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. 


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

caposkia wrote:

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.

I figured that what I said was so brilliant that you thought it needed to be repeated verbatim. *checks "pride" off list of sins to commit today*   

 

caposkia wrote:

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.  

Is there no one who has bothered to do this research? I would think that anyone who claims to be an expert in such cases would seek to be familiar with basic things like consistent symptom patterns.

 

caposkia wrote:

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.

All the more reason to doubt everything they write about it, including the demon part. 

 

caposkia wrote:

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?

Lots of good reasons, because there is a substantial amount of evidence that suggests dark matter may exist. I'm looking for a similar amount of evidence about demons.

 

caposkia wrote:

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.

So one would expect that if you did a blind comparative study of people in mental institutions who exhibit these symptoms. where some are treated using exorcisms and others treated using modern medicine that it would show exorcisms are effective right? Show me a study like that and you have at least some evidence. Unfortunately, one doesn't appear to exist. 

 

caposkia wrote:

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.  

So can you demonstrate that people who pray are more likely to have things they cannot influence work out in their favor? Even if God only intervened 5% of the time that would be substantial enough to make a difference.  

 

caposkia wrote:

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.  

Hmmm, if you can find it let me know, I am not familiar with it. 

 

caposkia wrote:

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.

And that couldn't have been done without the torture? We are talking about a god that is supposed to be omnipotent.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

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.

How loving. First thing I do with my dogs when they do nothing right, I take them to the bath tub and drown them.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

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.

So destroying humanity is good? I strongly disagree.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

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.

The mindfuck alone can be psychologically damaging. He pushed a man to a point where he was willing to murder his own son. The emotional harm to him and his son would be huge. Would you want to be around your father if he came that close to sacrificing you because a voice told him to? That is an awful lot of damage done just for the sake of testing someone's willingness to follow your orders. If I ever have a son, I wouldn't kill him just because I thought god was telling me to. Would you?  

 

caposkia wrote:
 

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.

He tortured the man for years- why?

Quick little moral question: a pious 6 year old girl is playing in the street and you see a bus heading for the her. Do you risk your life and attempt to push the kid out of the way? Or do you just watch with confidence that God will "take care of her"?  

 

caposkia wrote:

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.

He uses force for everything else, so I don't see why he would stop at writing. Certainly that isn't a reason to dismiss it out of hand. God had a myriad of torturous ways to "test" the faith of believers, so I don't see why he wouldn't have several different ways to get his commands written as scripture.  

 

caposkia wrote:

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. 

So they deserve it? Well, I would rather be suffering with Grandma.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

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.

God sounds remarkably like heroin. Take it and everything will feel so great you won't even care about all your problems and you will stop caring about everyone important in your life. All you will want is more god. No thanks. 

 

caposkia wrote:
 

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.

Wouldn't it have been a lot better for me to die as an infant so I could enjoy the greatness of heaven? Now I am a heathen bound for hell where there is no good. Why, if only my parents believed in abortion I would be safely ensconced in heaven right now. 

 

caposkia wrote:

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.  

No, my position is that we are surviving because of our technology. A luxury that has never existed before in human history and is a product of humans.

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


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
responding to caposkia, but including BS comments

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

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.  

Hmmm, if you can find it let me know, I am not familiar with it. 

 

It is 80%, not 100.  See - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCVzz96zKA0

 

There are a number of problems with this idea, I would think.  There are many written diaries from the Middle Ages where the person in question is trying very hard to be the best christian they can.  Yet they have never received a vision.  Other people had visions, good and bad people, why not them?  If they didn't have this receptivity in their brain, why torture them specifically?

Also, doesn't this take away free will?  You want someone to believe in some supernatural being, just give them epilepsy in the right temporal lobe.  Their cultural milieu will provide the specific religious framework. 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

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. 

So they deserve it? Well, I would rather be suffering with Grandma.

 

I'm with BS and his grandma.  And Mark Twain, Mahatmas Ghandi, a good portion of my own family, Hitchens, Dennet, Shermer, Dawkins, and a lot of other great people who have done little harm - and a lot of good.

 

edit - should have previewed, fixed quotes

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:there's a

caposkia wrote:
there's a reason for that... and it has nothing to do with the existence of demons

If that were even remotely true, then everything your imagination could come up with, would exist.

It doesn't.

caposkia wrote:
it's not what you said, but it's what you're asking me to do

No, you don't get to interpret what I actually said as something entirely different, and then pretend you're still making sense.

So again, what I said is what I said, not what you turn it into. This is why people need to keep reminding you that you're not talking to yourself.

caposkia wrote:
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)

Uh, yeah, my words, with "you have" put in front, which once again switches the responsibility of proving YOUR supernatural claim, to the person of who asked you for proof in the first place.

Absolutely incredible. 

caposkia wrote:
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

All I'm claiming is that that would be acceptable evidence. I make no claim about acceptable evidence even existing. THAT WAS YOU !!!!!!

caposkia wrote:
apparently subjective as well considering how difficult it has been to be on the same page.

Actually, getting on the same page has been the easy part. That happened when you agreed my rules for determining acceptable proof made sense.

The hard part is not getting bored by how many times I have to (and will have to) remind you of this. 

caposkia wrote:
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.

Again, there is nothing random here. There are rules, which you agreed to. You agreed they make sense, so you already understand the logical reasoning behind them.

You simply don't seem to realize what you already agreed to. Not my problem. I'll happily keep explaining it over and over again. 

caposkia wrote:
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.

You're asking me how it is that I couldn't prove you were faking "the other stuff", meaning the alleged proof you are able to fake according to me ?? What does that even mean ???

caposkia wrote:
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.

Huh ?????? But all I talked about was acceptable proof  ! If you mean something else with "projected evidences", then why do you even bring it up ??????

caposkia wrote:
because they'd need a means to prove it to others.  Again, it's still on you... get it now?

Incredible. That makes even less sense than what you said before. 

Why would someone who asks you for proof for YOUR (YOUR !!!!!!) supernatural claim need to provide you with the means to prove it to others ????? IF THEY COULD DO THAT, THEN THEY WOULDN'T NEED TO ASK FOR PROOF IN THE FIRST PLACE !!

If you don't understand that, then TELL ME ! Nothing could possibly be easier to explain. 

caposkia wrote:
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?  

Nobody's asking for ALL the stuff you can't fake. I specified it down to three choices. 

caposkia wrote:
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 

No, the supernatural claim is "out of left field", the proof, before it's produced, can only SEEM "out of left field".

caposkia wrote:
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?

And here we have the first repeat I was expecting : Yeah, there is a logical reason. One you already agreed with. 

caposkia wrote:
 'You can't fake it' is not logical reasoning,

Sorry, too late. You already agreed it made sense. If you've changed your mind, tell me, because that would make this even funnier.

caposkia wrote:
 rather it's a means to which further confirms the outcome if it is possible considering the subject matter.

"..a means to which further confirms..." ??? Now you're just making word salads.  Could you turn that into English for me please ? 

caposkia wrote:
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.

Yeah, I already did that about 4 times. The term "spirituality" lacks a definitive definition. If you don't understand why that makes it useless as proof, then please do tell. 

caposkia wrote:
i see... that's all there is, just reported occurances?

Oh, I'm sure there are LOTS of neat stories. Those aren't proof, however.

caposkia wrote:
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?

I couldn't care less what you read, listen to or witness. I care about acceptable proof, which is what I asked you for, and which you have failed for weeks to produce. 

caposkia wrote:
Where do we draw the line between faked and reality?  How do we deduce that any report we've heard is based on reality?

Again, we have already agreed on what would make acceptable proof, unless you'd like to change your mind. (Not that that would help you much) 

caposkia wrote:
why do you keep trying to make it look like I'm saying acceptable proof isn't considered or is not acceptable?

Because you keep conveniently forgetting that you already agreed on what would make acceptable proof. Watch, you're going to do it again :

caposkia wrote:
 Acceptable proof is, what's in question here the proof being asked for being acceptable or not.  I say not, you say it is.

Wrong, and unbelievably so, since I've repeated this so many times I might as well install a button on my keyboard for this : YOU ALREADY AGREED THAT MY RULES FOR WHAT MAKES ACCEPTABLE PROOF MAKE SENSE.

caposkia wrote:
 What's your logical reasoning beyond me not being able to fake it,

??? Why would I need reasoning beyond the logical reasoning we already agreed on ??

caposkia wrote:
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.

Actually, faking that stuff is possible. But that's not what I'm asking you to provide acceptable proof for, so it's just more time-wasting distraction.  

caposkia wrote:
I'm not asking you to produce the proof, I'm asking you how it's possible if demons are real.

Again, the supernatural claim isn't mine, so how you produce the proof ISN'T MY PROBLEM. This seems to be where we keep losing you, which is why this is still so encouraging. The mistake you're making couldn't possibly be simpler. 

caposkia wrote:
 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,

But that makes no sense. If you can explain how it's possible, then why can't you make it happen, if it's real ? 

caposkia wrote:
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.

Again, this is so simplistically nonsensical, that asking people to believe you can't see the flaw here, is too ridiculous to even consider. 

So AGAIN : IF I COULD EXPLAIN TO YOU HOW IT WAS POSSIBLE, THEN WHY WOULD I EVEN NEED YOU TO PROVIDE THE PROOF IN THE FIRST PLACE ???

Do you really not understand this ? Because that would be spectacular. 

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. 

caposkia wrote:
no, but your attempt at making it sound like I was comparing cars to demons is also still there for everyone to read..

Yeaaaah....I left it up there, so people can read. Oh dear, seems to be something else entirely. 

caposkia wrote:
Also there to read is my explanation that I was comparing a single means of irrational proof to another, not cars to demons.

READ WHAT I WROTE !!!!!!! In-bloody-credible.

caposkia wrote:
Nice try though.

???? Why do you keep saying that ??? Why keep making these random comments that have nothing to do with anything I or you even said ???? Just because it sounds "cool" to you ?? Well, "nice try" right back atcha, bro. 

caposkia wrote:
I'm sure you were hoping I forgot all that by now

??????? "Hoping you forgot" something I had to bring up again and again myself to even make you admit it ??????? You couldn't possible make less sense if you tried.

You compared "proof for demons" to "proof for cars". This is a false analogy that was meant to defend an argument YOU GAVE UP WEEKS AGO ! 

caposkia wrote:
everything I've said has been relevant to what you've posted.

No, and I've explained every single time why it wasn't. 

caposkia wrote:
If you felt it wasn't relevant then you might want to consider what you write

Like I said, no, it wasn't all relevant, and I explained every single time why it wasn't.

caposkia wrote:
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.

More stories. Stories aren't proof. And if seeking attention makes people's supernatural claims not "legitimate", then you've just invalidated your own.

caposkia wrote:
I've never tried it... but yes

If you've never tried it, then how can you know you could do it ?

caposkia wrote:
... I won't do it however, that would be as smart as my scenario above, which is why I wrote it like that.

"Yeah, I can show you proof for *insert supernatural claim*, but I'm not gonna do it because it would be too dangerous ! No, really !"

Oh please..

Excuses. Excuses are not acceptable proof.

caposkia wrote:
you're not??? really???  I know you're trying to look like you're not, but you really believe you're not huh

Didn't look at your own answer, did you ? As for me, since I'm not the one making the supernatural claim, I have no need for excuses in the first place, so I don't even need to "believe". 

caposkia wrote:
maybe then you'll be able to explain your reasoning

Already did, and you already agreed with it, when you agreed to my rules for what would make acceptable proof.

caposkia wrote:
alright, explain to me then how your rules I agreed to determine that a demon powered generator is possible?

Explain it AGAIN, you mean ? Sure : The rules you agreed to only determine what makes acceptable proof for your supernatural claim. And a demon powered generator is only possible if your supernatural claim is true. 

You can also try one of the other two. I mean, if you're gonna fail, might as well fail all three. 

caposkia wrote:
is that what you got out of that?  Nice

If you were making another point, then you should have typed a different sentence. 

caposkia wrote:
your asking for something that is fiction even on a spiritual standard... this is why i said that.

Again, use of the word "spiritual" makes no sense for reasons I already explained waaaaay too many times. 

And also AGAIN, acceptable proof for your supernatural claim can only seem "fictional" before it's produced. 

caposkia wrote:
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.

Um, no, that's not "restating what I believe". That's restating the three things that would qualify as acceptable proof ACCORDING TO RULES WE ALREADY AGREED ON.

caposkia wrote:
Neither could be faked?  true,

See, this is just plain bizarre. You KNOW this, yet you keep making me repeat it !

caposkia wrote:
if something is real then acceptable proof is possible?  true, 

what makes your proof acceptable, how is it possible?

Again , the supernatural claim is YOURS, so YOU need to provide the proof. YOU, yes YOU, are the one who claims it's possible to provide acceptable proof, the rules for which we AGREED UPON !!

caposkia wrote:
I'll start you off again, "A demon powered generator or demon controlling ring is possible if demons are real because..."

Still the exact same sentence and explanation : 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.

If you do not understand the explanations I provided (AGAIN) to clear up your confusion, then quote said explanation and I will try to rephrase it in an even simpler manner. 

caposkia wrote:
no, no and yes.

Again, this is just bizarre. What you just said would make "what you have been saying from the beginning" a complete mystery. It's like you don't even care what you say. 

caposkia wrote:
I'm sure you can't

Well, credit where it's due, all your nonsense has very effectively obfuscated an extremely simple problem. If I couldn't summarize the place where you got stuck in three short sentences, I'd be pretty annoyed at this point. 

caposkia wrote:
that's becasue you each time had already made it for me

And yet when asked to produce your "point" or "case", nothing appears. Kinda like your demons. 

caposkia wrote:
how is a demon powered generator not random?

When it follows rules set for determining acceptable proof that we both agreed upon. 

caposkia wrote:
right, so where are the grounds for your proof?

Again, the person who should be producing this proof is YOU, because it is YOUR supernatural claim !

I swear, it's like you don't even know what the word "you" means.

caposkia wrote:
nice try,

Why do you keep saying that ??? It makes no sense ! Nothing was "tried" ! Something was explained to you ! If you don't understand the explanation, then say so ! Don't just go "nice try" !!

caposkia wrote:
but just answer it.  I again compared proof to proof,

Oh really ? So you weren't comparing proof for demons to proof for a cosmological event ? You're just comparing "proof" to "proof" ? Pretty damn useless, but sure, go right ahead. 

caposkia wrote:
not demons to a cosmological event...

Why do you even bother typing things I never even said ???? I said "proof for demons" to "proof for a cosmological event" ! 

caposkia wrote:
by your standards, analogies are false (period)

By "my standards", would you perhaps be referring to those words you typed that I never said ? 

caposkia wrote:
not answering the simple question is

I explained why your question was a fallacy, but hey, if you want to rephrase your question without the fallacy, then I will happily answer it. Try actually inserting "comparing proof to proof", instead of comparing proof for demons to proof for a cosmological event, and you'll immediately notice just exactly how little sense you're making. 

caposkia wrote:
what i don't understand is why you miss the analogy each and every time and only take the 2 things that are unassociated?

"unassociated" ?? What are you talking about ? If you don't want to associate proof for demons with proof for a cosmological event, then your entire sentence becomes irrelevant to what we're talking about. 

caposkia wrote:
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.
 

"Means of proof for demons" compared to "means of proof for cars/cosmological events", you mean ? Because if that's not what you mean, then please do explain how comparing "means of proof" to "means of proof" even means anything. 

Should be entertaining, in a totally bizarre sort of way.

caposkia wrote:
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.
 

Kudos on managing to swallow "nice try" this time, I guess, but you're still making no sense at all.

Here's why : Simply comparing the phrase "means of proof" to the exact same sentence, DOESN'T MEAN A BLOODY THING.

If you don't understand that, then please say so.

 

In the meantime, please feel free to produce acceptable proof for demons, or admit there isn't any.


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

blacklight915 wrote:

Tell me how; I'll do it for you.

again, i've never tried it and there's a reason for it.  If you're asking me how to do it, you obviously don't know what you're asking for.  I will not be responsible for that.

blacklight915 wrote:

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?

Why would he have to when in the Bible he told us we already have power over them?

blacklight915 wrote:

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.

Just look at the reasoning behind most people who commit such crimes.  You will find their justification to be not only absurd, but considering Biblical teachings, their lack of belief justifies to them their reasoning though it might not be directly said so.  e.g. someone has sex with someone because they claim the other wanted it at the time despite the fact that the other is accusing them of rape.  The Bible says wait till marriage.  If the accused had that understanding, the issue would not have happened in the first place.  Just one example of millions out there.  the Biblical understanding also saves many from making those stupid mistakes that end up getting both hurt.  


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

I figured that what I said was so brilliant that you thought it needed to be repeated verbatim. *checks "pride" off list of sins to commit today*   

of course, we all had to marvel at it for a while before I responded ;p

Beyond Saving wrote:

Is there no one who has bothered to do this research? I would think that anyone who claims to be an expert in such cases would seek to be familiar with basic things like consistent symptom patterns.

those who are dont' need to investigate it because they already know the truth.  Those who don't see that kind of research as a waste of time.  The ones who are familiar also would likely only succeed at reaching an already believing community.   

There may be something out there though, I honestly have not gone out of my way to see if someone has compiled and researched all the cases.

Beyond Saving wrote:

All the more reason to doubt everything they write about it, including the demon part. 

might as well doubt everything else reported as well be it that most reporters use their creative writing skills to make a medeocre story sound interesting much of the time.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Lots of good reasons, because there is a substantial amount of evidence that suggests dark matter may exist. I'm looking for a similar amount of evidence about demons.

well, we've established consistent symptoms would be a start, what else would you be looking for as far as evidence?  I've listed a few possibilities, most you didn't like.  How about a culture study.  study particular gatherings of Christians vs gatherings of people where Chrsitians are not present and discuss the results.  Without a study I have seen major differences like strangers interacting with you as if you've know them vs. not even acknowledging your existence and a feeling of safety with your material possessions vs. the likelihood of them getting stolen if you carelessly leave them somewhere.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

So one would expect that if you did a blind comparative study of people in mental institutions who exhibit these symptoms. where some are treated using exorcisms and others treated using modern medicine that it would show exorcisms are effective right? Show me a study like that and you have at least some evidence. Unfortunately, one doesn't appear to exist. 

I would believe such a study would yield positive results for exorcisms.  I'm not aware of any particular study.  Again, believers typically don't take the demon approach to proof that the metaphysical is real be it that they're just one small part of the whole picture.

Beyond Saving wrote:

So can you demonstrate that people who pray are more likely to have things they cannot influence work out in their favor? Even if God only intervened 5% of the time that would be substantial enough to make a difference.  

I can't do that on my own.  Direct studies haven't yielded much, but they're of small groups of people.  To get a percentage as you say, it'd have to be a worldwide study.  Especially seeing as prayer is subjective to every person in every situation.  There's really no way of getting a consistent result each time.  one time it might be 1/2 a percent, another time it could be 50%.  Those results in the science world are usually considered skewed and not real results.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Hmmm, if you can find it let me know, I am not familiar with it. 

It seems there's been a few who have followed up on that particular study.  The first link seems to be taken from more of a non-believer standpoint and likens it to a possible evolutionary hardwiring, but it seems to describe the study I remember reading very well.  

http://www.salon.com/2001/02/01/god_part/

I also found a book called "why God won't go away" which sounds like a similar study of the God part of the brain as they call it.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

And that couldn't have been done without the torture? We are talking about a god that is supposed to be omnipotent.

Be it that this omnipotent God had established the standard, the only way he could have avoided that is to contradict himself, which is not the type of God that He is.  

Ultimately, the crimes will have been always committed and either someone, or everyone would have to serve the sentence.

Beyond Saving wrote:

How loving. First thing I do with my dogs when they do nothing right, I take them to the bath tub and drown them.

So you think that was the first thing God did huh?  You might want to read the book again.

Beyond Saving wrote:

So destroying humanity is good? I strongly disagree.

If God was destroying humanity, we'd all be dead, or never have existed in the first place.  I'd say He's been saving it all along.  Otherwise, what was the purpose of Jesus?

Beyond Saving wrote:

The mindfuck alone can be psychologically damaging. He pushed a man to a point where he was willing to murder his own son. The emotional harm to him and his son would be huge. Would you want to be around your father if he came that close to sacrificing you because a voice told him to? That is an awful lot of damage done just for the sake of testing someone's willingness to follow your orders. If I ever have a son, I wouldn't kill him just because I thought god was telling me to. Would you?  

Be it that Jesus died once for all, I would know it wasn't God talking to me now, so no.  God also has never let anyone sacrifice a human for Him.  The only reason why Abraham went as far as He did is because it was not unusual at the time for gods to ask for human sacrifices and there was no doubt that gods were real.  Followers of any particular god typically were wishy washy and when they decided they didn't like their god anymore, they would just follow another one.  YHWH, was testing Abraham to see if he was wiling to stick by Him or go to another god.  Why would YHWH want Abraham to be a father of nations if he would just as easily find another god to follow?

When looking at these stories, you have to consider the history and lifestyle these people were living.  Today our mindset and understanding is vastly different than it was then.  

The thing is too, when God commands, its' not a question in your mind as to whether you heard from God or not.   

Beyond Saving wrote:

He tortured the man for years- why?

to prove to that generation, to Job and to all future generations that Gods followers are more faithful than any other gods followers.  One assassin (I forget his name) had said; "you know a true Christian when they hold onto their faith until they die"

Beyond Saving wrote:

Quick little moral question: a pious 6 year old girl is playing in the street and you see a bus heading for the her. Do you risk your life and attempt to push the kid out of the way? Or do you just watch with confidence that God will "take care of her"?  

be it that those of us who understand how God works knows that he works through His people 99% of the time, of course I would risk my life for her.  I would understand that God had me in that place in that moment to save her.  To stand by and watch is not putting my faith in God.  

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

He uses force for everything else, so I don't see why he would stop at writing. Certainly that isn't a reason to dismiss it out of hand. God had a myriad of torturous ways to "test" the faith of believers, so I don't see why he wouldn't have several different ways to get his commands written as scripture.  

If he really does use force for everything else, why are you not a believer?  If what you say is true, then you wouldn't have a choice.  You are discovering however that having faith in God isn't all peaches and cream like some non-believers like to think.

Beyond Saving wrote:

So they deserve it? Well, I would rather be suffering with Grandma.

I have faith in God and know Him enough to understand that if they're not with Him, that it is what they chose.  As far as deserving it, we all deserve it.  We've all fallen short of God's Laws.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

God sounds remarkably like heroin. Take it and everything will feel so great you won't even care about all your problems and you will stop caring about everyone important in your life. All you will want is more god. No thanks. 

be it that caring is good, I don't think that's how it would be.  Again, we can only speculate.  I cannot accurately describe the hows and whys

Beyond Saving wrote:

Wouldn't it have been a lot better for me to die as an infant so I could enjoy the greatness of heaven? Now I am a heathen bound for hell where there is no good. Why, if only my parents believed in abortion I would be safely ensconced in heaven right now. 

some may see it that way.  There is a whole other section of Christian history that falls into Christian mythology.  It's mythology because there is no way of knowing what is real and not, but it is associated with Christianity.  Some of it is very obviously incongruent wtih scriptural reference, some of it has no contradictions.  One such example of something that has no contradictions is the hall of souls in heaven.  This part of the mythology suggests that all of us alive on Earth or were even concieved were in the hall of souls in heaven and chose to come down to live on Earth.  

What if you had chosen to come down?  Why would you choose to come down only to be take right back up?  

Considering the hypotheticals your suggesting, this is rational to consider as well.  Maybe there's a greater purpose for your existence that you're not privy to...

Beyond Saving wrote:

No, my position is that we are surviving because of our technology. A luxury that has never existed before in human history and is a product of humans.

our technology has also opened many other doors to death, including those inventions that also help us survive.  How many deaths are caused each year by machinery?  What about specifically farming equipment?  These statistics are out there... do the lives it has prolonged outweigh the accumulative deaths since its inception?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:There are a number

cj wrote:

There are a number of problems with this idea, I would think.  There are many written diaries from the Middle Ages where the person in question is trying very hard to be the best christian they can.  Yet they have never received a vision.  Other people had visions, good and bad people, why not them?  If they didn't have this receptivity in their brain, why torture them specifically?

I think Alex Gee says it best:  http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Alex+Gee&view=detail&mid=FE17CC037B84FB9C0879FE17CC037B84FB9C0879&first=0&FORM=NVPFVR


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

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
it's not what you said, but it's what you're asking me to do

No, you don't get to interpret what I actually said as something entirely different, and then pretend you're still making sense.

I know what you think you said, I'm telling you what you're actually asking me to do.  That's something entirely different than me interpreting what you say.  

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
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)

Uh, yeah, my words, with "you have" put in front, which once again switches the responsibility of proving YOUR supernatural claim, to the person of who asked you for proof in the first place.

Absolutely incredible. 

actually, I'm just trying to show you how incredibly rediculous what you're asking for really is.  I'm not asking you to prove ot me demons exist, I am asking you to accept it when someone who knows the subject at hand tells you you're not on the same planet with them.

Anonymouse wrote:

All I'm claiming is that that would be acceptable evidence. I make no claim about acceptable evidence even existing. THAT WAS YOU !!!!!!

to claim it's acceptable evidence is to claim it's possible if the subject is real.  My question is How?

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
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.

You're asking me how it is that I couldn't prove you were faking "the other stuff", meaning the alleged proof you are able to fake according to me ?? What does that even mean ???

it means you've decided before even trying that any other more rational possibility is able to be faked and that you wouldn't be able to prove it if it was faked.  I want to know why you're so sure you couldn't prove it if I faked it.

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
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.

Huh ?????? But all I talked about was acceptable proof  ! If you mean something else with "projected evidences", then why do you even bring it up ??????

because maybe that will get us on the same page with your requests for proof.  yoru projected evidences are not acceptable, they may follow your rules, but so does proving demons exist by exampling anti-gravity.  It doesn't make it acceptable because it doesn't make sense.  You can't link the 2.

Anonymouse wrote:

Why would someone who asks you for proof for YOUR (YOUR !!!!!!) supernatural claim need to provide you with the means to prove it to others ????? IF THEY COULD DO THAT, THEN THEY WOULDN'T NEED TO ASK FOR PROOF IN THE FIRST PLACE !!

I will say it as many times as you need.  If you're going to ask for what you're asking for, you're going to have to come up with a rationale as to how it's possible if demons are real.  That is a logical rational request if what your asking for really can be linked to the spiritual world.

Anonymouse wrote:

Nobody's asking for ALL the stuff you can't fake. I specified it down to three choices. 

I know, your 3 choices are random enough to have been pulled out of a hat that consisted of all the stuff I can't fake. 

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
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 

No, the supernatural claim is "out of left field", the proof, before it's produced, can only SEEM "out of left field".

...and he still avoids the question...

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 rather it's a means to which further confirms the outcome if it is possible considering the subject matter.

"..a means to which further confirms..." ??? Now you're just making word salads.  Could you turn that into English for me please ? 

wait, you're the one that established rules for evidence and yet you can't understand what i just said?  Those rules would only help confirm the results, they don't validate suggested avenues for proof.  

Anonymouse wrote:

Yeah, I already did that about 4 times. The term "spirituality" lacks a definitive definition. If you don't understand why that makes it useless as proof, then please do tell. 

fine, metaphysics, not spirituality, better?

Anonymouse wrote:

Oh, I'm sure there are LOTS of neat stories. Those aren't proof, however.

none of them ever are, and yet all of us buy into their words every day.

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
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?

I couldn't care less what you read, listen to or witness. I care about acceptable proof, which is what I asked you for, and which you have failed for weeks to produce. 

that was also in reference to you.  answer the question

Anonymouse wrote:

??? Why would I need reasoning beyond the logical reasoning we already agreed on ??

antigravity... need I say more?  yes? ok, your logical reasoning also validates anti-gravity as a means to prove demons exist... you can't fake it can you?

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I'm not asking you to produce the proof, I'm asking you how it's possible if demons are real.

Again, the supernatural claim isn't mine, so how you produce the proof ISN'T MY PROBLEM. This seems to be where we keep losing you, which is why this is still so encouraging. The mistake you're making couldn't possibly be simpler. 

...but the alleged acceptable proof is.  If you can't give me logical reasoning to link what you're asking for to demons, then admit it's not a logical measn of proof

Anonymouse wrote:

But that makes no sense. If you can explain how it's possible, then why can't you make it happen, if it's real ? 

In reference to harry potter magic

I would explain how it's possible using the world of magic created by the author and mythological history, which is the basis for the magic the author uses in the book.  There is much written on it including specific rules as to how things happen and what is possible by what means.  We would find out when i try to make it happen that those magical claims in the book are not possible in real life.  But that doesnt' mean i can't explain how my approach to acceptable proof woudl be possible if it was real.  However, you've failed for quite a while now in explaining yourself

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. 

caposkia wrote:
no, but your attempt at making it sound like I was comparing cars to demons is also still there for everyone to read..

Yeaaaah....I left it up there, so people can read. Oh dear, seems to be something else entirely. 

yea, i bolded the part where you said it verbatum... 

Anonymouse wrote:

???? Why do you keep saying that ??? Why keep making these random comments that have nothing to do with anything I or you even said ???? Just because it sounds "cool" to you ?? Well, "nice try" right back atcha, bro. 

I say that because I"m convinced you're smarter than you are acting here.  I believe that you understand what i'm saying and are trying very hard to ignore the blaring fact that what you're asking for can't be done whether demons are real or not.  I'm just trying different... or similar methods to get you to admit that.

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I'm sure you were hoping I forgot all that by now

??????? "Hoping you forgot" something I had to bring up again and again myself to even make you admit it ??????? You couldn't possible make less sense if you tried.

You compared "proof for demons" to "proof for cars". This is a false analogy that was meant to defend an argument YOU GAVE UP WEEKS AGO ! 

it had been a while since you brought up soem of it, so I figured it was about time to recheck

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
everything I've said has been relevant to what you've posted.

No, and I've explained every single time why it wasn't. 

and I've countered every single tiem with why it was... usually you ignore and go back to "it's your claim not mine" excuse.

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
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.

More stories. Stories aren't proof. And if seeking attention makes people's supernatural claims not "legitimate", then you've just invalidated your own.

Here's a perfect example of you not even trying.  I gave you a legitimate reason why what you found didn't give you answers and your response is. "more stories".  If you're just going to dismiss everything I say with no grounds, just tell me.  We can stop here, I'll declare you winner on the basis of ignorance and we can be done.  

Anonymouse wrote:

If you've never tried it, then how can you know you could do it ?

I know how spirits work and how they would love to pull a follower away from God.

Anonymouse wrote:

"Yeah, I can show you proof for *insert supernatural claim*, but I'm not gonna do it because it would be too dangerous ! No, really !"

Oh please..

Excuses. Excuses are not acceptable proof.

If it's really dangerous, would you try it just to appease some random blogger who doesn't believe you?  c'mon, are you even thinking anymore?

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
you're not??? really???  I know you're trying to look like you're not, but you really believe you're not huh

Didn't look at your own answer, did you ? As for me, since I'm not the one making the supernatural claim, I have no need for excuses in the first place, so I don't even need to "believe". 

of course not.  We're just discussing.... rationality is out the window, so is common sense, so excuses, sure, neither of us need them anymore.  We'll just keep running in loops... you have access to the breaks, hit them when you're ready.

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
alright, explain to me then how your rules I agreed to determine that a demon powered generator is possible?

Explain it AGAIN, you mean ? Sure : The rules you agreed to only determine what makes acceptable proof for your supernatural claim. And a demon powered generator is only possible if your supernatural claim is true. 

no, not again, keep going with it now... I need the 'HOW' part, not the "why you think" part

Anonymouse wrote:

If you were making another point, then you should have typed a different sentence. 

I dont' need to make points with you anymore, people know the credibility level at which I hold you by now

Anonymouse wrote:

Again, use of the word "spiritual" makes no sense for reasons I already explained waaaaay too many times. 

I've already explained way too many tiems as well why it does make sense... you can keep ignoring and we can keep wasting space disagreeing about it.  you're in control of the conversation as always

Anonymouse wrote:

Um, no, that's not "restating what I believe". That's restating the three things that would qualify as acceptable proof ACCORDING TO RULES WE ALREADY AGREED ON.

sure it is... unless you can explain why... redundancy is not explaining anything.

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Neither could be faked?  true,

See, this is just plain bizarre. You KNOW this, yet you keep making me repeat it !

no, you choose to repeat it and ignore what I've been asking you to tell me.  Do I really need to ask it again?

Anonymouse wrote:

Again , the supernatural claim is YOURS,

and the means of proof is yours, so explain your logic... NO your rules don't explain your logic, they only establish a basis for the results if they are possible.

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I'll start you off again, "A demon powered generator or demon controlling ring is possible if demons are real because..."

Still the exact same sentence and explanation : 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.

alright, then you will probably accept this if you are accepting your own explanation above:  Demons are possible if demons are real because demons are real and cannot be faked.  case solved right?  

Anonymouse wrote:

If you do not understand the explanations I provided (AGAIN) to clear up your confusion, then quote said explanation and I will try to rephrase it in an even simpler manner. 

please do.  here's the quote: "A demon powered generator or demon controlling ring 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, because neither of these things could be faked, and if something is real, then acceptable proof is possible."

See... I still have the same question... HOW??????  explain your reasoning!  I need just a simple explanation of how a demon powered generator or a demon controllign ring would be possible.  What is the logic besides they can't be faked... if that's all you got then all harry potter magic is real too becasue it can't be faked.  

Anonymouse wrote:

Again, this is just bizarre. What you just said would make "what you have been saying from the beginning" a complete mystery. It's like you don't even care what you say. 

I have lost interest in our conversation because I don't believe you really care to make progress

Anonymouse wrote:

And yet when asked to produce your "point" or "case", nothing appears. Kinda like your demons. 

or the logic behind your evidences?

Anonymouse wrote:

When it follows rules set for determining acceptable proof that we both agreed upon. 

so then you would accept anti-gravity as a measn of proof?

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
right, so where are the grounds for your proof?

Again, the person who should be producing this proof is YOU, because it is YOUR supernatural claim !

I swear, it's like you don't even know what the word "you" means.

I swear you're smarter than this!  grounds is not asking for production, only reasoning.  there must be a logical reasoning behind a demon powered generator vs maybe actual occurances beyond "they can be faked"

Anonymouse wrote:

Oh really ? So you weren't comparing proof for demons to proof for a cosmological event ? You're just comparing "proof" to "proof" ? Pretty damn useless, but sure, go right ahead. 

not so, ever since I have done that, you've had nothing but excuses to keep you afloat.  

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
not demons to a cosmological event...

Why do you even bother typing things I never even said ???? I said "proof for demons" to "proof for a cosmological event" ! 

bolded it again for you.  I meant the same thing... it's proof to proof, not the object in question. 

Anonymouse wrote:

"unassociated" ?? What are you talking about ? If you don't want to associate proof for demons with proof for a cosmological event, then your entire sentence becomes irrelevant to what we're talking about. 

alright fine, let's compare demons to a cosmological event.  you claim i can't reproduce any of your evidences for demons.  I know you can't reproduce a cosmological event, so by your standards, neither exist right?

Anonymouse wrote:

Kudos on managing to swallow "nice try" this time, I guess, but you're still making no sense at all.

Here's why : Simply comparing the phrase "means of proof" to the exact same sentence, DOESN'T MEAN A BLOODY THING.

If you don't understand that, then please say so.

 

In the meantime, please feel free to produce acceptable proof for demons, or admit there isn't any.

nice try 


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 205
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I guess #2

caposkia wrote:
I guess #2 doesn't work because of your assumption.
 

No, this is not an assumption. "Study material" can be created for anything. 

Are you seriously admitting that you do not understand this ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
You have failed to discuss acceptable proof with me,

There is no need for me to duplicate those discussions. I have read them. You have not been able to produce acceptable proof in any of them.

In fact, you seem to have panicked rather badly in those discussions, resulting in replies that barely qualify as language. Very strange indeed. 

 

caposkia wrote:
 rather we've gotten stuck on why some presented proofs don't work and/or a link between exorcisms and/or belief to abuse.
 

You have not presented acceptable proof of any kind, and what we are "stuck" on here are facts. Better to be "stuck" on facts than ignore them entirely. Still, it's good to see you are no longer trying to deny the connection.

You are capable of learning.  

 

caposkia wrote:
it still plays a part, why wouldn't i mention it?  It'd be ignorant to conclude without study
 

You are asking a question that was already answered. It would appear you are not capable of learning after all.

I'll explain again : "Study material" can be created about anything, including your fantasies. Since it can be created about anything, it can never stop you from believing everything. Do you understand this painfully simple fact ? 

Even if you don't, the question needs to be repeated yet again, and it will keep being repeated, until you learn that study material can be created about anything, and that reasoning and rationality demand acceptable proof, of which you have none.

So, how do you keep from believing everything ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
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?
 

To apply reasoning and rationality here would be to demand acceptable proof. "Experiences" do not count as acceptable proof, and are therefore irrelevant. Your continued strange misuse of terms like "reasoning and rationality" only serves to accentuate the weakness of your position and the hollowness of your arguments. 

 

caposkia wrote:
oh that's what I did?  I'm glad you told me.
 

No, that is the hypothetical situation I have been asking you questions about for these past few weeks. Pretending to misunderstand people who have communicated with you in a clear and unambiguous way, isn't very honest. 

 

caposkia wrote:
 I thought I said that I consider medical means first.  I didn't know I did it the other way around.
 

As you well know, but seem encouragingly ashamed to admit, your failed to mention that this was the ONLY option in such a case.

 

caposkia wrote:
do you have statistics and/or studies that suggest it's not?  I'd love to read them.
 

Check recidivism statistics. I really don't understand why you keep asking people these simple questions you could so very easily answer yourself. Is it just laziness ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
your suggestion of lack of acceptable proof
 

That is not a "suggestion", that is simply the result of weeks or repeated questions and patiently repeated explanations.

Among the many things you need to learn, the most urgent would be that you need proof for ALL your claims. Even when just calling something "a suggestion", it seems. 

 

caposkia wrote:
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
 

Simply "figuring" supernatural beings played a part in something does not mean a thing. You cannot make supernatural beings real by "figuring". 

Do you understand, that if "figuring" was enough to make something supernatural real, then you could "figure" ANYTHING into being ? 

And do you understand that this is impossible ? 

I really wish that was a rhetorical question.

 

 

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 ? 

caposkia wrote:
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.
 

??????

What are you even talking about ? We established that you cannot find even a single example of something positive occurring because of a belief in "demons" and "possession", that could not have happened without it. Your only defense against this fact is "figuring" that a supernatural being HAD to have been involved in a positive change somehow, which is both nonsensical and irrelevant. So what on earth do you mean with "more than nothing" ???

And "humans would be almost extinct if what you suggest is true" ???? What utter tripe is this ?? First of all, I never "suggested" anything. While you "figured", I provided facts. Facts that prove the reality of the exclusive toxicity of your belief in "demons" and "possession".

Meanwhile, you're "figuring".

So I will ask again : 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 ?

Do you have any justification beyond just "figuring" ? Well ?

 

caposkia wrote:
uh... yea, don't understand here.
 

Please mention what it is that you don't understand. 

 

caposkia wrote:
what reality??? how many realities are there?  I was referring to... "reality" as "reality", those things that are real
 

I have not ignored any facts because you have not provided any. I have.

Btw, "figuring" can not create facts out of thin air.

 

caposkia wrote:
alright then, and what following is my belief?
 

You believe in "demons" and "possessions". Did you forget ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
he has tried to.. He does a good job at deferring, but not debunking
 

No, he has not had to "try" anything. He has succeeded in making you look almost insane. I'm not just being hyperbolic here. Some of your replies to him are almost childishly nonsensical. 

 

caposkia wrote:
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
 

By planting the idea in their head that there is such a thing as "demons" and "possession". The facts show what this can lead to. 

 

caposkia wrote:
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.

So are you saying that any responsibility for what happens after you've delivered your evil little message lies with "god" and not with you ???

 

caposkia wrote:
if they believe me, i hope they wouldn't just walk away.. they'd have a lot more to learn about what they heard

So you would waste the time of someone responsible for a sick loved one with even more of your supernatural nonsense ???? Incredible. You really are completely without shame.

 

caposkia wrote:
it is my intention to educate people about what it is, as far as believing it, that's up to them.

So you take no responsibility for what happens after you "educated" them ? None at all ? 

 

caposkia wrote:
I don't believe in most of these posts there has been room for common sense

Since we were talking about your claims and your posts, I will take this admission for what it's worth. 

 

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 ?

caposkia wrote:
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?

Yes. Now please answer the question.

 

caposkia wrote:
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?

I was referring to what made them do that in the first place. You are seriously telling me that there is "no problem" with some attention-seeking "demon" believer imposing their "dream" on a grieving family that already has gone through so much ??

Is there ANYTHING so vile that these people could even do that would be "a problem" to you ?? Anything at all ??

 

caposkia wrote:
you call my belief so toxic

I call your belief toxic because the facts I have provided show it the be nothing else. I have given you chance after chance to come up with even a single example of anything even remotely positive that could not have occurred without it. You failed.

That is why your belief is toxic. Not simply because that's what I call it.

Remember this. 

 

caposkia wrote:
and yet lack of belief has lead to greater abuses, murder, selfish gluttony among many others.

Lack of belief in the cases we are talking about would have led to people NOT being tortured to death by believers in "demons" and "possession". 

And as I keep telling you, if you so desperately want to talk about other causes of abuse and murder, sure, we can do that. But now we're talking about one that could be extremely easy to stop.

All it would take would be sufficient honesty from you to drop this insane belief. 

And that's where we keep coming up short.

 

caposkia wrote:
 I really want to see these statistics you seem so sure about

How can anyone make statistics of "demonic possession" when there is just as much proof of this even existing as there is proof of ANY piece of fiction you can think of ? Got any statistics on the migratory habits of gnomes ? 

All we have are the actual cases, and they show an exclusively toxic picture.


 


caposkia wrote:
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.

If you have answered any of the preceding questions by now, we should have a clear picture of  "what you would actually do". 

Let's hope it makes you look a little less cruel, callous and selfish than any of your previous answers. 

 

caposkia wrote:
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.

If by saying you "wouldn't have taken the first step", you mean you wouldn't have shared your belief in "demons" and "possession" with those people, then you have gloriously contradicted yourself.

 

caposkia wrote:
except that it brings to light that I'm not falling for it.

Merely suggesting there even is something you could be "falling for" does not make it so.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised by these bizarrely weak arguments from a person who thinks that "figuring" something makes it real.

 

caposkia wrote:
good, moving on then

No, there will be more questions. I have met more "believers" who were proud of their cruelty, but you are the first one who will openly admit to not even giving a damn. 

I will be taking advantage of the opportunity to expose you for quite some time to come. Thank you again for your willing cooperation.

 

caposkia wrote:
Of course not, that's how demons work,

??? What fresh nonsense is this ? What are you talking about now ??

 

caposkia wrote:
but it seems as if you were talking about brainwashing.

No, it could only have "seemed" that way if you did not actually read what I said.  

 

caposkia wrote:
To buy into a belief to the point of death is more than just planting an idea, wouldn't you say?

I wouldn't say any of that, since that is not the subject of the conversation. We were referring to you sharing your belief in "demons" and "possession" with people suffering from a medical emergency, which you decided could qualify as one of your "demonic possessions".


 


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

caposkia wrote:

Why would he have to when in the Bible he told us we already have power over them?

Because you apparently don't have enough power to summon one without putting yourself in danger...

 

caposkia wrote:

Just look at the reasoning behind most people who commit such crimes.  You will find their justification to be not only absurd, but considering Biblical teachings, their lack of belief justifies to them their reasoning though it might not be directly said so.  e.g. someone has sex with someone because they claim the other wanted it at the time despite the fact that the other is accusing them of rape.  The Bible says wait till marriage.  If the accused had that understanding, the issue would not have happened in the first place.  Just one example of millions out there.  the Biblical understanding also saves many from making those stupid mistakes that end up getting both hurt.

People can (and some do) rape their spouses. Why doesn't the Bible just say something like "only have sex with adults of the human species who want to have sex with you"? And I hope you're not saying rape is a "mistake"...

 


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

caposkia wrote:

those who are dont' need to investigate it because they already know the truth.  Those who don't see that kind of research as a waste of time.  The ones who are familiar also would likely only succeed at reaching an already believing community.   

There may be something out there though, I honestly have not gone out of my way to see if someone has compiled and researched all the cases.

So in order to believe in demons I have to... already believe in demons? I thought you said there was evidence of demons. Evidence is something used to prove something to someone who has doubts. It also strikes me as exceedingly arrogant to believe that everything possible is known about a subject so there is no point in studying it. As we have learned in our scientific endeavors, often when we think we know how something works we discover new things about it. Can you understand why I am extremely skeptical when someone tells me they know everything so there is no point to researching? The only way you can know everything about any subject is if the subject is completely made up. It would be possible to know everything about Star Wars, it is not possible to know everything about gravity. 

 

caposkia wrote:

might as well doubt everything else reported as well be it that most reporters use their creative writing skills to make a medeocre story sound interesting much of the time.

I don't trust reporters. Even with regular mundane news they are often wrong and have their facts incorrect, either through personal bias or human error. I have been to many newsworthy events and the account I read in the newspaper was not an accurate representation of what actually happened. Someone who watches Fox News exclusively will have an entirely different idea of what is happening in the world as someone who exclusively watches MSNBC. Which is why when I read a news story I find interesting, I always attempt to get more information from primary sources.  

 

caposkia wrote:

well, we've established consistent symptoms would be a start, what else would you be looking for as far as evidence?  I've listed a few possibilities, most you didn't like.  

Well summoning a demon in a scientifically controlled environment would be great. I want to see someone do some serious research on the subject, rather than simply declare that they know everything there is to know about demons because the bible says so. 

 

caposkia wrote:

How about a culture study.  study particular gatherings of Christians vs gatherings of people where Chrsitians are not present and discuss the results.  Without a study I have seen major differences like strangers interacting with you as if you've know them vs. not even acknowledging your existence and a feeling of safety with your material possessions vs. the likelihood of them getting stolen if you carelessly leave them somewhere.

How would that provide evidence of demons? I don't deny that Christians have a unique culture and I'm sure you can find many differences between them and other cultures. For example, some Christian cultures are likely to exclude people who are gay. Many cultures have uniqueness to them. I am part of what could be called a "poker culture". Compared to the general public, the poker culture is extremely inclusive to anyone with money. Single, married, gay, any ethnicity, professional businessman, ex-felon or drug dealer all get together at the same table even when they have absolutely nothing else in common. It is also the one place where I don't think twice about walking away and leaving a bunch of money on the table. Actually, that would be kind of a fun study- take $1,000 and just leave it on a table at a Christian picnic and walk away for an hour, then leave $1,000 on the table at a poker club and see where it gets stolen more often. Then repeat with lower amounts say $10. My gut feeling is that the $10 would disappear from the picnic quite a bit. The $1,000, my hunch is that most people probably wouldn't take it. At the poker club, no one would touch a penny (even though a fair number of people in the poker culture wouldn't hesitate to steal outside the culture).

Cultural differences are interesting, but I don't see how they provide evidence for or against demons.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

So one would expect that if you did a blind comparative study of people in mental institutions who exhibit these symptoms. where some are treated using exorcisms and others treated using modern medicine that it would show exorcisms are effective right? Show me a study like that and you have at least some evidence. Unfortunately, one doesn't appear to exist. 

I would believe such a study would yield positive results for exorcisms.  I'm not aware of any particular study.  Again, believers typically don't take the demon approach to proof that the metaphysical is real be it that they're just one small part of the whole picture.

Someone should do one. Perhaps one of those experts who already "know everything". Until there is some kind of study along those lines I see no reason to believe in demons. Until some kind of study like that is done, there is no evidence for demons. 

 

caposkia wrote:

I can't do that on my own.  Direct studies haven't yielded much, but they're of small groups of people.  To get a percentage as you say, it'd have to be a worldwide study.  Especially seeing as prayer is subjective to every person in every situation.  There's really no way of getting a consistent result each time.  one time it might be 1/2 a percent, another time it could be 50%.  Those results in the science world are usually considered skewed and not real results.  

There have been dozens of studies on prayer and they have shown no variance beyond what is expected from pure chance. There have been studies that show that prayer can be helpful as a placebo effect in cases where the mindset of a person can be beneficial. Alternatives to prayer, such as meditation, positive thinking and sugar pills provide similar results. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

And that couldn't have been done without the torture? We are talking about a god that is supposed to be omnipotent.

Be it that this omnipotent God had established the standard, the only way he could have avoided that is to contradict himself, which is not the type of God that He is.  

Ultimately, the crimes will have been always committed and either someone, or everyone would have to serve the sentence.

He contradicted himself going from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Or do you think we should still follow the laws god established in the OT? He can be whatever type of god he wants to be if he is omnipotent. Apparently he chooses to be the torturing type of god. I think that is a bad choice. I choose not to be the torturing type of human. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

How loving. First thing I do with my dogs when they do nothing right, I take them to the bath tub and drown them.

So you think that was the first thing God did huh?  You might want to read the book again.

I don't care if it is the first thing or the millionth thing. Drowning a whole world is monstrous. If you are willing to slaughter that many people (including children and babies) you are not "good" in any sense of the word. 

 

caposkia wrote:

If God was destroying humanity, we'd all be dead, or never have existed in the first place.  I'd say He's been saving it all along.  Otherwise, what was the purpose of Jesus?

Excuse me, 99.99% of humanity. Jesus is only supposedly "saving" us from him. If he wasn't so set on sending us to hell in the first place we wouldn't need Jesus to "save" us. When I refrain from going next door and torturing my neighbor for not cutting the grass, would it make sense for me to claim that I am "saving" him?

 

caposkia wrote:

Be it that Jesus died once for all, I would know it wasn't God talking to me now, so no.  God also has never let anyone sacrifice a human for Him.  The only reason why Abraham went as far as He did is because it was not unusual at the time for gods to ask for human sacrifices and there was no doubt that gods were real.  Followers of any particular god typically were wishy washy and when they decided they didn't like their god anymore, they would just follow another one.  YHWH, was testing Abraham to see if he was wiling to stick by Him or go to another god.  Why would YHWH want Abraham to be a father of nations if he would just as easily find another god to follow?

Because I thought no other gods actually existed. Why is YHWH so insecure and afraid of people worshiping other gods? He is supposedly the most powerful being in the universe.  

 

caposkia wrote:

When looking at these stories, you have to consider the history and lifestyle these people were living.  Today our mindset and understanding is vastly different than it was then.

Of course our mindset is different. Many of us have moved beyond the old outdated edicts of the bible. Even most people who claim to be Christian don't take a fundamentalist approach to the bible, which is a very good thing for society.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

The thing is too, when God commands, its' not a question in your mind as to whether you heard from God or not.

Crazy people never doubt the voices in their head. I once had a person tell me that beyond a doubt the government had implanted beetles in his skin that were eating him from the inside out. He was very sincere and didn't doubt it at all. He also didn't have any beetles in his body.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

He tortured the man for years- why?

to prove to that generation, to Job and to all future generations that Gods followers are more faithful than any other gods followers.  One assassin (I forget his name) had said; "you know a true Christian when they hold onto their faith until they die"

Why? If he is the only god, why is he so concerned? Couldn't he just reveal himself to everyone straight out? I don't really care to be faithful to a being that might decide to torture me just to satisfy himself that I am faithful. I really have a hard time imagining an all powerful being could be so vain. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Quick little moral question: a pious 6 year old girl is playing in the street and you see a bus heading for the her. Do you risk your life and attempt to push the kid out of the way? Or do you just watch with confidence that God will "take care of her"?  

be it that those of us who understand how God works knows that he works through His people 99% of the time, of course I would risk my life for her.  I would understand that God had me in that place in that moment to save her.  To stand by and watch is not putting my faith in God.

So the little girl runs the risk of growing up and becoming a heathen where she gets to suffer for eternity with me? Poor kid could have gone to heaven, but you just took that away from her. Surely the few milliseconds of pain from the bus is worth a guaranteed ticket to heaven. 

 

caposkia wrote:

If he really does use force for everything else, why are you not a believer?  If what you say is true, then you wouldn't have a choice.  You are discovering however that having faith in God isn't all peaches and cream like some non-believers like to think.

I never thought faith in God is peaches and cream, I think it is delusional. I'm just pointing out that throughout scripture he is reported using force for all sorts of things. 

 

caposkia wrote:

I have faith in God and know Him enough to understand that if they're not with Him, that it is what they chose.  As far as deserving it, we all deserve it.  We've all fallen short of God's Laws.

Ah yes, the "Fire and Brimstone" approach. I have always been a bit of a fan of the Puritan fire and brimstone sermons. Preachers like Jonathan Edwards didn't even try to pretend that the god of the bible was a lovable being, just a super powerful being that is angry at us and we ought to thank our lucky stars if he decides not to crush us like cockroaches. So refreshingly honest, I love it.

 

caposkia wrote:

be it that caring is good, I don't think that's how it would be.  Again, we can only speculate.  I cannot accurately describe the hows and whys

Caring is quite painful if you know you will be separated from the person you care about for all eternity. It is exceptionally painful if you know the person you care about is suffering. So in heaven, either I would be in a lot of pain, God would have to somehow get me to no longer care about Grandma, he would have to bring my Grandma upstairs from hell, or he would have to lie to me and make me think my Grandma was there with me.

Do you see any other possibilities?

Do you approve of a God that separates loving family members from each other? 

Is that "good"?

 

caposkia wrote:

some may see it that way.  There is a whole other section of Christian history that falls into Christian mythology.  It's mythology because there is no way of knowing what is real and not, but it is associated with Christianity.  Some of it is very obviously incongruent wtih scriptural reference, some of it has no contradictions.  One such example of something that has no contradictions is the hall of souls in heaven.  This part of the mythology suggests that all of us alive on Earth or were even concieved were in the hall of souls in heaven and chose to come down to live on Earth.  

What if you had chosen to come down?  Why would you choose to come down only to be take right back up?  

Considering the hypotheticals your suggesting, this is rational to consider as well.  Maybe there's a greater purpose for your existence that you're not privy to...

Got plans to hang out with some of my closest friends tomorrow night and celebrate life. What greater purpose for existing could there possibly be? If I was in heaven, it is quite possible I wanted to get the hell (hehe) out of there. Why would I want to live my life trying to get back into heaven if I voluntarily decided to get out of it to live here? I must have had a good reason for leaving: probably no good booze and no fun women.

 

 

caposkia wrote:
 

our technology has also opened many other doors to death, including those inventions that also help us survive.  How many deaths are caused each year by machinery?  What about specifically farming equipment?  These statistics are out there... do the lives it has prolonged outweigh the accumulative deaths since its inception?

Technology has clearly killed far fewer than they have saved, which is why our population is higher and growing faster than ever. In the 20th century alone we went from 1.6 billion people to over 6 billion and are now pushing 7 billion. Even when you include brand new ways to die like cars, guns and bombs average life expectancy is significantly higher today than any time in history.   

 

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


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:cj

caposkia wrote:

cj wrote:

There are a number of problems with this idea, I would think.  There are many written diaries from the Middle Ages where the person in question is trying very hard to be the best christian they can.  Yet they have never received a vision.  Other people had visions, good and bad people, why not them?  If they didn't have this receptivity in their brain, why torture them specifically?

I think Alex Gee says it best:  http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Alex+Gee&view=detail&mid=FE17CC037B84FB9C0879FE17CC037B84FB9C0879&first=0&FORM=NVPFVR

 

 

You know, people can rationalize away anything.  I am not intending to go into the problem of evil.  I am not talking about suffering and pain, but about the 20% of people who can not feel "the presence of god" because they don't have the receptor in their brain. 

I am saying what is the point?  If 80% of people can have visions of god/s/dess/aliens just by tickling the right temporal lobe with a little electricity - what is the point?  What about the other 20% - some of whom don't miss the visions and some of whom desperately want the visions but can not have them.  If god/s/dess/aliens want us to believe in him/her/it/them then what is with the 20%?  Why not everyone? 

And conversely, if we have "free will" so we can come freely to belief in whatever god, what is with the 80% who are coerced into believing because they have visions? 

And pooky, I don't buy "we can not know god's plan."  God/s/dess can jolly well explain it so I can understand it - otherwise, I ain't buying into the program.  So don't bother going there.  See if you can come up with some good rationalizations for this conundrum.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


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

caposkia wrote:
I know what you think you said, I'm telling you what you're actually asking me to do.  That's something entirely different than me interpreting what you say.  

No, that is exactly what "interpreting what I said" means. Just read EXACTLY what I write. It will save us all SO much time.

caposkia wrote:
actually, I'm just trying to show you how incredibly rediculous what you're asking for really is.  I'm not asking you to prove ot me demons exist, I am asking you to accept it when someone who knows the subject at hand tells you you're not on the same planet with them. 

You're claiming knowledge of a supernatural thing that you can't even provide acceptable proof for. Anyone can make that claim. 

caposkia wrote:
to claim it's acceptable evidence is to claim it's possible if the subject is real.  My question is How? 

At this point, I have answered this question so many times already, that it is no longer reasonable to assume you didn't hear me the first dozen times I told you.

So I will simply repeat it once, and refer to it as "the underlined bit", when next you forget the answer.

If I knew how, then it would make no sense for me to ask you in the first place. I could do it myself.

caposkia wrote:
it means you've decided before even trying that any other more rational possibility is able to be faked and that you wouldn't be able to prove it if it was faked.  I want to know why you're so sure you couldn't prove it if I faked it.

First, "more rational" makes no sense here, no matter how much you want it to. Acceptable proof has not been provided yet. It can't BE anything. Remember this for longer than three seconds. 

Second, be more clear. What is the "it" I am proving in your question ? You faking something and presenting it as proof ? Then why ask "why I'm so sure it couldn't" ??? 

caposkia wrote:
because maybe that will get us on the same page with your requests for proof.  yoru projected evidences are not acceptable, they may follow your rules, but so does proving demons exist by exampling anti-gravity.  It doesn't make it acceptable because it doesn't make sense.  You can't link the 2.

But I'm not linking the two. I never even brought that up. You did. You keep bringing up objections to things I never even said. Very weird. 

caposkia wrote:
I will say it as many times as you need.  If you're going to ask for what you're asking for, you're going to have to come up with a rationale as to how it's possible if demons are real.  That is a logical rational request if what your asking for really can be linked to the spiritual world.

"Logical request", eh ? Than please do explain how it's logical that a person asking for acceptable proof for a supernatural claim should be able to explain exactly how that proof can be produced, since that would invalidate the question itself.

caposkia wrote:
I know, your 3 choices are random enough to have been pulled out of a hat that consisted of all the stuff I can't fake.

Read all those choices again, because I don't think you know what the word "random" means. 

caposkia wrote:
...and he still avoids the question...

...and he's forgotten the answer already. See underlined bit.

caposkia wrote:
wait, you're the one that established rules for evidence and yet you can't understand what i just said?

You turned it into something I didn't say, so yeah, it was pretty much incomprehensible. 

caposkia wrote:
Those rules would only help confirm the results, they don't validate suggested avenues for proof.

Please do explain why they don't. And if you do so later in this reply, then kindly ignore this question and skip to my reply to your, no doubt fascinating, explanation.

caposkia wrote:
fine, metaphysics, not spirituality, better?

Ha ! No ! If philosophizing would count as acceptable proof, then you could provide acceptable proof for ANYTHING. You seem very keen on that prospect. 

caposkia wrote:
none of them ever are, and yet all of us buy into their words every day.

Giving in to fiction ? Yeah, that does happen. It's called being suckered. 

caposkia wrote:
that was also in reference to you.  answer the question

The answer was there. You simply didn't read it. You do that a lot. Makes asking questions kinda redundant. 

caposkia wrote:
antigravity... need I say more?  yes? ok, your logical reasoning also validates anti-gravity as a means to prove demons exist... you can't fake it can you?

No, again, I never asked you for anti-gravity. Read the three choices again. 

caposkia wrote:
...but the alleged acceptable proof is.  If you can't give me logical reasoning to link what you're asking for to demons, then admit it's not a logical measn of proof

See underlined bit. Try to remember it for a little while longer now. 

caposkia wrote:
In reference to harry potter magic

I would explain how it's possible using the world of magic created by the author and mythological history, which is the basis for the magic the author uses in the book.  There is much written on it including specific rules as to how things happen and what is possible by what means.  We would find out when i try to make it happen that those magical claims in the book are not possible in real life.  But that doesnt' mean i can't explain how my approach to acceptable proof woudl be possible if it was real.  However, you've failed for quite a while now in explaining yourself

You would explain fiction with more fiction, so no, that wouldn't count as an explanation. 

As for "explaining myself", see underlined bit again. 

caposkia wrote:
yea, i bolded the part where you said it verbatum... 

Yeah, you certainly did. Didn't actually read it, apparently. Unless you'd like to claim that "proof for cars to proof for demons" is the same as "cars to demons". You missed quite a lot of letter there.

caposkia wrote:
I say that because I"m convinced you're smarter than you are acting here.  I believe that you understand what i'm saying and are trying very hard to ignore the blaring fact that what you're asking for can't be done whether demons are real or not.  I'm just trying different... or similar methods to get you to admit that. 

Can't be done, you say ? See underlined bit. 

caposkia wrote:
it had been a while since you brought up soem of it, so I figured it was about time to recheck

What's the point ? You're going to pretend to forget it all again anyway. 

caposkia wrote:
and I've countered every single tiem with why it was. 

No, you simply reply to something I never said.

caposkia wrote:
.. usually you ignore and go back to "it's your claim not mine" excuse.

Yeah, that's me, always trying to drag you back to the facts. A fact is not an "excuse", btw. 

caposkia wrote:
Here's a perfect example of you not even trying.  I gave you a legitimate reason why what you found didn't give you answers and your response is. "more stories".  If you're just going to dismiss everything I say with no grounds, just tell me.  We can stop here, I'll declare you winner on the basis of ignorance and we can be done.

Actually, that was a perfect example of me being nice. What you gave me was nothing but an unfounded assumption, but I thought that might sound too harsh, hence "more stories". 

caposkia wrote:
I know how spirits work and how they would love to pull a follower away from God.

No, anyone can claim supernatural knowledge. That doesn't mean they can perform magic. If it did, every loudmouth and fantasist would be able to "summon demons".

caposkia wrote:
If it's really dangerous, would you try it just to appease some random blogger who doesn't believe you?  c'mon, are you even thinking anymore?

You are taking your fantasies for reality, and you're asking ME if I'm "even thinking anymore" ? 

caposkia wrote:
of course not.  We're just discussing.... rationality is out the window, so is common sense, so excuses, sure, neither of us need them anymore.

I'm sorry, but you have shown time and time again, that you either don't know what those words mean, or you simply don't care. You still like to use them, though.

caposkia wrote:
 We'll just keep running in loops... you have access to the breaks, hit them when you're ready.

Loops can be avoided by remembering my answers to your questions for more than three seconds, so you won't have to ask again. 

And since you're the one who was asked to produce acceptable proof for his supernatural claim, or admit there isn't any, you're the only one with access to the breaks here. Anytime you're ready.

caposkia wrote:
no, not again, keep going with it now... I need the 'HOW' part, not the "why you think" part

See underlined bit, so yeah, AGAIN. 

caposkia wrote:
I dont' need to make points with you anymore, people know the credibility level at which I hold you by now

See, that's the thing : You're not giving the others anything more than you're giving me. So that means you must hold them at the same "credibility level". 

No worries, I don't think they value your "levels" much.

caposkia wrote:
I've already explained way too many tiems as well why it does make sense... you can keep ignoring and we can keep wasting space disagreeing about it.
 

Actually, not only did you do no such thing, you just gave it up in favor of another irrelevant topic.

caposkia wrote:
you're in control of the conversation as always
 

Dude, I can't even get you to read or remember what I actually write. You don't know what "control" means either, do you ? 

caposkia wrote:
sure it is... unless you can explain why... redundancy is not explaining anything.
 

Explain why we agreed to those rules ? Because, as you agreed, they made sense.

caposkia wrote:
no, you choose to repeat it and ignore what I've been asking you to tell me.  Do I really need to ask it again?

What ??? But you answered the question yourself ! Look, if you're going to start not even reading your own stuff now, then this is going to get unnecessarily complicated. 

caposkia wrote:
and the means of proof is yours, so explain your logic... NO your rules don't explain your logic, they only establish a basis for the results if they are possible.

See underlined bit. 

caposkia wrote:
alright, then you will probably accept this if you are accepting your own explanation above:  Demons are possible if demons are real because demons are real and cannot be faked.  case solved right?
 

Why would I accept something I never even said ? 

caposkia wrote:
please do.  here's the quote: "A demon powered generator or demon controlling ring 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, because neither of these things could be faked, and if something is real, then acceptable proof is possible."

See... I still have the same question... HOW??????  explain your reasoning!  I need just a simple explanation of how a demon powered generator or a demon controllign ring would be possible.

 

How ? See underlined bit.

caposkia wrote:
 What is the logic besides they can't be faked... if that's all you got then all harry potter magic is real too becasue it can't be faked.  
 

Hey, if you can actually do some magic that can't be faked, then sure, that would be acceptable proof for magic being possible. Don't let me stop you. 

caposkia wrote:
 I have lost interest in our conversation because I don't believe you really care to make progress 
 

Sure, but this isn't about "belief". This is about facts. Sorry. 

caposkia wrote:
or the logic behind your evidences?
 

See underlined bit.

caposkia wrote:
so then you would accept anti-gravity as a measn of proof?
 

If I did, I would have asked for it. Read the three options again. 

caposkia wrote:
I swear you're smarter than this!  grounds is not asking for production, only reasoning.  there must be a logical reasoning behind a demon powered generator vs maybe actual occurances beyond "they can be faked"
 

Logical reasoning, you say ? See underlined bit. 

caposkia wrote:
not so, ever since I have done that, you've had nothing but excuses to keep you afloat.
 

Again, facts aren't excuses, and if you're going to try to confuse the two, it's maybe best not the put the fact in bold yourself. 

caposkia wrote:
bolded it again for you.  I meant the same thing... it's proof to proof, not the object in question. 
 

If you are simply comparing one word to exactly the same word, then what point could you possibly be making ? That you can recognize letters ? 

caposkia wrote:
alright fine, let's compare demons to a cosmological event. you claim i can't reproduce any of your evidences for demons.  I know you can't reproduce a cosmological event, so by your standards, neither exist right? 

False analogy. See, you simply don't listen.

caposkia wrote:
nice try 

You didn't answer the question and ignored the argument, but hey , you put in some smileys, so who cares, right ? 


 

Anyway, either produce acceptable proof for demons, or admit there isn't any.

 


GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Beyond Saving

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

How loving. First thing I do with my dogs when they do nothing right, I take them to the bath tub and drown them.

So you think that was the first thing God did huh?  You might want to read the book again.

Caposkia, If you actually believe in the flood I'd really appreciate your stepping out of this thread for a sec and answering the questions I posed on Noah, Flood et al here: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/32780

I've not had anyone provide satisfying answers to any of the questions yet - don't feel you need to answer all of them all at once - answering any would make me happy..

 

Thanks!

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Antipatris wrote:No, this is

Antipatris wrote:

No, this is not an assumption. "Study material" can be created for anything. 

Are you seriously admitting that you do not understand this ? 

I do, but not all of it created can be supported and backed up.

Antipatris wrote:

So, how do you keep from believing everything ? 

same answer that I've been giving.  If you care to understand that, you might want to start discussing it rather than accuse

Antipatris wrote:

To apply reasoning and rationality here would be to demand acceptable proof. "Experiences" do not count as acceptable proof, and are therefore irrelevant. Your continued strange misuse of terms like "reasoning and rationality" only serves to accentuate the weakness of your position and the hollowness of your arguments. 

yup, that must be it.  the "experiences" I was talking about were with the studies... though if we experience nothing, we know nothing, so therefore ignorance is bliss right?

Antipatris wrote:

No, that is the hypothetical situation I have been asking you questions about for these past few weeks. Pretending to misunderstand people who have communicated with you in a clear and unambiguous way, isn't very honest. 

I have been completely honest and up front.  I have not pretended anything but answered everyone directly.  I'm keeping it simple, you continue to assume I'm doing something more

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 I thought I said that I consider medical means first.  I didn't know I did it the other way around.
 

As you well know, but seem encouragingly ashamed to admit, your failed to mention that this was the ONLY option in such a case.

k, so there are no other possibilities.... got it.

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
do you have statistics and/or studies that suggest it's not?  I'd love to read them.
 

Check recidivism statistics. I really don't understand why you keep asking people these simple questions you could so very easily answer yourself. Is it just laziness ? 

no, I want to see if you actually know what you're talking about or not... you seem to know something about what you're talking about... then again you don't always example that.  On the other hand, some on here don't at all know what they're talking about but pretend they do and get frustrated when I don't buy into it.

ok, how does that recidivism study tie into religious based abuse?  Just looking for your undrstanding of it.  

Antipatris wrote:

What are you even talking about ? We established that you cannot find even a single example of something positive occurring because of a belief in "demons" and "possession", that could not have happened without it. Your only defense against this fact is "figuring" that a supernatural being HAD to have been involved in a positive change somehow, which is both nonsensical and irrelevant. So what on earth do you mean with "more than nothing" ???

how many lives have changed for the better due to the belief I follow?  I'm willing to bet you have nothing for an answer.  There is a significant number.  if you say nothing, you have researched with bias.

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
uh... yea, don't understand here.
 

Please mention what it is that you don't understand. 

can't remember.  I do remember you telling me that if I didn't understand, then to tell you.  I did

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
what reality??? how many realities are there?  I was referring to... "reality" as "reality", those things that are real
 

I have not ignored any facts because you have not provided any. I have.

Btw, "figuring" can not create facts out of thin air.

that's your response to that quoted statement???  o..k...

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
alright then, and what following is my belief?
 

You believe in "demons" and "possessions". Did you forget ? 

that's not what I asked

Antipatris wrote:

No, he has not had to "try" anything. He has succeeded in making you look almost insane. I'm not just being hyperbolic here. Some of your replies to him are almost childishly nonsensical. 

I've had a hard time taking him seriously.  You have one thing right though.. he hasn't tried... yes I know you said: "he has not had to try" which to me would imply he hasn't... agreed?

Antipatris wrote:

So are you saying that any responsibility for what happens after you've delivered your evil little message lies with "god" and not with you ???

it's with the beholder of the knowledge... are you telling me you can pin any crime on the person who taught you its possibility?  

Antipatris wrote:

So you would waste the time of someone responsible for a sick loved one with even more of your supernatural nonsense ???? Incredible. You really are completely without shame.

I'm not ashamed of my God and what Jesus did for us

Antipatris wrote:

So you take no responsibility for what happens after you "educated" them ? None at all ? 

does a teacher take responsibility for the crimes of their students?

Antipatris wrote:

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 ?

caposkia wrote:
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?

Yes. Now please answer the question.

you didn't answer mine yet... what action?

Antipatris wrote:

Is there ANYTHING so vile that these people could even do that would be "a problem" to you ?? Anything at all ??

yes, lots

Antipatris wrote:

 I have given you chance after chance to come up with even a single example of anything even remotely positive that could not have occurred without it. You failed.

did I now.  you must have forgotten my friend who changed then... and the Christian murderer

Antipatris wrote:

How can anyone make statistics of "demonic possession" when there is just as much proof of this even existing as there is proof of ANY piece of fiction you can think of ? Got any statistics on the migratory habits of gnomes ? 

All we have are the actual cases, and they show an exclusively toxic picture.

easy, if what you say is true, there must be some documentation of all violent exorcisms and cases from court files regarding those.

Antipatris wrote:

No, there will be more questions. I have met more "believers" who were proud of their cruelty, but you are the first one who will openly admit to not even giving a damn. 

I will be taking advantage of the opportunity to expose you for quite some time to come. Thank you again for your willing cooperation.

that's fine... keep digging your hole.  I have told you and you still don't listen.  Let me know when you want to talk about rationales for metaphysics

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Of course not, that's how demons work,

??? What fresh nonsense is this ? What are you talking about now ??

are you finally admitting you don't understand what you're so aggressively attacking?

Antipatris wrote:

caposkia wrote:
To buy into a belief to the point of death is more than just planting an idea, wouldn't you say?

I wouldn't say any of that, since that is not the subject of the conversation. We were referring to you sharing your belief in "demons" and "possession" with people suffering from a medical emergency, which you decided could qualify as one of your "demonic possessions".

...and that's what you do... when you know the answer won't support your opposition, you go right back to the above.  

unlike what you seem to have made it out to be, this is not a win, lose senario.  


 


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

blacklight915 wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Why would he have to when in the Bible he told us we already have power over them?

Because you apparently don't have enough power to summon one without putting yourself in danger...

It's like playing with fire.  We have the power to control it, but fire is sneaky.  If you're not careful, it can quickly get out of control.  Also, when fire has known a place once, if it did not completely consume it, it can come back much more easily the 2nd time.   Demons work the same way.  They're not something to toy with.  

blacklight915 wrote:

People can (and some do) rape their spouses. Why doesn't the Bible just say something like "only have sex with adults of the human species who want to have sex with you"? And I hope you're not saying rape is a "mistake"...

what do you mean by a "mistake"?  The Bible does say that... not in those exact words, but it speaks against extra-marrital sex and beastiality.  

 


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

caposkia wrote:

It's like playing with fire.  We have the power to control it, but fire is sneaky.  If you're not careful, it can quickly get out of control.  Also, when fire has known a place once, if it did not completely consume it, it can come back much more easily the 2nd time.   Demons work the same way.  They're not something to toy with.

Leaving aside the fact that fire is not a conscious entity, this is only all the more reason for God to provide a way to summon and study demons such that they cannot "get out of control" even if you're not careful.

 

caposkia wrote:

what do you mean by a "mistake"?  The Bible does say that... not in those exact words, but it speaks against extra-marrital sex and beastiality.

A mistake is an accident--it is unintentional. I don't see how having sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you at that time can be accidental. Also, I don't see how being married to your partner is at all relevant in deciding whether or not sex is okay in the given situation.

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Btw . .

Where is caposkia anyway?.

I noticed about all the talk of demons, and I have only been paying half attention to this entire debate. No one has mentioned details from lore. This is very surprising to me that these stories that are so widely circulated wouldnt ever be mentioned. There are biblical accounts of demons obviously, if you skim through the New Testament they are an eye sore.
Again, From lore and 'stories' about them past along in the lore might there be details to compare against other accounts that suggest some alleged diabolical phenomena. I know it is big business in the United States and in the U.K. I know many entire series on tele /t.v. are based on these stories that have been popularized, excluding the stories that are so losely based an account they have been utterly fictionalized (no movies either)! So, The obvious question I would have is, does caposkia plan on talking about the details of any of these stories or is he going to continue to 'wing it' ?
Existing lore, for example, (the actual accounts) suggests dogs can either smell, see with the unique structure of their eye, sense and/or hear both Aliens and heavenly Angels and Demons, I found it of interest, so just throwing it out there to mix it up a bit (tehe) . . Allowed!

:


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

danatemporary wrote:
Where is caposkia anyway?. I noticed about all the talk of demons, and I have only been paying half attention to this entire debate. No one has mentioned details from lore. This is very surprising to me that these stories that are so widely circulated wouldnt ever be mentioned. There are biblical accounts of demons obviously, if you skim through the New Testament they are an eye sore. Again, From lore and 'stories' about them past along in the lore might there be details to compare against other accounts that suggest some alleged diabolical phenomena. I know it is big business in the United States and in the U.K. I know many entire series on tele /t.v. are based on these stories that have been popularized, excluding the stories that are so losely based an account they have been utterly fictionalized (no movies either)! So, The obvious question I would have is, does caposkia plan on talking about the details of any of these stories or is he going to continue to 'wing it' ? Existing lore, for example, (the actual accounts) suggests dogs can either smell, see with the unique structure of their eye, sense and/or hear both Aliens and heavenly Angels and Demons, I found it of interest, so just throwing it out there to mix it up a bit (tehe) . . Allowed! :

It's never been brought up because it seems the 2 big talkers haven't a clue about any of it.. however, if you wanted to have a conversation about it, I'm game.  Did you have a particular story you wanted to start with, from which culture, era?

I do believe that animals have an innate sense that allows them to sense the metaphysical.  I haven't done the research into it.  didn't think there was much on it.


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

blacklight915 wrote:

Leaving aside the fact that fire is not a conscious entity, this is only all the more reason for God to provide a way to summon and study demons such that they cannot "get out of control" even if you're not careful.

God kicked them out of heaven and wants nothing to do with them, why would he provide a means for his creation to study them?  especially seeing as He'd rather have his creation seeking Him out

blacklight915 wrote:

A mistake is an accident--it is unintentional. I don't see how having sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you at that time can be accidental. Also, I don't see how being married to your partner is at all relevant in deciding whether or not sex is okay in the given situation 

oh, I see, I agree with you.  There's no way any sex can be an accident.  It was always intentional.

Marriage is the assurance that the person you're having sex with is the one that's going to stay by your side, be it that it's the result of many mistaken Children, it is more of a security for a child to grow up with a complete family as well as avoids the "oops I shouldnt' have slept with them" regrets.  I guarantee if the marriage Law was followed by everyone there'd be less then half the children who are orphaned in this world today without parents.  

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the world of possibilities . .

Well you have me at an extreme disadvantage. I am remember particular accounts in my books that are all safely locked aware in storage. It was interesting to read accounts of devils and compare them to UFO lore. Dogs and many animals were fully aware of these supposed 'entities' very arosed. I am no caine behaviorist, but what was said it easy to see it was fear aggression. My guess because of Old and New Testament accounts would be sight. I so happens dogs so see in color. But are able to see the parts of the electromagnic wavelength humans and primates are not able to. This is just a hunch. Canines along with some bird species, such as starlings, the cones in their eyes are allowing them to see Ultraviolet light (UV) in some cases. This is all from so long ago I need a fact checker to go back and check every little thing. It lends itself to a science boardering on nutty pseudo-science in the hope to set up an experiment, for you lott.
Demons for some unknown reason, according to lore (have you), are tethered in a sense to a residence or a human subject. It seems within so many yards. Before I lose my validated parking I will be quiet now.


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

So in order to believe in demons I have to... already believe in demons?

no

Beyond Saving wrote:

I thought you said there was evidence of demons.

there is, just like there's evidence any metaphysical existence

Beyond Saving wrote:

Evidence is something used to prove something to someone who has doubts.

right, and evidence is not subjective.

Beyond Saving wrote:

It also strikes me as exceedingly arrogant to believe that everything possible is known about a subject so there is no point in studying it.

I agree

Beyond Saving wrote:

As we have learned in our scientific endeavors, often when we think we know how something works we discover new things about it. Can you understand why I am extremely skeptical when someone tells me they know everything so there is no point to researching?

probably the same reason why I am.  

If you're suggesting that's what I said, I'm sorry if that's how I came across, I know others on here are claiming that, but I've been trying to explain how ignorant that is.  I'm glad you're on the same page with me.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

The only way you can know everything about any subject is if the subject is completely made up. It would be possible to know everything about Star Wars, it is not possible to know everything about gravity. 

agreed

Beyond Saving wrote:

I don't trust reporters. Even with regular mundane news they are often wrong and have their facts incorrect, either through personal bias or human error. I have been to many newsworthy events and the account I read in the newspaper was not an accurate representation of what actually happened. Someone who watches Fox News exclusively will have an entirely different idea of what is happening in the world as someone who exclusively watches MSNBC. Which is why when I read a news story I find interesting, I always attempt to get more information from primary sources.  

very smart

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well summoning a demon in a scientifically controlled environment would be great. I want to see someone do some serious research on the subject, rather than simply declare that they know everything there is to know about demons because the bible says so.

that's definitely not what I was claiming.  I did claim I understand how they work and how they don't.  They also ahve choice.  I challenge anyone to go to North Korea and ask a NK citizen to come into a lab with them so they can be studied.  what do you think would happen?

Beyond Saving wrote:

How would that provide evidence of demons?

The culture study would provide results that would allow for further study into why there were such different results between groups... this would likely go into a study of what causes and influences there are within each culture that is different than the other.  Taht would likely lead into the possibility of how the metaphysical influences...

Beyond Saving wrote:

I don't deny that Christians have a unique culture and I'm sure you can find many differences between them and other cultures. For example, some Christian cultures are likely to exclude people who are gay. Many cultures have uniqueness to them. I am part of what could be called a "poker culture". Compared to the general public, the poker culture is extremely inclusive to anyone with money. Single, married, gay, any ethnicity, professional businessman, ex-felon or drug dealer all get together at the same table even when they have absolutely nothing else in common. It is also the one place where I don't think twice about walking away and leaving a bunch of money on the table. Actually, that would be kind of a fun study- take $1,000 and just leave it on a table at a Christian picnic and walk away for an hour, then leave $1,000 on the table at a poker club and see where it gets stolen more often. Then repeat with lower amounts say $10. My gut feeling is that the $10 would disappear from the picnic quite a bit. The $1,000, my hunch is that most people probably wouldn't take it. At the poker club, no one would touch a penny (even though a fair number of people in the poker culture wouldn't hesitate to steal outside the culture).

Cultural differences are interesting, but I don't see how they provide evidence for or against demons.

What would be the reasons for the $ to be taken at the picnic? or not taken, vs. at the poker club... which to me is pretty obvious as to why it wouldn't be taken.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Someone should do one. Perhaps one of those experts who already "know everything". Until there is some kind of study along those lines I see no reason to believe in demons. Until some kind of study like that is done, there is no evidence for demons. 

sounds like you have a good start then. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

There have been dozens of studies on prayer and they have shown no variance beyond what is expected from pure chance. There have been studies that show that prayer can be helpful as a placebo effect in cases where the mindset of a person can be beneficial. Alternatives to prayer, such as meditation, positive thinking and sugar pills provide similar results. 

that's basically what I was saying.  Prayer is subject to choice, which in a blind study is pretty much random.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

He contradicted himself going from Ot to NT..

I dont' know what happened, but I accidentally erased the rest.  Basically what was said is that should we still follow OT laws.  And God chose to be a god of torture

God chose to be a God that can be trusted.  Any law we don't follow in the OT is a Law that has been fulfilled, not changed or contradicted.  Any discussion i've had with any non-believer that claims the Bible contradicts itself has yeilded no evidence of contradiction.  I think there's many threads on this on the site.

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

I don't care if it is the first thing or the millionth thing. Drowning a whole world is monstrous. If you are willing to slaughter that many people (including children and babies) you are not "good" in any sense of the word. 

because death is the end right?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Excuse me, 99.99% of humanity. Jesus is only supposedly "saving" us from him. If he wasn't so set on sending us to hell in the first place we wouldn't need Jesus to "save" us. When I refrain from going next door and torturing my neighbor for not cutting the grass, would it make sense for me to claim that I am "saving" him?

So you're saying then you've never done anything wrong?   It's not as petty as you're making it out to be.  Consider the Laws and what they're saying.  Think of the degree at which they're intended.  If you kill once, you're a murderer regardless of what you do now.  If you've ever stolen anything, you're a theif.  If you got caught stealing, people would put you in jail... is that wrong?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Because I thought no other gods actually existed. Why is YHWH so insecure and afraid of people worshiping other gods? He is supposedly the most powerful being in the universe.  

Think of it this way, How would your parents feel if you denied they were your parents and started calling someone else they knew mom and dad?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Crazy people never doubt the voices in their head. I once had a person tell me that beyond a doubt the government had implanted beetles in his skin that were eating him from the inside out. He was very sincere and didn't doubt it at all. He also didn't have any beetles in his body.

Sane people know who to trust and who to believe.  Who said when you hear Gods voice it's in your head?  

How consistent was this persons voice?  What else did it say?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why? If he is the only god, why is he so concerned? Couldn't he just reveal himself to everyone straight out? I don't really care to be faithful to a being that might decide to torture me just to satisfy himself that I am faithful. I really have a hard time imagining an all powerful being could be so vain. 

all parents are vain when it comes to their children, are they not?  Are you a parent?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

So the little girl runs the risk of growing up and becoming a heathen where she gets to suffer for eternity with me? Poor kid could have gone to heaven, but you just took that away from her. Surely the few milliseconds of pain from the bus is worth a guaranteed ticket to heaven. 

What if she already was and needed the time to find her way?  then I just condemned her.  

Good job btw.   It was a lose lose scenario wasn't it.  no right answer huh.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

I never thought faith in God is peaches and cream, I think it is delusional. I'm just pointing out that throughout scripture he is reported using force for all sorts of things. 

He can be persuasive, but considering that God is real for a moment, then so are demons.. they're more forceful than God.. instead of being obvious, they manipulate and force.  Therefore, either you are a slave to demons or to God by your standards

Beyond Saving wrote:

Ah yes, the "Fire and Brimstone" approach. I have always been a bit of a fan of the Puritan fire and brimstone sermons. Preachers like Jonathan Edwards didn't even try to pretend that the god of the bible was a lovable being, just a super powerful being that is angry at us and we ought to thank our lucky stars if he decides not to crush us like cockroaches. So refreshingly honest, I love it.

that's not what I believe.  All I said was it's a choice to be with God or not.  fire and brimestone is something completely different, and starts teetering Chrisitan mythology

Beyond Saving wrote:

Caring is quite painful if you know you will be separated from the person you care about for all eternity. It is exceptionally painful if you know the person you care about is suffering. So in heaven, either I would be in a lot of pain, God would have to somehow get me to no longer care about Grandma, he would have to bring my Grandma upstairs from hell, or he would have to lie to me and make me think my Grandma was there with me.

I understand completely where you're coming from

Beyond Saving wrote:

Do you see any other possibilities?

not from the standard that I live now

Beyond Saving wrote:

Do you approve of a God that separates loving family members from each other? 

I thought those loving family members made their own choice..  God separates them unwillingly now?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Got plans to hang out with some of my closest friends tomorrow night and celebrate life. What greater purpose for existing could there possibly be? If I was in heaven, it is quite possible I wanted to get the hell (hehe) out of there. Why would I want to live my life trying to get back into heaven if I voluntarily decided to get out of it to live here? I must have had a good reason for leaving: probably no good booze and no fun women.

or maybe a mission to bring more to that amazing life you knew you were living.  As passionate you seem to be about being separated from family members, I'm surprised you didn't see the possibility that it was your job to show them what they were missing once you discovered it yourself... why couldn't that be your purpose?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Technology has clearly killed far fewer than they have saved, which is why our population is higher and growing faster than ever. In the 20th century alone we went from 1.6 billion people to over 6 billion and are now pushing 7 billion. Even when you include brand new ways to die like cars, guns and bombs average life expectancy is significantly higher today than any time in history.   

 

Medical technology is usually associated with the growing population, not tractors or cars.  Overall, I'd be curious on the death rates rather than the inflation of population in the world.  


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

danatemporary wrote:
Well you have me at an extreme disadvantage. I am remember particular accounts in my books that are all safely locked aware in storage. It was interesting to read accounts of devils and compare them to UFO lore. Dogs and many animals were fully aware of these supposed 'entities' very arosed. I am no caine behaviorist, but what was said it easy to see it was fear aggression. My guess because of Old and New Testament accounts would be sight. I so happens dogs so see in color. But are able to see the parts of the electromagnic wavelength humans and primates are not able to. This is just a hunch. Canines along with some bird species, such as starlings, the cones in their eyes are allowing them to see Ultraviolet light (UV) in some cases. This is all from so long ago I need a fact checker to go back and check every little thing. It lends itself to a science boardering on nutty pseudo-science in the hope to set up an experiment, for you lott. Demons for some unknown reason, according to lore (have you), are tethered in a sense to a residence or a human subject. It seems within so many yards. Before I lose my validated parking I will be quiet now.

I've heard of the tie to UFO lore, which makes  a lot of sense to me.  How else would you explain an entity your'e not familiar with?  Alien maybe?  

That animal study you mention is interesting.  I'd love to look more into that and see if anyone's tried to study it further.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:You know, people

cj wrote:

You know, people can rationalize away anything. 

of course they can.  We have many perfect examples on this thread

cj wrote:

I am not intending to go into the problem of evil.  I am not talking about suffering and pain, but about the 20% of people who can not feel "the presence of god" because they don't have the receptor in their brain. 

I am saying what is the point?  If 80% of people can have visions of god/s/dess/aliens just by tickling the right temporal lobe with a little electricity - what is the point?  What about the other 20% - some of whom don't miss the visions and some of whom desperately want the visions but can not have them.  If god/s/dess/aliens want us to believe in him/her/it/them then what is with the 20%?  Why not everyone? 

That's a question for the ages.  Some Christians believe that some are just chosen to be that way.  I have a hard time accepting that understanding.  If what you say is true, I really don't know.  What's the point?  According to Ecclesiastes, everything is pointless because nothing but God will give you everlasting happiness.

cj wrote:

And conversely, if we have "free will" so we can come freely to belief in whatever god, what is with the 80% who are coerced into believing because they have visions? 

They all still have a choice

cj wrote:

And pooky, I don't buy "we can not know god's plan."  God/s/dess can jolly well explain it so I can understand it - otherwise, I ain't buying into the program.  So don't bother going there.  See if you can come up with some good rationalizations for this conundrum.

I'm not just going to come up with random rationalization unless I can honestly explain it.  God has explained his plan in the Bible.  It is written so we can all understand it.  


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

Anonymouse wrote:

If I knew how, then it would make no sense for me to ask you in the first place. I could do it myself.

then why don't you?  you're the one claiming it's possible if demons exist...  I've repeatedly told you it's not how it works and I don't understand how it would.. you seem to have a better understanding than I, so I am looking forward to your results.

Anonymouse wrote:

"Logical request", eh ? Than please do explain how it's logical that a person asking for acceptable proof for a supernatural claim should be able to explain exactly how that proof can be produced, since that would invalidate the question itself.

because if that person is convinced that it is possible if the subject in question exists and yet is told that it doesn't work that way by the experts, that person must give rational reasoning to that approach for study, otherwise, it cannot be linked to the study.  understand?

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Those rules would only help confirm the results, they don't validate suggested avenues for proof.

Please do explain why they don't. And if you do so later in this reply, then kindly ignore this question and skip to my reply to your, no doubt fascinating, explanation.

they leave it open to almost anything like the examples of anti-gravity and dark matter being proof which cannot also be linked to the study.

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
fine, metaphysics, not spirituality, better?

Ha ! No ! If philosophizing would count as acceptable proof, then you could provide acceptable proof for ANYTHING. You seem very keen on that prospect. 

didn't think so. Eye-wink

it seemed to be the direction you've been heading

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:
antigravity... need I say more?  yes? ok, your logical reasoning also validates anti-gravity as a means to prove demons exist... you can't fake it can you?

No, again, I never asked you for anti-gravity. Read the three choices again. 

no, but by your rules, it's just as valid of a request, so why not anit-gravity?  give me something more than 'it's not what I asked for'

Anonymouse wrote:

Yeah, that's me, always trying to drag you back to the facts. A fact is not an "excuse", btw. 

um... you're claiming you can make a demon powered generator, not me.  that's fact?  I guess if you say so, but i have yet to see any rationale to it from you or anyone.

Anonymouse wrote:

Loops can be avoided by remembering my answers to your questions for more than three seconds, so you won't have to ask again. 

yea, see, my mistake.  i actually read everything you write.  And when we finally get back to the point, of course i forgot.  I'll get better at ignoring the fluff as you'll see in this post

Anonymouse wrote:

And since you're the one who was asked to produce acceptable proof for his supernatural claim, or admit there isn't any, you're the only one with access to the breaks here. Anytime you're ready.

I am?  ok, let's stop now then.  Let's get to a point where we can actually make headway and get out of this ignorance roulette.  How about we start over with historical study of demons?

Anonymouse wrote:

See, that's the thing : You're not giving the others anything more than you're giving me. So that means you must hold them at the same "credibility level". 

you haven't been reading others posts then have you. 


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

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Caposkia, If you actually believe in the flood I'd really appreciate your stepping out of this thread for a sec and answering the questions I posed on Noah, Flood et al here: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/32780

I've not had anyone provide satisfying answers to any of the questions yet - don't feel you need to answer all of them all at once - answering any would make me happy..

 

Thanks!

 

I'll check it out, thanks


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Before you take off too soon

Caposkia

I was curious if you ever looked at the NDE accounts on YouTube? To Hell (And Back) ?? To be painfully clear the YouTube videos suggesting someone had clinically died and found themselves in Hell. Back from the dead, it's all the rage :¬ No reason but I was honestly very curious if you ever made the video search before. Huh, Look! Be very warned, most of the stuff if you were to bring it up to the thread is easily debunked and riddled with contradictions. I mean the YouTube presentations. So I can safely say a pure grief for any Christian. It comes to mind because of the demon thing again. I know someone from Southern Kalifornia had something closer to a vision than a actual NDE and was reportedly in a Hell like place. He reports Giant Bats and very large Rats in Hell. You know, God should have at least taken care of the Rats before he set it all up for the Devil and his angels. I wish I were joshing with you in all this. One of the das log (sorry tibetan term) was suggesting if youre a little kid (under the age of accountability), mind you, watched Ben-10 a toon then youre going to Hell! Sorry I was more curious if you ever looked at them. I have the experience of watching many of them. Roughly a full half of ALL THE TITLES available, clearly at least half. I couldnt (wince) recommend them to friend or foe alike. I guess they could be entertaining but I cannot see how they ever could. Let me known ?


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:

As we have learned in our scientific endeavors, often when we think we know how something works we discover new things about it. Can you understand why I am extremely skeptical when someone tells me they know everything so there is no point to researching?

probably the same reason why I am.  

If you're suggesting that's what I said, I'm sorry if that's how I came across, I know others on here are claiming that, but I've been trying to explain how ignorant that is.  I'm glad you're on the same page with me.  

Then why haven't any of these "experts" done any kind of comprehensive study? Why should I give them a single shred of credibility when all I see is a mule headed refusal to study the subject they devote their lives to? If demons are real, why wouldn't a single person go through the effort of researching and testing them?

 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well summoning a demon in a scientifically controlled environment would be great. I want to see someone do some serious research on the subject, rather than simply declare that they know everything there is to know about demons because the bible says so.

that's definitely not what I was claiming.  I did claim I understand how they work and how they don't.  They also ahve choice.  I challenge anyone to go to North Korea and ask a NK citizen to come into a lab with them so they can be studied.  what do you think would happen?

The average North Korean would probably say "Nŏmu kamsahamnida. Yeogiseo gidalyeojuseyo." Then run off to grab their family and bring them along. Many North Korean citizens have been studied in labs. I daresay that a great many over there are saying "Naega uisaga pil-yo" (I need a doctor) so they are asking to be taken to a lab.  

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

How would that provide evidence of demons?

The culture study would provide results that would allow for further study into why there were such different results between groups... this would likely go into a study of what causes and influences there are within each culture that is different than the other.  Taht would likely lead into the possibility of how the metaphysical influences...

That would be what anthropologists do, specifically those who specialize in social or cultural anthropology. Thousands of studies have been done, I am not aware of any that have suggested metaphysical influences as the cause of differences between cultures. If you find one, let me know. Admittedly, my exposure to anthropology is rather limited and happens more due to overlap caused by studying other things than an effort to study anthropology.  

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=SAN

http://www.culanth.org/

 

caposkia wrote:

What would be the reasons for the $ to be taken at the picnic? or not taken, vs. at the poker club... which to me is pretty obvious as to why it wouldn't be taken.  

Well if someone takes any of the money in either case I imagine it would be for the usual human reasons, basically greed vs. how taboo the action is considered in the group. Which is why I suspect that at the lunch whether someone takes the money or not would probably be related to the amount of money. If there is a lot of money, the person would feel more guilty and feel a higher risk of being caught. If it is a small amount of money, both go down and you may reach the point where the person shrugs and just pockets it. 

I suspect that the poker club experiences fewer thefts at all levels because even touching someone else's money is taboo, the only exception being the dealer or floor, or with the permission of the owner. Touching money that belongs to someone you don't know is the social equivalent of walking up and groping them. Whereas at a church lunch taking the money might not be socially acceptable, but if you take it you will probably be forgiven eventually and still be accepted in the social group.

Do you think I am wrong?

 

caposkia wrote:

I dont' know what happened, but I accidentally erased the rest.  Basically what was said is that should we still follow OT laws.  And God chose to be a god of torture

God chose to be a God that can be trusted.  Any law we don't follow in the OT is a Law that has been fulfilled, not changed or contradicted.  Any discussion i've had with any non-believer that claims the Bible contradicts itself has yeilded no evidence of contradiction.  I think there's many threads on this on the site.

Do you think a god that would create the laws in the OT is a god that can be trusted? Do you think a being that would create such laws is a perfectly good and moral being?

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

I don't care if it is the first thing or the millionth thing. Drowning a whole world is monstrous. If you are willing to slaughter that many people (including children and babies) you are not "good" in any sense of the word. 

because death is the end right?

Whether it is the end or not, it is certainly an unpleasant experience. There is no such thing as an easy death, even when it happens quickly. Drowning, isn't even a fast way to die. I once witnessed an injured deer drown and it was a pretty brutal thing to watch.

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Excuse me, 99.99% of humanity. Jesus is only supposedly "saving" us from him. If he wasn't so set on sending us to hell in the first place we wouldn't need Jesus to "save" us. When I refrain from going next door and torturing my neighbor for not cutting the grass, would it make sense for me to claim that I am "saving" him?

So you're saying then you've never done anything wrong?   It's not as petty as you're making it out to be.  Consider the Laws and what they're saying.  Think of the degree at which they're intended.  If you kill once, you're a murderer regardless of what you do now.  If you've ever stolen anything, you're a theif.  If you got caught stealing, people would put you in jail... is that wrong?

Sure I have done plenty of things wrong. There is a big difference between putting someone in jail for stealing and drowning them plus their entire family and then sending them to hell for eternity. Do you think the punishment fits the crime? If someone stole that $1,000 at the luncheon or poker club, would you support drowning them?

As far as jail, I think it is wrong to use jail as punishment. Numerous studies have demonstrated that punishment is an ineffective way to reduce undesirable behavior in humans (or dogs, birds, cats, elephants, mice or any other animal you want to train for that matter). It has been demonstrated time and again that positive reinforcement and rehabilitation techniques are far better for removing undesirable behavior long term. It has also been proven that the death penalty has virtually no deterrence effect. I would think that a god who created us that way, would know that.

 

caposkia wrote:

Think of it this way, How would your parents feel if you denied they were your parents and started calling someone else they knew mom and dad?

Except I thought there isn't anyone else, so a more accurate comparison would be how they would feel if I created an imaginary friend I called mom and dad. I'm pretty sure that neither of them would kill me, throw me in the basement for eternity or refuse to forgive me for eternity. Probably, the most accurate comparison would be the family who gets divorced and the kid never sees the father and has no proof he even exists except for a journal. Maybe he sends an occasional birthday card or something with $10, which the kid can't determine if it is mom making them feel better or if it is sent by a real person. So either believes someone else is dad, or believes dad doesn't exist at all. Then the kid gets cancer or something and is dying and here comes dad, who gets mad because the kid doesn't believe he is their dad.

Now versions of this scenario happen in real life. Kids grow up without knowing their fathers (or mothers) and later on in life have an opportunity to meet them. Sometimes they have a person who has filled in as a parent, sometimes they don't. Do you think punishing the kid for eternity is a good response for the parent to have?

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why? If he is the only god, why is he so concerned? Couldn't he just reveal himself to everyone straight out? I don't really care to be faithful to a being that might decide to torture me just to satisfy himself that I am faithful. I really have a hard time imagining an all powerful being could be so vain. 

all parents are vain when it comes to their children, are they not?  Are you a parent?  

Mine are not. No, I am not a parent and never will be. I hope most parents aren't that vain, that would be sad and strikes me as a really poor way to raise kids. My friends who are parents don't seem to be that vain. On the contrary, they put their kids well ahead of their own interests even when the kids are being the selfish little ingrates they tend to be. I can't imagine any of my friends killing their kids and punishing them for eternity, no matter what the kid did. If I could, they would cease being my friend. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

So the little girl runs the risk of growing up and becoming a heathen where she gets to suffer for eternity with me? Poor kid could have gone to heaven, but you just took that away from her. Surely the few milliseconds of pain from the bus is worth a guaranteed ticket to heaven. 

What if she already was and needed the time to find her way?  then I just condemned her.  

Good job btw.   It was a lose lose scenario wasn't it.  no right answer huh.  

The point is the apparent contradiction in Christian morality. You have the natural reaction to save an innocent child, while believing that by dying the child goes to "a better place", so by saving the child you are at least delaying their opportunity to be in a better place. It seems to me that Christians should be a big fan of abortion and even infanticide because you are guaranteeing that person eternity in heaven. I also see this contradiction in he efforts of Christians to avoid death and their staunch insistence that people should be kept alive by machines long after their brains are not working. If there is something better after this life, why put such a high value on it? 

The only conclusion I have been able to come to, is that most Christians have significant doubts about the existence of an afterlife. 

 

caposkia wrote:

He can be persuasive, but considering that God is real for a moment, then so are demons.. they're more forceful than God.. instead of being obvious, they manipulate and force.  Therefore, either you are a slave to demons or to God by your standards

God created demons, right?  

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Do you approve of a God that separates loving family members from each other? 

I thought those loving family members made their own choice..  God separates them unwillingly now?

It is hardly a "choice" any more than you have choice when a mugger points a gun at you and demands your money. If someone threatens to kill you unless you give them your money, would you say that the person willingly made the choice to be separated from their money? God puts us in a position where we have to choose eternal torture or choose to be separated from people we love. A situation entirely of his own creation. In many ways, it strikes me as very similar to the bad guy in the Saw movies, who gave his victims the "choice" between life or death. 

 

caposkia wrote:

or maybe a mission to bring more to that amazing life you knew you were living.  As passionate you seem to be about being separated from family members, I'm surprised you didn't see the possibility that it was your job to show them what they were missing once you discovered it yourself... why couldn't that be your purpose?

In that case, I apparently didn't know myself very well. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Medical technology is usually associated with the growing population, not tractors or cars.  Overall, I'd be curious on the death rates rather than the inflation of population in the world.  

Death rates have dropped 65% since 1900. From 1 in 42 people per year to 1 in 125. 

http://www.nber.org/digest/mar02/w8556.html

Medical advances certainly account for a lot of it, but are not the sole factor. Tractors- dramatically reduced starvation, malnutrition and generally allow for more people to eat a balanced diet which is key in preventing disease in the first place.

Cars, well transportation in general, have made it much easier to get what we need to survive. It has made lodging, food, healthcare and anything else you can name more accessible. As such, it makes everything cheaper. You can afford to heat your house because of the large trucks, freight trains and tankers that transport whatever fuel you use. Without those, heating is prohibitively expensive and something that many people in the 1800's couldn't afford which leads to increased illness and sometimes direct death. Additionally, people have easier access to education so those who wish to and have the brain for it are more likely to get into medical research. 

Everything in the economy is connected. Take for example a machine in a factory that allows one person to do the job that used to require five people- that saves lives. How? In order to dedicate resources to research, people have to have their basic needs met. If people have to put significant time into manual labor to produce basics like food, you have fewer doctors, scientists and inventors (and other non-material pursuits like actors, musicians, pro sports etc). The US didn't have such a huge lead in medical research because we are smarter than the rest of the world. It happened because we were the fastest country to implement modern machinery in our factories and on our farms, which freed up a large portion of our labor pool to focus on other goals. Now that other countries have caught up with us in productivity, they are also catching up, maybe even surpassing us in academic pursuits. What if Jonas Salk, son of poor first generation immigrants, had to spend his time working on a farm or in a factory to survive? If he was born 100 years earlier, he almost certainly would have.   

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
URL bible.cc/matthew/5-4.htm

Re:: Problem with link and problem with knowing which Alex Gee (w/ the Video Link) ?

 

  Nu 406 (OR 411)

T0 ::   Caposkia

   Having a problem with a YouTube video you gave out. Now Alex Gee, that was supposed to have said something, is a black man, right? Or some celebrity christian I am sadly unaware of,  right ?  To his view, was away from God  in his life, who admits at swearing at God, ( Isa. 6, ver 5 ), due to his private hurt and then loss of one of his daughters, I hear,  residue of the old man (double meaning).   You know, people like this, it's always their choice  to reshape attitudes toward life. But, it's this coloured man, the one who managed to renew his (personal) faith, as a christian?. Or, Is it Alex Gee (a white kid) at Williams High; I keep linking-to football games ?  You MUST have accidentally given the wrong link, I guess. Or is it my browser only that is the problem ? Please, I am sincerely sorry to trouble you about this. Could you assist me , with another link or one I could look-up myself on YouTube?. Safe bet he is the one over 30. Could turn out to be the young student.

 

 

 

 

 

 

     Another Ref.  ^ Hosea 6:5b   I, the LORD, killed you with the words of my mouth  . .   they were unfaithful to Me there

 


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

danatemporary wrote:
Caposkia I was curious if you ever looked at the NDE accounts on YouTube? To Hell (And Back) ?? To be painfully clear the YouTube videos suggesting someone had clinically died and found themselves in Hell. Back from the dead, it's all the rage :¬ No reason but I was honestly very curious if you ever made the video search before. Huh, Look! Be very warned, most of the stuff if you were to bring it up to the thread is easily debunked and riddled with contradictions. I mean the YouTube presentations. So I can safely say a pure grief for any Christian. It comes to mind because of the demon thing again. I know someone from Southern Kalifornia had something closer to a vision than a actual NDE and was reportedly in a Hell like place. He reports Giant Bats and very large Rats in Hell. You know, God should have at least taken care of the Rats before he set it all up for the Devil and his angels. I wish I were joshing with you in all this. One of the das log (sorry tibetan term) was suggesting if youre a little kid (under the age of accountability), mind you, watched Ben-10 a toon then youre going to Hell! Sorry I was more curious if you ever looked at them. I have the experience of watching many of them. Roughly a full half of ALL THE TITLES available, clearly at least half. I couldnt (wince) recommend them to friend or foe alike. I guess they could be entertaining but I cannot see how they ever could. Let me known ?

I have not done the NDE search on youtube.  Never thought youtube would be a credible place to look if I were looking for realistic accounts.  From the descriptions of some of the accounts you present, I feel that my assumption is likely correct.  

I had seen a tv special once that focused on NDE's and the "hell" experience.  They seemed a little more legit be it that none of them actually made it into hell, but somehow knew that where they were heading wasn't to the presence of God.   Considering any visuals, some claimed to see black iron gates opening up and they were falling into them.  Can't confirm or deny it be it that there's never been any real specific descriptions of hell from any source considered credible Christian or not.  The one I most agree with was a person who experienced it in a dream rather than in death.  He claimed to be in a state of existence.  Trapped with no hope of escape.  IN that dream he also did not know of God or Satan, he knew he was alone and that there was no hope of getting out of that state of existence.  The pain he felt wasn't from fire or pitchforks, but rather emotional termoil that was so severe that it effected him physically and an understanding that there was no possibility of that termoil ending.  anyone suffering depression would have a minimal idea.  That seems to make the most logical sense of living in hell vs. what popular media has made it out to be.  

Youtube tends to be a place where people want to get noticed and popular.  If I were to experience it, I think the last place I'd go is youtube to talk about it.


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Then why haven't any of these "experts" done any kind of comprehensive study? Why should I give them a single shred of credibility when all I see is a mule headed refusal to study the subject they devote their lives to? If demons are real, why wouldn't a single person go through the effort of researching and testing them?

I can't speak for the demonologists.  Our reason is that our focus is not demons, it's God... and we constantly do extensive study on God... the other thing is we know that we should not put our God to the test.  We also know that God reveils himself all over the world every day... we know what we're looking for and we see it.  It's why the majority of people existing on this planet today have some sort of metaphysical belief from what I understand.  

It is also not our job to convince those who don't want convincing, rather it's to share what we know with those who do want to know God.   

Finally, i have yet to see a valid approach to testing God that takes into consideration choice and circumstance and yet still can come out with the same result each time.  If you have an idea, I'm all ears.

Beyond Saving wrote:

The average North Korean would probably say "Nŏmu kamsahamnida. Yeogiseo gidalyeojuseyo." Then run off to grab their family and bring them along. Many North Korean citizens have been studied in labs. I daresay that a great many over there are saying "Naega uisaga pil-yo" (I need a doctor) so they are asking to be taken to a lab.  

Most citizens would report you to the authorities because you're american.  They are taught to hate us.  You were not sent by their leader, so you will be of no help to them.  Instead you will be put in a camp, tortured and if you're lucky, killed soon afterward.

If this is not true, then why is it that most outsiders from around the world that go into their boarders uninvited by the leader directly end up in those camps?

Beyond Saving wrote:

That would be what anthropologists do, specifically those who specialize in social or cultural anthropology. Thousands of studies have been done, I am not aware of any that have suggested metaphysical influences as the cause of differences between cultures. If you find one, let me know. Admittedly, my exposure to anthropology is rather limited and happens more due to overlap caused by studying other things than an effort to study anthropology.  

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=SAN

http://www.culanth.org/

Anthropology would find evidences of followings or belief systems that would be linked to the metaphysical.  I'm not sure what evidence an anthropologist would expect to find regarding remains of demons or demonic influences.  Typically, just like with God, demons work through the people or through the laws that have been put in place in this environmental system. 

What we'd have to look for is a link between a particular action that would have prompted a reaction from a metaphysical being that could be detected through archaeology, anthropology or geology.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well if someone takes any of the money in either case I imagine it would be for the usual human reasons, basically greed vs. how taboo the action is considered in the group. Which is why I suspect that at the lunch whether someone takes the money or not would probably be related to the amount of money. If there is a lot of money, the person would feel more guilty and feel a higher risk of being caught. If it is a small amount of money, both go down and you may reach the point where the person shrugs and just pockets it. 

I suspect that the poker club experiences fewer thefts at all levels because even touching someone else's money is taboo, the only exception being the dealer or floor, or with the permission of the owner. Touching money that belongs to someone you don't know is the social equivalent of walking up and groping them. Whereas at a church lunch taking the money might not be socially acceptable, but if you take it you will probably be forgiven eventually and still be accepted in the social group.

Do you think I am wrong?

In my experience, and yes I have seen this happen quite a few times;  a small amount of money is left or dropped... say $20 or even $5.  All the groups of true followers where this has happened.. I'd say in my personal experience 3 or 4 times, the money is picked up, but rather than pocketed, it is donated to something where the money can be used for a positive reason.  The comprehension of the person donating is that the original owner will likely never be found and also thinks it's lost... also that the original owner would be sastisfied in knowing their lost money went to help someone else.  

I suspect you'd be right about the poker situation.  Any random public situation the money would likely be pocketed.  True Christians would donate it.  

Do you think a god that would create the laws in the OT is a god that can be trusted? Do you think a being that would create such laws is a perfectly good and moral being?

my answer is quite obvious, yes, but of course i'm curious why you disagree... also, even before that, i'm curious as to your understanding of why the laws were put in place.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Whether it is the end or not, it is certainly an unpleasant experience. There is no such thing as an easy death, even when it happens quickly. Drowning, isn't even a fast way to die. I once witnessed an injured deer drown and it was a pretty brutal thing to watch.

yes it is, but if that's how God was going to save those children and babies from a life of misery, then so be it right?  This understanding that death is not the end and that they all went to be in his presence.  Understanding the way of the world at that time, it makes sense that these kids would not grow up and have a good life.  

It's a short amount of suffering for the guarantee for these kids to live with God vs. living a life that likely would have caused them to suffer through it.  

Do you pull the splinter out or let it work itself out?  Which would hurt less in the long run?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Sure I have done plenty of things wrong. There is a big difference between putting someone in jail for stealing and drowning them plus their entire family and then sending them to hell for eternity. Do you think the punishment fits the crime? If someone stole that $1,000 at the luncheon or poker club, would you support drowning them?

we have to look at this as sending them to jail.  You agree that a thief should go to jail.  If you read the book of revelation, everyone comes back for judgement.   Some believe that when Jesus died, He died for all, even for those who died before his coming.  If this is true, then in the time of judgement, these people have a choice to make.  Is that unjust?

Beyond Saving wrote:

As far as jail, I think it is wrong to use jail as punishment. Numerous studies have demonstrated that punishment is an ineffective way to reduce undesirable behavior in humans (or dogs, birds, cats, elephants, mice or any other animal you want to train for that matter). It has been demonstrated time and again that positive reinforcement and rehabilitation techniques are far better for removing undesirable behavior long term. It has also been proven that the death penalty has virtually no deterrence effect. I would think that a god who created us that way, would know that.

The death penalty has no deterrence effects... for those who are being put to death, but studies show that communities where the death penalty is a consequence, the possibility has deterred many from committing crimes punishable by such standards.  

Considering God's laws, it's more of getting the problem out of the community along with being a deterrent for others.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Except I thought there isn't anyone else, so a more accurate comparison would be how they would feel if I created an imaginary friend I called mom and dad. I'm pretty sure that neither of them would kill me, throw me in the basement for eternity or refuse to forgive me for eternity. Probably, the most accurate comparison would be the family who gets divorced and the kid never sees the father and has no proof he even exists except for a journal. Maybe he sends an occasional birthday card or something with $10, which the kid can't determine if it is mom making them feel better or if it is sent by a real person. So either believes someone else is dad, or believes dad doesn't exist at all. Then the kid gets cancer or something and is dying and here comes dad, who gets mad because the kid doesn't believe he is their dad.

Now versions of this scenario happen in real life. Kids grow up without knowing their fathers (or mothers) and later on in life have an opportunity to meet them. Sometimes they have a person who has filled in as a parent, sometimes they don't. Do you think punishing the kid for eternity is a good response for the parent to have?

You're looking at it the wrong way.  It's more like the choice of being in the presence of God... or not.  Be it that God is present in the world, no one knows a world without God.  Anywhere God has been taken out has become more violent, less cooperative and less tolerant in general.  To be punished eternally as you say is simply just not being with God.  Parents who have children who deny their existence likely try to convince their kid that they are their real parents without much success as God does.  Ultimately, do these parents kidnap their kid and tell them they have no choice or do they let them continue life believing what they do while still trying to convince them?

To suggest that God not allow them to be in hell is to suggest that he kidnap everyone who chooses to deny him.  

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

Mine are not. No, I am not a parent and never will be. I hope most parents aren't that vain, that would be sad and strikes me as a really poor way to raise kids. My friends who are parents don't seem to be that vain. On the contrary, they put their kids well ahead of their own interests even when the kids are being the selfish little ingrates they tend to be. I can't imagine any of my friends killing their kids and punishing them for eternity, no matter what the kid did. If I could, they would cease being my friend. 

You always take it to that extreme... do you really think that's what I'm saying?  If so, your understanding of believers is quite warped.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

The point is the apparent contradiction in Christian morality. You have the natural reaction to save an innocent child, while believing that by dying the child goes to "a better place", so by saving the child you are at least delaying their opportunity to be in a better place.

If there was no purpose for her here, she would be in that better place.  That opportunity is always there... why deny her a life she may never get to live again when the opportunity to go to a better place will be there throughout that life?

Beyond Saving wrote:

It seems to me that Christians should be a big fan of abortion and even infanticide because you are guaranteeing that person eternity in heaven.

but then you're denying that persons opportunity for life on Earth which could have a greater purpose.  How do you know God had no plan for them?  What gives you the right to make that choice for that person?  For God? 

Beyond Saving wrote:

I also see this contradiction in he efforts of Christians to avoid death and their staunch insistence that people should be kept alive by machines long after their brains are not working. If there is something better after this life, why put such a high value on it? 

that's not all Christians and there's nothing Biblical to support or condemn such a choice.  Many Christians believe that to put someone on a machine is denying God's will for them... many other Chrisitans believe that by putting them on a machine you're giving them every opportunity to finish their mission on Earth  if they still have one.

Beyond Saving wrote:

The only conclusion I have been able to come to, is that most Christians have significant doubts about the existence of an afterlife. 

it's more about understanding God's purpose or intent

Beyond Saving wrote:

God created demons, right?  

God created angels to be servants of His.  1/3 of those servants betrayed Gods trust and they were kicked out of heaven for doing so.  They are the demons.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Do you approve of a God that separates loving family members from each other? 

I thought those loving family members made their own choice..  God separates them unwillingly now?

It is hardly a "choice" any more than you have choice when a mugger points a gun at you and demands your money. If someone threatens to kill you unless you give them your money, would you say that the person willingly made the choice to be separated from their money? God puts us in a position where we have to choose eternal torture or choose to be separated from people we love. A situation entirely of his own creation. In many ways, it strikes me as very similar to the bad guy in the Saw movies, who gave his victims the "choice" between life or death. 

those scenarios aren't God putting people in situations, it's other people making that choice.  When someone points a gun at you and demands your money, the mugger had to make a choice first on how to get money.  He then put you in a situation that caused you to be separated from your money.  God only allowed everyone to make their own choices. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

In that case, I apparently didn't know myself very well. 

The Bible does say that God knows us better than we know ourselves; (Romans 8:27-37, Pslams 139:2-4)

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Death rates have dropped 65% since 1900. From 1 in 42 people per year to 1 in 125. 

http://www.nber.org/digest/mar02/w8556.html

is that taking into account the comparison of population numbers growing or just in general?

Beyond Saving wrote:

Medical advances certainly account for a lot of it, but are not the sole factor. Tractors- dramatically reduced starvation, malnutrition and generally allow for more people to eat a balanced diet which is key in preventing disease in the first place.

I'm not suggesting that technology hasn't helped in certain factors.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Cars, well transportation in general, have made it much easier to get what we need to survive. It has made lodging, food, healthcare and anything else you can name more accessible. As such, it makes everything cheaper. You can afford to heat your house because of the large trucks, freight trains and tankers that transport whatever fuel you use. Without those, heating is prohibitively expensive and something that many people in the 1800's couldn't afford which leads to increased illness and sometimes direct death. Additionally, people have easier access to education so those who wish to and have the brain for it are more likely to get into medical research. 

Everything in the economy is connected. Take for example a machine in a factory that allows one person to do the job that used to require five people- that saves lives. How? In order to dedicate resources to research, people have to have their basic needs met. If people have to put significant time into manual labor to produce basics like food, you have fewer doctors, scientists and inventors (and other non-material pursuits like actors, musicians, pro sports etc). The US didn't have such a huge lead in medical research because we are smarter than the rest of the world. It happened because we were the fastest country to implement modern machinery in our factories and on our farms, which freed up a large portion of our labor pool to focus on other goals. Now that other countries have caught up with us in productivity, they are also catching up, maybe even surpassing us in academic pursuits. What if Jonas Salk, son of poor first generation immigrants, had to spend his time working on a farm or in a factory to survive? If he was born 100 years earlier, he almost certainly would have.   

I understand what you're saying.  it makes sense.  though agian, this shows that the population is growing because people are living longer.  is there a comparable number of deaths in say the 1800s to deaths today?  by number specifically?


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

danatemporary wrote:

Re:: Problem with link and problem with knowing which Alex Gee (w/ the Video Link) ?

 

  Nu 406 (OR 411)

T0 ::   Caposkia

   Having a problem with a YouTube video you gave out. Now Alex Gee, that was supposed to have said something, is a black man, right? Or some celebrity christian I am sadly unaware of,  right ?  To his view, was away from God  in his life, who admits at swearing at God, ( Isa. 6, ver 5 ), due to his private hurt and then loss of one of his daughters, I hear,  residue of the old man (double meaning).   You know, people like this, it's always their choice  to reshape attitudes toward life. But, it's this coloured man, the one who managed to renew his (personal) faith, as a christian?. Or, Is it Alex Gee (a white kid) at Williams High; I keep linking-to football games ?  You MUST have accidentally given the wrong link, I guess. Or is it my browser only that is the problem ? Please, I am sincerely sorry to trouble you about this. Could you assist me , with another link or one I could look-up myself on YouTube?. Safe bet he is the one over 30. Could turn out to be the young student.

 

It's Alex Gee the black guy.  I'll have to find the link for you again... I don't have time at the moment... you can watch anything from him really.  I've been very impressed with his ministry. 

 

 

 

 

 

     Another Ref.  ^ Hosea 6:5b   I, the LORD, killed you with the words of my mouth  . .   they were unfaithful to Me there

 


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

caposkia wrote:

To suggest that God not allow them to be in hell is to suggest that he kidnap everyone who chooses to deny him.

I don't suggest it--I DEMAND it.

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I can't speak

caposkia wrote:

I can't speak for the demonologists.  Our reason is that our focus is not demons, it's God... and we constantly do extensive study on God... the other thing is we know that we should not put our God to the test.  We also know that God reveils himself all over the world every day... we know what we're looking for and we see it.  It's why the majority of people existing on this planet today have some sort of metaphysical belief from what I understand.

Seems odd for someone to call themselves a "demonologist" when their focus isn't demons. Why shouldn't we put god to the test? He reportedly has no problem testing us, even if such a "test" requires torture.   

 

caposkia wrote:

Finally, i have yet to see a valid approach to testing God that takes into consideration choice and circumstance and yet still can come out with the same result each time.  If you have an idea, I'm all ears.

No ideas here. The fact that you can't come up with a valid approach to test god, demons etc. suggests that those things don't exist.

 

caposkia wrote:

Most citizens would report you to the authorities because you're american.  They are taught to hate us.  You were not sent by their leader, so you will be of no help to them.  Instead you will be put in a camp, tortured and if you're lucky, killed soon afterward.

If this is not true, then why is it that most outsiders from around the world that go into their boarders uninvited by the leader directly end up in those camps?

I doubt it. The North Korean government works really hard to keep their citizens inside the border using the threat of forced labor camps and death. If their citizens were so loyal, they wouldn't need such threats and wouldn't have hundreds of thousands of people jailed for attempting to leave the country. I was also told for years that the people of Cuba were "taught to hate us" and when I actually visited Cuba I found out that it was false, so I am skeptical of the same claims made about North Korea. If you could get people out of the country without getting intercepted and killed by their military, you would find plenty of refugees happy to come with you. This is a bit of a tangent from the original question though of why we don't study demons in labs. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/9826125/Google-Earth-exposes-North-Koreas-secret-prison-camps.html

http://freekorea.us/camps/

 

caposkia wrote:

Anthropology would find evidences of followings or belief systems that would be linked to the metaphysical.  I'm not sure what evidence an anthropologist would expect to find regarding remains of demons or demonic influences.  Typically, just like with God, demons work through the people or through the laws that have been put in place in this environmental system. 

What we'd have to look for is a link between a particular action that would have prompted a reaction from a metaphysical being that could be detected through archaeology, anthropology or geology.

To your knowledge has anyone ever found such a link?

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Do you think a god that would create the laws in the OT is a god that can be trusted? Do you think a being that would create such laws is a perfectly good and moral being?

my answer is quite obvious, yes, but of course i'm curious why you disagree... also, even before that, i'm curious as to your understanding of why the laws were put in place.

Why?!?!? In absolutely no situation is it moral to stone people. I don't care if it is the most evil person alive. Let alone stone people for relatively minor crimes that are listed in Deuteronomy. I don't care why the laws were put in place. They are immoral, cruel and harmful laws. Do you think it is ever moral to stone people?  

 

caposkia wrote:

yes it is, but if that's how God was going to save those children and babies from a life of misery, then so be it right?  This understanding that death is not the end and that they all went to be in his presence.  Understanding the way of the world at that time, it makes sense that these kids would not grow up and have a good life.  

It's a short amount of suffering for the guarantee for these kids to live with God vs. living a life that likely would have caused them to suffer through it.  

So we should kill all kids who are going to grow up without having a "good life"? I thought God was all about free will and giving us choices. Why didn't he just let the kids decide for themselves whether life was worth living? Humans are quite capable of committing suicide you know if they decide that death is preferable to life. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Do you pull the splinter out or let it work itself out?  Which would hurt less in the long run?

Yeah, I take tweezers and pull out the splinter. I don't chop off 99% of my hand. Are you telling me that an omnipotent God couldn't figure out a way to stop the bad people without harming innocents?

 

caposkia wrote:

we have to look at this as sending them to jail.

No we don't. Killing is killing, not jail.

 

caposkia wrote:

 If you read the book of revelation, everyone comes back for judgement.   Some believe that when Jesus died, He died for all, even for those who died before his coming.  If this is true, then in the time of judgement, these people have a choice to make.  Is that unjust?

Yes. No crime is worth eternal punishment. 

 

caposkia wrote:

The death penalty has no deterrence effects... for those who are being put to death, but studies show that communities where the death penalty is a consequence, the possibility has deterred many from committing crimes punishable by such standards.  

Considering God's laws, it's more of getting the problem out of the community along with being a deterrent for others.

Source? It has been proven pretty conclusively that countries and states without a death penalty have lower murder rates than those that do. Most modernized countries no longer have the death penalty and they all have substantially lower murder rates than the US. Now, obviously there are a variety of factors at play, but it is quite conclusive that harsh death penalties don't significantly prevent future crime. Is it really all that surprising that someone who is in an emotional state where they are willing to murder a person are not thinking/caring about the consequences?    

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/22/us/absence-executions-special-report-states-with-no-death-penalty-share-lower.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

http://www.e-archives.ky.gov/pubs/Public_Adv/nov97/crime_control.htm

 

caposkia wrote:

You're looking at it the wrong way.  It's more like the choice of being in the presence of God... or not.  Be it that God is present in the world, no one knows a world without God.  Anywhere God has been taken out has become more violent, less cooperative and less tolerant in general.  To be punished eternally as you say is simply just not being with God.  Parents who have children who deny their existence likely try to convince their kid that they are their real parents without much success as God does.  Ultimately, do these parents kidnap their kid and tell them they have no choice or do they let them continue life believing what they do while still trying to convince them?

To suggest that God not allow them to be in hell is to suggest that he kidnap everyone who chooses to deny him.

What about God's choice to be absent in the first place? If God is everywhere, then how do you know that with him gone things are more violent, less cooperative and less tolerant? Do you think these forums are violent, uncooperative and less tolerant?

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

Mine are not. No, I am not a parent and never will be. I hope most parents aren't that vain, that would be sad and strikes me as a really poor way to raise kids. My friends who are parents don't seem to be that vain. On the contrary, they put their kids well ahead of their own interests even when the kids are being the selfish little ingrates they tend to be. I can't imagine any of my friends killing their kids and punishing them for eternity, no matter what the kid did. If I could, they would cease being my friend. 

You always take it to that extreme... do you really think that's what I'm saying?  If so, your understanding of believers is quite warped.

I don't think most believers are that way. I think the god portrayed in the bible is that way. Fortunately, most believers don't mimic their god anymore except for the fundamentalists. What is more extreme than drowning almost all of your children? What is more extreme than a parent who would banish their kids from their home for life? The god in your bible is very extreme.

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

It seems to me that Christians should be a big fan of abortion and even infanticide because you are guaranteeing that person eternity in heaven.

but then you're denying that persons opportunity for life on Earth which could have a greater purpose.  How do you know God had no plan for them?  What gives you the right to make that choice for that person?  For God?

What gives you the right to risk someones eternal salvation by bringing them into this world?

 

caposkia wrote:

that's not all Christians and there's nothing Biblical to support or condemn such a choice.  Many Christians believe that to put someone on a machine is denying God's will for them... many other Chrisitans believe that by putting them on a machine you're giving them every opportunity to finish their mission on Earth  if they still have one.

Do you support assisted suicide?

 

caposkia wrote:

God created angels to be servants of His.  1/3 of those servants betrayed Gods trust and they were kicked out of heaven for doing so.  They are the demons.

So did god just mess up? Or did he know it was going to happen? 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Do you approve of a God that separates loving family members from each other? 

I thought those loving family members made their own choice..  God separates them unwillingly now?

Why don't you hold god accountable for his choice to make us choose? 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

It is hardly a "choice" any more than you have choice when a mugger points a gun at you and demands your money. If someone threatens to kill you unless you give them your money, would you say that the person willingly made the choice to be separated from their money? God puts us in a position where we have to choose eternal torture or choose to be separated from people we love. A situation entirely of his own creation. In many ways, it strikes me as very similar to the bad guy in the Saw movies, who gave his victims the "choice" between life or death. 

those scenarios aren't God putting people in situations, it's other people making that choice.  When someone points a gun at you and demands your money, the mugger had to make a choice first on how to get money.  He then put you in a situation that caused you to be separated from your money.  God only allowed everyone to make their own choices.

Reread that. I am not blaming god for what a mugger does, I am comparing the "choice" that god apparently forces all of us humans to make to the choice a mugger offers their victim. A choice made under threat is not a real choice.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Death rates have dropped 65% since 1900. From 1 in 42 people per year to 1 in 125. 

http://www.nber.org/digest/mar02/w8556.html

is that taking into account the comparison of population numbers growing or just in general?

It is done in ratios, so yes it is taking into account the growing population. Given a random 1000 people in 1900, on average 23.8 of them would die in a given year. Given a random group of 1000 today, an average of 8 people will die in a given year.  

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
Get Out!!

Get Out! Hold your horses there Tonto. One does not simply start with the Book of Revelation. HELP! Get Out ! Get Out of Town!! Hello! Help Me out, K? What could this all signify ? With this from the New Testament ? You cannot start with the Last and Final Judgment, (remember) ? Least not to mention, the general lack of essential specificity in the wording and language of some of the key passages. We do not know enough details about what the topography should signify, nor importantly who WAS in the prison of these 'spirits' that Christ went to preach to (and sorry no parable is enough by way to truly clarify).


caposkia wrote:

If you read the book of revelation, everyone comes back for judgement. Some believe that when Jesus died, He died for all, even for those who died before his coming. If this is true, then..

Do you mind to be outlining a bit taking into consideration Christ's Descent into Hell & also Graves opening up, if you read the text, correct ? To refuse to do so contributes to a wrong view, IMO.

Caposkia wrote

{caposkia wrote }:

"If you read the Book of Revelation, everyone comes back for judgement. Some believe that when Jesus died, He died for all, even for those who died before his coming. If this is true, then in the time of judgement, these people have a choice to make. Is that unjust?".

BeyondSaving Replied:

"Yes. No crime is worth eternal punishment"

: See :: Image



Ancient Chinese Secret (tehe)
2 Cor. --
I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell. I (Paul) will boast about a man like that? But I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Right then. caposkia

Right then.

caposkia wrote:
i was assuming that is how we are determining that consciousness is derived or created from the brain... was I mistaken?

I think it's a lot more complicated than brainwaves. I think conciousness is analogous to a car in function (not assembly). All the different parts coalesce to form something other than themselves alone. Quite possibly the entire nervous system contributes to consciousness. There's still a lot to find out. The best way to find out is to keep studying it. Not to assume some other worldly existence that cannot be touched or measured.

caposkia wrote:
How much of a persons "personality" is learned and how much of it is innate... or how much of it are you born with?

I don't know exactly how much. Evidence suggests there's a mixture.

caposkia wrote:
...also, could; "incomplete information coming through a transmitter" which first has to process the information more like a computer result in completely different information?  

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
No. Ever try listening to a

No. Ever try listening to a radio station that was just a little too far away? You don't hear a completely different track than what they are playing (your brain is a computer that analyses vibrations in the atmosphere and translates them into something you understand as sounds); you hear fragments of the track they are playing and static. It works this way in any analogy you can come up with. Light, sound, matter, energy, everything.
If, however, you view the brain as a multitude of mechanics that also happen to generate a conciousness; then extreme changes in behaviour and personality after brain damage make perfect sense. Different parts of the brain are different parts of you, and their being damaged means you are different.
It could even be argued that the original person is dead and has been replaced by a person which is only parts of the original.

caposkia wrote:
You suggested magic... I never suggested that.

What would you call it then? Your description sounds like magic to me.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: I've only

caposkia wrote:
 I've only said my perception is that the brain works like a transmitter in the way that it is receiving information from a soul or spirit and transmitting it into personality and actions.

How is that not magic, by definition? Are you suggesting it is technological?

caposkia wrote:
 I have yet to defend that position... rather I am asking you to defend your claim that the brain creates all of that information.

I provided evidence and refuted your suggestion that a faulty transmission could in any way explain the results of brain damage. I'm still waiting for you to come up with any reason I should believe in your magic.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:It sounds

caposkia wrote:
It sounds like you're starting to reach for excuses.  i'm simply trying to understand your belief and why.  I appreciate your link.  I have given my 2 cents as to why it fails.  If you can't accept that.  I'm sorry.  I can't buy it from that link... I need more.  I need a direct study... kind of like what you're likely looking for from me.  If there is no direct study as to the creation of consciousness in the brain, something close to that will do.

I'm not making any excuses. I acknowledge it can't be proven absolutely that conciousness arises soley within the "physical realm" as you may or may not refer to it. But that doesn't mean it will remain so. Once upon a time it was impossible to prove that lightning wasn't the anger of the gods, but electrical discharges in the atmosphere. Or that the Earth is round. Or that stars in the sky are actually much like the sun, just much further away.
There may not in our lifetimes be the study that would convince you. You never know.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:good deal

caposkia wrote:
good deal boss... seeing as I intentionally responded to that part alone..

You literally cut my sentence in two. It's one thing to break up a paragraph. It's something entirely different to break up a sentence. If you don't understand how doing that impacts language than you are clearly not on a level capable of having this discussion. Respond to my entire sentence in one piece or I'll not bother reading the response to it.

caposkia wrote:
apparently according to you it works becasue I'm "simply making shit up".

Tylenol doesn't relieve pain because you're making shit up. It works because it was tested and refined.

I've refuted your transmission hypothesis already.

caposkia wrote:
You say it works, but is it fixing the problem or does one have to keep taking the medication for it to work?

It totally depends on the problem. If it is genetic than the medication is constant, because your body is broken on the microscopic scale.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The building blocks of you

The building blocks of you constantly generate a problem, so the medication must constantly be delivered.
Perhaps one day we will be able to repair even genetic problems permanently with a single treatment or series of treatments, but that day is not today.

caposkia wrote:
non-believers accept 100% that there are no other possibilities beyond what we can see... (generally speaking)

We can't see at least half of the universe, and with every day that goes by we can see less of it. That doesn't mean we discount its existence. Theists always make the mistake of assuming a black and white scenario, all or nothing. But our side doesn't function that way. Those of us who know more than most about how things work also know how little we know for absolute certainty. In reality, all of our existence might be an illusion, a hologram, or even a computer simulation. It simply doesn't do us any good to approach reality that way. It can even be detrimental.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Your method of observation

Your method of observation has never been proven to accomplish anything that makes it a must-do. There is no evidence of a god, a heaven, a hell, angels, ghosts, or anything else defined as supernatural. There is therefore no benefit to approaching existence as if they exist. If some demon or angel or god or something ever comes to me and demonstrates in some fashion it is what it says it is, then I'll probably change my view on the subject. Even if it's just a figment of my imagination, suddenly there is a real reason to believe and real consequences. I've never seen anything to indicate such is the case. Some things started to come close, but never actually went across the line of coincidental or convenient into the territory of fate or destiny or the hand of some supreme being.

Whereas science actually has benefits. We have medicine and planes and computers and space stations because of science. Religion never gave us these things. Or anything else tangible.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:
the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part ofhumans as distinct from the physical part.

See that doesn't help me. The word soul itself is broken, as it refers to what something isn't. The definition makes it worse, because it uses terms that are equally broken. A word is useless unless it refers to something. But soul, supernatural, spirit, and other terminology used by theists specifically refer to what something is not. I want to know what it is. What is the spiritual part of humans? What is it if it is not physical? Don't tell me it's simply not physical, I want to know what it is.

caposkia wrote:
I don't mean this to be snide again.  I'm only asking;  How can you say no religion has been able to "prove" its claims when you yourself admitted to not knowing what you'd even be looking for as far as proof?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I don't mean

Not knowing what would prove religion doesn't mean I don't know what fails to prove religion. I don't mean to be snide, but all the evidence you have for the truth of christianity is a bunch of words written in long dead languages by primitive men who didn't know the first thing about the world. Stuff you are taught in grade one they were oblivious to. Worse than that, the writings were then assembled from different sources, some being discarded, by more men, into a single book which was then translated a dozen times at least before the version you have in your dresser. Nowhere along the way is there any evidence for any of the spectacular claims of a deity who watches over humanity.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Sorry it took so long, but

Sorry it took so long, but as you can see I had quite a bit of invested time in my response. I had to completely forget about it before I could come back to this.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


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

blacklight915 wrote:

caposkia wrote:

To suggest that God not allow them to be in hell is to suggest that he kidnap everyone who chooses to deny him.

I don't suggest it--I DEMAND it.

 

YOu suggest that God kidnap everyone?  You might make some enemies in heaven then if you can convince God of this be it that not everyone wants to be with God... Good luck to ya


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

Seems odd for someone to call themselves a "demonologist" when their focus isn't demons. Why shouldn't we put god to the test? He reportedly has no problem testing us, even if such a "test" requires torture.   

He created us.  Would you use a product that wasn't first tested by its creator?  

here ya go.  brand new car!  What?  no, I didn't calibrate anything, I put the pieces together and so it should work.. try it out! 

Beyond Saving wrote:

No ideas here. The fact that you can't come up with a valid approach to test god, demons etc. suggests that those things don't exist.

The fact that scientists haven't come up with a valid approach to test supernova's, dark matter, black holes, etc. suggests that those things don't exist as well then.

Beyond Saving wrote:

I doubt it. The North Korean government works really hard to keep their citizens inside the border using the threat of forced labor camps and death. If their citizens were so loyal, they wouldn't need such threats and wouldn't have hundreds of thousands of people jailed for attempting to leave the country. I was also told for years that the people of Cuba were "taught to hate us" and when I actually visited Cuba I found out that it was false, so I am skeptical of the same claims made about North Korea. If you could get people out of the country without getting intercepted and killed by their military, you would find plenty of refugees happy to come with you. This is a bit of a tangent from the original question though of why we don't study demons in labs. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/9826125/Google-Earth-exposes-North-Koreas-secret-prison-camps.html

http://freekorea.us/camps/

it's a parallel to what you're asking me to do really if you want me to summon demons to test.  and the loyalty is out of fear.  If you do the homework you'll find out that many have escaped and run away, but the punishment for doing so is that every one of your family members left in North Korea will be put into those camps and tortured to death.  Would you leave if you knew it was putting your family in serious danger?  

why don't families leave?  Is it easy to sneak a few people out or a whole family?  especially if some of the family is really young or really old.  

Point and case to put it in context... you'd be a moron if you thought you could just walk into North Korea, go up to a random citizen, or better yet, a military personelle if you want to be very technical about the danger we're talking about and told them you want them to come with you can test their existence.   

Same with demons.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

To your knowledge has anyone ever found such a link?

I'm not sure where to even begin looking for such a link... i"m not an anthropologist.. however, archaeologists do look for links between historical stories in the Bible and evidence of the physical things talked about in the Bible.  So far they have found a lot.. there are books out there on the subject.  I suggest checking out the Archaeological study bible. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why?!?!? In absolutely no situation is it moral to stone people.

people say the same about hanging and the electric chair, but it still happens... where is the line of morality?

Beyond Saving wrote:

I don't care if it is the most evil person alive. Let alone stone people for relatively minor crimes that are listed in Deuteronomy. I don't care why the laws were put in place. They are immoral, cruel and harmful laws. Do you think it is ever moral to stone people?  

In today's age, no... we have better ways of dealing with people... I also believe that killing people is giving them the easy way out and that they should live with what they've done and the consequences of it.

Beyond Saving wrote:

So we should kill all kids who are going to grow up without having a "good life"? I thought God was all about free will and giving us choices. Why didn't he just let the kids decide for themselves whether life was worth living? Humans are quite capable of committing suicide you know if they decide that death is preferable to life. 

So you're trying to associate the Noah story with children today?  

God gives us choices... we do have to pay consequences for those choices whether good or bad.  The consequence of those people in that time was the death of themselves and their families.  They were warned of such consequences too and ignored the warnings.    If someone warned you that if you didn't stop doing X you, your wife, kids, pets grandma etc would all die, would you keep doing it?  I would stop... they didn't.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yeah, I take tweezers and pull out the splinter. I don't chop off 99% of my hand. Are you telling me that an omnipotent God couldn't figure out a way to stop the bad people without harming innocents?

he did... if you read the story, the only ones he found to be... well not even innocent, but following Him strong enough to change was Noah and his family.

Beyond Saving wrote:

No we don't. Killing is killing, not jail.

ok, so what is killing then?  Jail is taking freedom of living life in society away from an individual.  Understanding death with God existing, death is taking the freedom of living life in society away from an idividual.  Death is not the end.  It is understood that their spirit lives on, just not physically.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

 If you read the book of revelation, everyone comes back for judgement.   Some believe that when Jesus died, He died for all, even for those who died before his coming.  If this is true, then in the time of judgement, these people have a choice to make.  Is that unjust?

Yes. No crime is worth eternal punishment. 

so give everyone no choice.  You're more cruel than you claim my God is

Beyond Saving wrote:

Source? It has been proven pretty conclusively that countries and states without a death penalty have lower murder rates than those that do. Most modernized countries no longer have the death penalty and they all have substantially lower murder rates than the US. Now, obviously there are a variety of factors at play, but it is quite conclusive that harsh death penalties don't significantly prevent future crime. Is it really all that surprising that someone who is in an emotional state where they are willing to murder a person are not thinking/caring about the consequences?    

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/22/us/absence-executions-special-report-states-with-no-death-penalty-share-lower.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

http://www.e-archives.ky.gov/pubs/Public_Adv/nov97/crime_control.htm

this is why I believe it's a worse punishment to have to live with your crimes, but try to explain that to NH.. who has an extremely low murder rate.  

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-4

Beyond Saving wrote:

What about God's choice to be absent in the first place? If God is everywhere, then how do you know that with him gone things are more violent, less cooperative and less tolerant? Do you think these forums are violent, uncooperative and less tolerant?

yes.  I've been called a lot of negative things, people tend to be very judgemental and less tolerant of others who oppose their beliefs etc on here.  

beyond that, I've seen places where God is strong and places where God is almost non-existent... there's quite a difference

Beyond Saving wrote:

I don't think most believers are that way. I think the god portrayed in the bible is that way. Fortunately, most believers don't mimic their god anymore except for the fundamentalists. What is more extreme than drowning almost all of your children? What is more extreme than a parent who would banish their kids from their home for life? The god in your bible is very extreme.

some think so, but did we not know this was to happen?

Beyond Saving wrote:

What gives you the right to risk someones eternal salvation by bringing them into this world?

 

What gives you the right to deny them the opportunity for existence?  If they never existed, they never have the chance at eternal salvation and therefore you're automatically denying them that salvation.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Do you support assisted suicide?

no.  If they're capable of asking for assistance to be killed, they're capable of still making a difference in the world and thus should not be denied life.

Beyond Saving wrote:

So did god just mess up? Or did he know it was going to happen? 

I believe God knows all possibilities.  God created them as angels, servants to Him.  Your answer is a catch 22, if I say he messed up, God's not perfect, if i say he knew it was going to happen, God is evil.  

So, to answer your question, God knew what could happen and left it up to them and us to decide.  That way no one is a slave to him unless they choose to be.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Why don't you hold god accountable for his choice to make us choose? 

do you realize how nonsensical that is?  Same reason why we don't hold parents responsible if one of their grownup children murdered someone.   Why don't you hold someone else responsible for your own mistakes?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

It is hardly a "choice" any more than you have choice when a mugger points a gun at you and demands your money. If someone threatens to kill you unless you give them your money, would you say that the person willingly made the choice to be separated from their money? God puts us in a position where we have to choose eternal torture or choose to be separated from people we love. A situation entirely of his own creation. In many ways, it strikes me as very similar to the bad guy in the Saw movies, who gave his victims the "choice" between life or death. 

those scenarios aren't God putting people in situations, it's other people making that choice.  When someone points a gun at you and demands your money, the mugger had to make a choice first on how to get money.  He then put you in a situation that caused you to be separated from your money.  God only allowed everyone to make their own choices.

Reread that. I am not blaming god for what a mugger does, I am comparing the "choice" that god apparently forces all of us humans to make to the choice a mugger offers their victim. A choice made under threat is not a real choice.

every choice has a consequence whether good or bad.  God never threatened anything, rather He has revieled to us the consequences of our choices good and bad.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

It is done in ratios, so yes it is taking into account the growing population. Given a random 1000 people in 1900, on average 23.8 of them would die in a given year. Given a random group of 1000 today, an average of 8 people will die in a given year.  

That's clearer thanks.  I believe that's due to medical advances


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:Get Out!

danatemporary wrote:
Get Out! Hold your horses there Tonto. One does not simply start with the Book of Revelation. HELP! Get Out ! Get Out of Town!! Hello! Help Me out, K? What could this all signify ? With this from the New Testament ? You cannot start with the Last and Final Judgment, (remember) ? Least not to mention, the general lack of essential specificity in the wording and language of some of the key passages. We do not know enough details about what the topography should signify, nor importantly who WAS in the prison of these 'spirits' that Christ went to preach to (and sorry no parable is enough by way to truly clarify).

 

Why not?  The book of Revelation is the one book that holds relevance to all things in all times.  It is a book about Jesus Christ, not about condemnation.  I think the problem is, people don't start with Revelation.  It has been given a bad rap.  It's the last book because it is a book about the last days, it also is a book good to read in context with teh rest of the Bible.  Sometimes though it's easier to read parts first, then look at the references to see what it's talking about


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Right then.

Vastet wrote:
Right then.
caposkia wrote:
i was assuming that is how we are determining that consciousness is derived or created from the brain... was I mistaken?
I think it's a lot more complicated than brainwaves. I think conciousness is analogous to a car in function (not assembly). All the different parts coalesce to form something other than themselves alone. Quite possibly the entire nervous system contributes to consciousness. There's still a lot to find out. The best way to find out is to keep studying it. Not to assume some other worldly existence that cannot be touched or measured.

I don't believe in a God because I can't fully explain consciousness.  That would not be rational

Vastet wrote:

I don't know exactly how much. Evidence suggests there's a mixture.

I agree


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:No. Ever try

Vastet wrote:
No. Ever try listening to a radio station that was just a little too far away? You don't hear a completely different track than what they are playing (your brain is a computer that analyses vibrations in the atmosphere and translates them into something you understand as sounds); you hear fragments of the track they are playing and static. It works this way in any analogy you can come up with. Light, sound, matter, energy, everything. If, however, you view the brain as a multitude of mechanics that also happen to generate a conciousness; then extreme changes in behaviour and personality after brain damage make perfect sense. Different parts of the brain are different parts of you, and their being damaged means you are different. It could even be argued that the original person is dead and has been replaced by a person which is only parts of the original.
caposkia wrote:
You suggested magic... I never suggested that.
What would you call it then? Your description sounds like magic to me.

I believe the brain is quite more complicated than a simple radio trying to pick up a signal.  

my description sounds like magic, but what you explained sounds fine to me.  except that different parts being damaged means you are different.  If the possibility of the brain being a reciever is true, then you being different is a result of a damaged reciever.  

we could also go as far as taking the consideration that some of our consciousness is learned and other parts are there, where the brain retains what is learned and transmits what was already there.  Then any part of the storage being damaged would absoulutely change who you are because you've lost what you've learned.  It's understood by scripture that when a person dies, everything about them dies too, but God remembers who they are and they are resurrected as they were.  


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

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
 I've only said my perception is that the brain works like a transmitter in the way that it is receiving information from a soul or spirit and transmitting it into personality and actions.
How is that not magic, by definition? Are you suggesting it is technological?

considering the comparison to a transmitter, it would be technological unless you think a radio is magic and has a miniature band or radio announcer sitting inside it ready to play or talk at your beck and call.  

seriously though, yes on the technological side, but no, it's not technology, it is what God created, not people.  technology is what people created.

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 I have yet to defend that position... rather I am asking you to defend your claim that the brain creates all of that information.
I provided evidence and refuted your suggestion that a faulty transmission could in any way explain the results of brain damage. I'm still waiting for you to come up with any reason I should believe in your magic.

you compared a complex computer to a radio.  how is that refuting my suggestion?  

I believe you explained it in a different way.  I have not disagreed with your interpretation.  I think if you can see the parallels here, we're on the same page... the only difference is you see nothing beyond the brain.  I see the brain being a reciever and storage device.  I can see how I might have missed the storage part before.