?  Others are not and we will never know how different, better or worse the world would be if all those people survived, but I do believe God is working for the greater good.  I still believe that if thsoe people had welcomed God into their lives, that he took care of them through death.  '

The perspective we all forget to take is taht if God is real, then this life is just a second in the perspective of eternity.  It's like getting a shot to prevent the flu.  It hurts for a second, but you're avoiding being down and out for a week or 2.  A lesser pain to avoid a greater one.  

I could go on and on as to many rational reasons why God might allow such things to take place, but when it all comes down ot it, all you and I can do is speculate, because we only know what our finite existence can allow us to understand.  

I say all in all, either we're surviving or we're not.  My perspective is that we are, yours is that we're not.. and if we're not, then we're never going to sufficiently survive on our own, no matter what technology comes our way.  With the modification of technology comes the modification of disease and new problems with the technology.  

 


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

Anonymouse wrote:

Try to understand this very simple fact : THE PROOF I ASKED FOR HASN'T BEEN PRODUCED YET. 

there's a reason for that... and it has nothing to do with the existence of demons

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
so if a fantasy is not possible, then there's no acceptable proof for reality... got it

You keep stubbornly making the same dumb mistake, as if anyone would even believe you really are that stupid. What you just wrote there is not what I said, and you know it.

it's not what you said, but it's what you're asking me to do

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
what you determined are your acceptable means of proof are not because they do not coenside with what demons are and how they work.

"..and not because they do not coincide..." ???

...it can't be acceptable proof of the subject

Anonymouse wrote:

I'm sorry, but you can't just decide "how demons work" before you have provided acceptable proof that they even exists. That would simply be writing fiction, which is not what I asked for. 

I haven't decided how demons work and I have already accepted proof myself.  You have however "decided how demons work before you have provided acceptable proof that they even exist" (your words)  because you're claiming that if they do exist, we can generate electricity from them and power material things.  I've said that's not how it works, you seem to disagree

Anonymouse wrote:

Excuse me, what ? Acceptable proof is not an objective approach ? Then what is ? Unacceptable proof ??????

apparently subjective as well considering how difficult it has been to be on the same page.

Anonymouse wrote:

We already are. Or would you like to argue that "something you can't fake" isn't objective enough ?

that part is, but that doesn't give you liberty to pull any random idea out of your back pocket and say it works with the subject matter.  Not at least without rational reasoning.

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
...and if I could fake the other stuff, how is it that you couldn't prove I was faking it?  That should be the easy part if in fact i do fake evidence. 

What "other stuff" ? I didn't ask you for "other stuff". I specifically asked you for stuff you can't fake.

I know, but the question was how is it that you couldn't prove I was faking the other stuff?  the other stuff would be the alleged proof that I am able to fake according to you.

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 I mean I don't know how any of those projected evidences would work,

If you have no idea how acceptable proof "would work", then why defend the claim that there is acceptable proof in the first place ? Your position here makes no sense at all. 

probably because you took the liberty of changing what I said... I didn't say: I have no idea how acceptable proof would work  I said: "I don't know how any of those projected evidences would work".  Don't be a hypocrite, you got all upset when I took a part out of your post a while back.

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
be it that you're determined that is acceptable proof that can't be faked, you must be able to produce it yourself. 

No, what you just said there is complete and utter nonsense. I'll explain why (again) : If I could produce acceptable proof, then why would I ask for it ? If ANYONE who asked for acceptable proof for ANYTHING, would be able to produce it themselves, then WHY WOULD ANYONE, EVER, EVEN NEED TO ASK FOR ACCEPTABLE PROOF FOR ANYTHING ?

Get it now ?

because they'd need a means to prove it to others.  Again, it's still on you... get it now?

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
if I can't fake it, how does it make all requests acceptable?
 

Because if you could fake it, it wouldn't be proof, so not all requests are acceptable. 

I'll reword that so that you understand.;  If I can't fake it, how does it make all requests that I can't fake acceptable?  

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I can't fake a gravitational pull upward, does that make it an acceptable proof for demons?

How would "a gravitational pull upward" prove that demons exist ?????

I don't know, you're the one that came out of left field with the demon powered generator thing, how would it prove that demons exist?  This is what I've been looking for the whole time from you

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
not when the other person is making the claim that the proof they're asking for is possible and acceptable

Oh ? Why not then ? 

if they're making the claim that it's possible if the subject is valid, then they must have deduced a logical reason, otherwise why persue it?  'You can't fake it' is not logical reasoning, rather it's a means to which further confirms the outcome if it is possible considering the subject matter.  

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
when it doesn't have anything to do with spriitual reality.

Why do you keep dragging this "spirituality" into this, when I've already explained so many times why that excuse doesn't work ? Do I have to explain again ? 

be it that demons are spirits and have everything to do with 'sprituality' yea, you'll have to explain why spirituality shouldn't be brought into this.

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I'm curious, what is this other evidence that I can allegedly fake?

You already asked, and I already answered, but sure, I'll do it again (and again, and again, and again..) 

That would be every single reported reported occurrence in every single case of "demonic possession". All of it can, and has been faked. I already gave you an example of people doing exactly that. 

i see... that's all there is, just reported occurances?  Ok, all reported occurences of anything can be and has been faked.  Does that mean I should never read the paper and/or listen to the news again?  Instead should I only accept what I witnessed myself?  

Where do we draw the line between faked and reality?  How do we deduce that any report we've heard is based on reality?  

Anonymouse wrote:

I'm not surprised that nobody's ever done it, since there is no acceptable proof for this nonsense. But "never even considered" ? That's idiotic. If acceptable proof is never even considered, then you would believe anything. 

why do you keep trying to make it look like I'm saying acceptable proof isn't considered or is not acceptable?  Acceptable proof is, what's in question here the proof being asked for being acceptable or not.  I say not, you say it is.  What's your logical reasoning beyond me not being able to fake it, because I'm not able to fake most fantasy magic either, but that doesn't prove or disprove anything really, only that I'm not a magician.  

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 Therefore, if you truly think it's possible, then you need to tell me how

No, because it makes no sense to ask the person who's asking you for proof for YOUR supernatural claim, to produce the proof for you. 

I'm not asking you to produce the proof, I'm asking you how it's possible if demons are real.  e.g. I can explain to you how a lot of the magic in Harry Potter is possible if it were real, but i can't make it happen, therefore you should be able to explain to me how a demon powered generator is possible if demons were real... and then, if they are, I should be able to take what you tell me and make it happen.  

Anonymouse wrote:

Then that would make my proof acceptable to you, since your false analogies, where you desperately tried to link proof for cars to proof for demons, are still there for anyone to read.

Are you actually going as far as to deny you wrote those sentences ? Because that would be rather sad. 

no, but your attempt at making it sound like I was comparing cars to demons is also still there for everyone to read... Also there to read is my explanation that I was comparing a single means of irrational proof to another, not cars to demons.  Nice try though.  I'm sure you were hoping I forgot all that by now

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
usually somewhere between 3-4 posts of tangents

If you don't want "tangents", then don't ask irrelevant questions or make irrelevant remarks. 

everything I've said has been relevant to what you've posted.  If you felt it wasn't relevant then you might want to consider what you write

Anonymouse wrote:

Again, I already have. These people aren't as hard to find as you might think. Like all believers in "demons" and such nonsense, they crave attention. 

So again, nothing but excuses. 

if they're seeking attention, then they weren't legitimate.  They're posers.  True demon worshipers are typically anti-social and tend to avoid attention.  You would find it hard to confront them.

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
probably just as easy as i can get shot from the US government for pretending to attack a gov't official... but i won't do it.... it would make just as much sense

Yes or no, please. Can you summon a demon ? 

I've never tried it... but yes... I won't do it however, that would be as smart as my scenario above, which is why I wrote it like that.

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I'm glad you finally understand,

I'm not the one who keeps coming up with the excuses. Just look at your answer to the question I just asked. 

you're not??? really???  I know you're trying to look like you're not, but you really believe you're not huh

Anonymouse wrote:

Why would I need something new when you already failed ??

maybe then you'll be able to explain your reasoning

Anonymouse wrote:

The rules you agreed to determine what makes for acceptable proof, so yes, you most certainly did agree to my proof. 

alright, explain to me then how your rules I agreed to determine that a demon powered generator is possible?

Anonymouse wrote:

Then your "believer" can't tell the difference between a couch and a demon ?

is that what you got out of that?  Nice

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
What is your plane of reality?  Obviously it's quite wide.

My "plane of reality" will only include demons once you produce the acceptable proof we agreed on. Since you can't do that, your "plane" is considerably wider than mine, since it makes room for pure fiction. 

your asking for something that is fiction even on a spiritual standard... this is why i said that.

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I'll even help you start... k, here it goes:a demon powered generator is possible if demons are real because......  your turn..

Because a demon, or a demon controlling ring, or a demon powered generator would be acceptable proof for the existence of demons, because neither of these things could be faked, and if something is real, then acceptable proof is possible. 

Seriously, why keep asking me things I already told you ? 

wait... so... um... here's what you said in connection with the sentence I gave you, nothing changed:

"A demon powered generator is possible if demons are real because a demon, or a demon controlling ring, or a demon powered generator would be acceptable proof for the existence of demons..."

I'm sorry, that's not an explanation, that's just restating what you believe, try again.

Neither could be faked?  true,

if something is real then acceptable proof is possible?  true, 

what makes your proof acceptable, how is it possible?

I'll start you off again, "A demon powered generator or demon controlling ring is possible if demons are real because..."

Anonymouse wrote:

??? 

Again, me not catching your strange references makes me "not interested in discussing the topic rationally", and only "interested in proving my reality" ???

And you've been saying that "from the very beginning" ???? 

no, no and yes.

Anonymouse wrote:

I can't even count the ways in which that makes no sense.

I'm sure you can't

Anonymouse wrote:

You keep saying that, but you never make either a point or a case.

that's becasue you each time had already made it for me

Anonymouse wrote:

No, there is nothing "random" here. There are rules. Rules we already agreed upon.

how is a demon powered generator not random?

Anonymouse wrote:

Again, the rules for determining acceptable proof are already here, and you agreed. 

right, so where are the grounds for your proof?

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
no I asked you a strait question...

No, you did not. You made a false analogy, by comparing proof for demons to proof for a cosmological event, and then you turned it into a question.

nice try, but just answer it.  I again compared proof to proof, not demons to a cosmological event... by your standards, analogies are false (period)

Anonymouse wrote:

No, pointing out that your argument is a fallacy is not "an excuse".

not answering the simple question is

Anonymouse wrote:

If you, for some reason, do not understand why comparing proof for demons to proof for a cosmological event amounts to a false analogy, then please do tell me, so I can explain.

what i don't understand is why you miss the analogy each and every time and only take the 2 things that are unassociated?  The analogy is and has been each time, means of proof to means of proof, not cars to demons and not cosmological events to demons.  Even with that explanation you still don't get it... or don't want to.  It does keep you from having to answer the questions directly though... Kudos on that.


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

Antipatris wrote:

Some ? You know of one who freely admitted they were just making at all up ? 

not off the top of my head, but I know there were a few when cornered admitted to it.

Antipatris wrote:

No, I clearly explained why your arguments didn't work. If you don't understand my explanation, then say so. Don't just repeat your answer. 

So again, "study, reasoning and rationality" doesn't answer the question "how do you keep from believing everything ?", because :

1. you can find study material on anything.

2. reasoning and rationality would demand acceptable proof, of which you have none.

If you do not understand either of these points, then tell me.  

I guess #2 doesn't work because of your assumption.  You have failed to discuss acceptable proof with me, rather we've gotten stuck on why some presented proofs don't work and/or a link between exorcisms and/or belief to abuse.    

Antipatris wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
You are right, studying alone will never be enough,

Good. Then you can now stop mentioning it every time I repeat the question. 

it still plays a part, why wouldn't i mention it?  It'd be ignorant to conclude without study

Antipatris wrote:

How do you keep from believing everything (keeping in mind that it has been explained why "study" alone is insufficient, and how neither "reasoning" or "rationality" are being applied by you, where "demons" or "possession" are concerned) ?

let's apply reasoning and rationality then.  What experiences do you have personally with the studies of demons and those who have allegedly experienced them and/or has interacted with them?

Antipatris wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
refer back to the op for the subject

No, this is about your refusal to keep your belief in "demons" and "possession" to yourself during a medical emergency. It's a little too late to start feeling ashamed of yourself now. 

oh that's what I did?  I'm glad you told me.  I thought I said that I consider medical means first.  I didn't know I did it the other way around.

Antipatris wrote:

Since people change their behavior (especially self-destructive behavior) all the time, I'm not quite sure where you get "pretty damn near impossible".

do you have statistics and/or studies that suggest it's not?  I'd love to read them.

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
your conclusions don't justify the means.
 

First of all, what "means" ???

your suggestion of lack of acceptable proof

Antipatris wrote:

Second, after admitting atheists could make such a change as well, you were again left without a single example of anything positive that could result from a belief in "demons" or "possession", that could not have occurred without it. 

I figured the change implied finding God in the process.  Any atheist can change with God's help.  On their own?  I have yet to see any drastic change occur without some outside help or influence

Antipatris wrote:

Which leads to the question : Why would anyone openly support such a belief, knowing full well that, at best, it will lead to nothing, but also that the very real possibility exists that it will lead to the most appalling tragedy ? 

we know that at worst, it leads to more than nothing and humans would be almost extinct if what you suggest is true about the most appalling tragedy.

Antipatris wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
my answer in no way can lead you to those conclusions... yes, you'll have to explain that one to me.
 

I just did. If you do not understand the explanation, then please say so.

uh... yea, don't understand here.

Antipatris wrote:

The "demon" and "possession" believer is accusing me of denying reality. Okay then, what "reality" am I denying ? 

what reality??? how many realities are there?  I was referring to... "reality" as "reality", those things that are real

Antipatris wrote:

And guess what ? I have exactly the same problem with their beliefs as I have with yours. Exclusively toxic, with a list of victims that would rival the one your belief has managed so far.

alright then, and what following is my belief?

Antipatris wrote:

No, he has addressed and debunked every single argument you made, even the weird and irrelevant ones, like your continued mention of "spirituality". Hell, you did it again in your latest reply, and he explained again why it doesn't work.

he has tried to.. He does a good job at deferring, but not debunking

Antipatris wrote:

But generally, no, that's not what I mean. So let's be clear : When you present this idea as something more than nonsense, then it IS your intention that people believe you and take you seriously ? 

It's my intention for them to accept what I've told them and come to their own conclusions about it and not to just take what I say at face value.  The only way one can buil a relationship with God is if they do it on their own.  I cannot build it for them, I can only provide them the material

Antipatris wrote:

It's not your intention to get through to a person's mind when you're talking to them ???? Then why talk at all ????

because if there is an interest or a need, it will be met.  If we have to break down barriers, the only way to do that is the other person taking them down.  God can work in them in that way, I can't.

Antipatris wrote:

We are talking about the people who walk away BELIEVING the idiotic things you told them.

if they believe me, i hope they wouldn't just walk away.. they'd have a lot more to learn about what they heard

Antipatris wrote:

So then it IS your intention to make people believe in "demons" and "possession" ? 

it is my intention to educate people about what it is, as far as believing it, that's up to them.

Antipatris wrote:

No, your "common sense" doesn't seem to work here, since you defended this case as a genuine example of "demonic possession", something there was absolutely no proof for. 

I don't believe in most of these posts there has been room for common sense

Antipatris wrote:

Still, you were convinced, so why would you not have done exactly what the person who first told Anneliese about this "possibility" did ?

Just so I'm not misunderstood in my answer, can you specify what action you are referring to here.  I'm assuming your "you were convinced" is me being convinced that she was possessed right?

Antipatris wrote:

What happened after Anneliese was dead and buried, due to the interference of yet another believer in "demons" and "possession", would that be a bridge too far for you, or would you consider that okay as well ? 

are you referring to exhuming and reburying the body?  If there is no soul and the family is the one requesting it, what would the problem with that be?

Antipatris wrote:

The only hypothesis here is that you might someday "share" your toxic beliefs with someone who would actually take you seriously. As the case you brought up yourself shows, this is far from impossible. 

you call my belief so toxic and yet lack of belief has lead to greater abuses, murder, selfish gluttony among many others.  I really want to see these statistics you seem so sure about

Antipatris wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
If you remember, I originally said I wouldn't do that, but you weren't satisfied with that answer, so I played to your hypothetical..

And I explained why your answer didn't make sense. If you disagree with my explanation, then make an argument, don't just dismiss it.  

I didn't, instead I answered it directly as to which you decided to try and make it sound like that was something I would actually do.  

Antipatris wrote:

No, I let your answers speak for themselves. It's not my fault that you don't like your own answers, and what they imply about you.

I already said I wouldn't have taken that first step, which would suggest that the rest would definitely not apply to me, so how then do they imply anything about me?  Please do explain.

Antipatris wrote:

Once again, simply going "nice try", is completely meaningless.

except that it brings to light that I'm not falling for it.

Antipatris wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:
but it's there for everyone to see.

Well yes, your answers to my questions are certainly there for everyone to see. I believe I already thanked you for that. 

good, moving on then

Antipatris wrote:

Again, you don't need to brainwash people to plant an idea into their minds.  

Of course not, that's how demons work, but it seems as if you were talking about brainwashing.  To buy into a belief to the point of death is more than just planting an idea, wouldn't you say?


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I've never

caposkia wrote:

I've never tried it... but yes... I won't do it however, that would be as smart as my scenario above, which is why I wrote it like that.

Tell me how; I'll do it for you.

 

caposkia wrote:

I'll start you off again, "A demon powered generator or demon controlling ring is possible if demons are real because..."

If demons are able to make electric lights go on and off, why would they not be able to do the same with other electrical devices? Would your God not be able to make a demon-controlling ring?

 

caposkia wrote:

you call my belief so toxic and yet lack of belief has lead to greater abuses, murder, selfish gluttony among many others.  I really want to see these statistics you seem so sure about

And I really want to see your evidence that lack of belief has led to these things--the evidence you shared earlier does not support either your earlier claims or this one.