Are demons real?

[Bunyip]

All I ever said was I was not aware of Leprechaun claims. I would have to review them with my usual open-minded skeptical approach. Not a subject I've looked into. Demons I believe are likely to exist.

Well as I said, you will find the same sort of case for leprechauns as you have for demons.

 

[George-ananda]

Well why would they need to? 'Paranormal energy' is not even know to exist - why would 'they' need to explain something that is not detectable, measurable or even known to exist?

Because multiple sober adults flat out saw paranormal events in the strongest cases. See my link in post #91.

 

[Bunyip]

Because multiple sober adults flat out saw paranormal events in the strongest cases. See my link in post #91.

Sure, that is a common phenomenon. Well understood. People see things all the time.

What is 'paranormal energy'?

 

[George-ananda]

Well as I said, you will find the same sort of case for leprechauns as you have for demons.

So you claim. Have not looked into Leprechauns evidence myself so I can't say.

 

[Bunyip]

So you claim. Have not looked into Leprechauns evidence myself so I can't say.

No problem. Do try not to close your mind to things just because you are not knowledgeable about them.

I read the article you referred me to (St Louis), now let me get this straight - just so that I am understanding your position. I hate to have to ask this, but feel I must. You actually believe that is a true story right?

You seriously believe that it is an accurate account of a true story is that correct?
You realise that the story you cited actually states outright that it is 'one version of the story'? So you have a 66 year old horror tale, one without any way that you could validate it's claims - but you believe it is non-fiction?

 

[George-ananda]

Sure, that is a common phenomenon. Well understood. People see things all the time.

How do you know multiple adults would see (erroneously) the same thing at the same time. And that is 'common' and 'well understood' as you claim? My honest analysis is that is reaching for an explanation in defense of a worldview and not ONJECTIVELY looking at events.

 

[Bunyip]

How do you know multiple adults would see (erroneously) the same thing at the same time. And that is 'common' and 'well understood' as you claim? My honest analysis is that is reaching for an explanation in defense of a worldview and not ONJECTIVELY looking at events.

George - please correct me, but you are seriously thinking that the 1949 Horror story you referred to was historically accurate non-fiction?
You cannot be serious?

 

[George-ananda]

No problem. Do try not to close your mind to things just because you are not knowledgeable about them.

I read the article you referred me to (St Louis), now let me get this straight - just so that I am understanding your position. I hate to have to ask this, but feel I must. You actually believe that is a true story right?

You seriously believe that it is an accurate account of a true story is that correct?
You realise that the story you cited actually states outright that it is 'one version of the story'? So you have a 66 year old horror tale, one without any way that you could validate it's claims - but you believe it is non-fiction?

Can't say 100% but that article is not the first I've heard of it and it is well-documented and has been researched by multiple people. It fits with the patterns of many other reports. What are the chance that in every case multiple people are flat out wrong or lying. At some point it becomes more reasonable to believe something not understood by conventional science is occurring.

 

[Bunyip]

Can't say 100% but that article is not the first I've heard of it and it is well-documented and has been researched by multiple people. It fits with the patterns of many other reports. What are the chance that in every case multiple people are flat out wrong or lying.

Good question. The chances that they are either flat out lying, or wrong compared to the probability that they saw an actual demon is pretty close to certainty.

At some point it becomes more reasonable to believe something not understood by conventional science is occurring.

That point being an account you found in a 66 year old horror story published by a well known fiction writer apparently. For me that point would be rather further away than an old horror story. You think that a 66 year old horror story, constitutes evidence that effectively refutes modern neuroscience's understanding of demonic possesion?

 

[fantome profane]

I don't get it. Are you saying all the sober adults in the cases must be 'mentally ill'?

It does not need to be actual "mental illness". We need to understand that even healthy, reasonable, adult minds are subject to delusions and hallucinations. We are just barely beginning to understand human neurology, but what we are starting to learn tells us that we cannot depend on our own senses. And yes even groups of people, healthy people, can suffer from shared delusions. Especially when properly primed and encouraged. It is so amazingly easy to deceive ourselves. I place absolutely no trust in personal testimony, even from groups of sober adults, it has been proven unreliable over and over again.

 

[George-ananda]

Good question. The chances that they are either flat out lying, or wrong compared to the probability that they saw an actual demon is pretty close to certainty.

Here we disagree (what a shock). By now after all the different types of paranormal phenomena we've discussed the chance that sober witnesses are always misperceiving strikes me as approaching zero; especially when we see patterns to these cases and these things are part and parcel of other (eastern) wisdom traditions.

BTW, they didn't actually say they saw a demon but that they saw paranormal activity.

That point being an account you found in a 66 year old horror story published by a well known fiction writer apparently. For me that point would be rather further away than an old horror story. You think that a 66 year old horror story, constitutes evidence that effectively refutes modern neuroscience's understanding of demonic possesion?

Again it is the full body of evidence that is convincing. One event can be explained away as a fluke. Neuroscience doesn't even understand normal waking consciousness yet.

 

[George-ananda]

It does not need to be actual "mental illness". We need to understand that even healthy, reasonable, adult minds are subject to delusions and hallucinations. We are just barely beginning to understand human neurology, but what we are starting to learn tells us that we cannot depend on our own senses. And yes even groups of people, healthy people, can suffer from shared delusions. Especially when properly primed and encouraged. It is so amazingly easy to deceive ourselves. I place absolutely no trust in personal testimony, even from groups of sober adults, it has been proven unreliable over and over again.

Of course I am aware that no testimony should be taken as fact.

The post of mine you replied to is taken out of context. It was in response to Bunyip's post #93.

 

[fantome profane]

Of course I am aware that no testimony should be taken as fact.

The post of mine you replied to is taken out of context. It was in response to Bunyip's post #93.

I am not interested in your complaints about me quoting your posts to other people, I don't care who you are responding to. If I have a point to make, I will make it. That is the way this board operates. I did not quote you out of context. The context of your post is right there for anyone to see, you have ample opportunity to explain anything you think is out of context. Anyone reading my response can easily link back to see what and who you were responding to.

Please feel free to review the rules of this board and see if there is any rule against responding to a post that itself a response to a different poster. I don't believe there is any such rule against such thing, but if there is please report me to the mods. Not only do I not think there is any official rule against such a thing, there is no unofficial rule or custom that I have observed here. In fact it is the custom for people to respond to any post in a open thread that they wish to.

Frankly your complaints about being taken out of context are transparent attempts at avoidance.

And I just want you to know that I do not care in the slightest who that post was in response to.

 

[George-ananda]

I am not interested in your complaints about me quoting your posts to other people, I don't care who you are responding to. If I have a point to make, I will make it. That is the way this board operates. I did not quote you out of context. The context of your post is right there for anyone to see, you have ample opportunity to explain anything you think is out of context. Anyone reading my response can easily link back to see what and who you were responding to.

Please feel free to review the rules of this board and see if there is any rule against responding to a post that itself a response to a different poster. I don't believe there is any such rule against such thing, but if there is please report me to the mods. Not only do I not think there is any official rule against such a thing, there is no unofficial rule or custom that I have observed here. In fact it is the custom for people to respond to any post in a open thread that they wish to.

Frankly your complaints about being taken out of context are transparent attempts at avoidance.

And I just want you to know that I do not care in the slightest who that post was in response to.

You do understand the concept of taking quotes out of context? It's fine to respond to other's posts to others but sometimes the context is missed and that needs to be pointed out. You were implying that I thought people that misperceive are mentally ill.

It does not need to be actual "mental illness". We need to understand that even healthy, reasonable, adult minds are subject to delusions and hallucinations.

 

[fantome profane]

You do understand the concept of taking quotes out of context? It's fine to respond to other's posts to others but sometimes the context is missed and that needs to be pointed out. You were implying that I thought people that misperceive are mentally ill.

I did not intend to make any such implication.

Notice what I am doing here in this post, I think you have misunderstood me, so I am attempting to explain. I am not just going to complain about it, I am going to try to explain.

I did not intend to imply that you thought people who misperceive were mentally ill. It was my intention to explain that even normal mental conditions can be sufficient explanation for the phenomenon that you mentioned in that post, (i.e. "paranormal energies and events witnessed by multiple [sober] adults). You were discussing mental illness, I recognize that context. But I was pointing out that we need to consider way that even healthy human minds work. You were asking him a question concerning those multiple adult attestations. I was giving a response to that question.

 

[Bunyip]

Here we disagree (what a shock). By now after all the different types of paranormal phenomena we've discussed the chance that sober witnesses are always misperceiving strikes me as approaching zero; especially when we see patterns to these cases and these things are part and parcel of other (eastern) wisdom traditions.

No, that won't wash. That there is a perfecttly rational explanation is far more probable.

BTW, they didn't actually say they saw a demon but that they saw paranormal activity.




Again it is the full body of evidence that is convincing. One event can be explained away as a fluke. Neuroscience doesn't even understand normal waking consciousness yet.

So what? Neither do you.

 

[Muffled]

Interesting how you didn't express that belief of the opinions of the people who happened to agree with you. Have you heard of confirmation bias?

I haven't heard of it but I am guessing it means I find those who agree with me confirming. I haven't had anyone agree with me so I think you are jousting with windmills.

 

[Muffled]

I believe that demons are real despite the modern scientific people who think it is all ridiculous old superstition. The universe is vastly more complex than these 'scientific' types envision. I have read enough strong cases for demonic entities that I don't seriously doubt their existence. One way to differentiate demonic activity from mental illness is the existence of violent angry paranormal activity. I believe demons are entities existing on the lower astral planes in a state of anger and hate. Given a chance they will psychically muck with vulnerable humans to express their anger and hatred. Fortunately, in the end, all demons will fail and give up their anger and hatred.

I believe one of the problems with books is that there is no way to question those providing their stories and the author may not be interested in doing so either but I suppose it is better than nothing if one doesn't have experience or believe in the Bible.

 

[Muffled]

Your confirmation bias is showing. Opinions are of no value when they contradict the obvious. You have no methodology to compare so your attempts to measure and find wanting the nonexistent is rather a waste of time.

Hmmm ... you're right as rain.

Clearly? Hardly!

You're right ... it's credulous superstition or too many late nights watching "Ghost Busters."

That's reasonable.

Talk about confirmation bias, I believe you prefer unsubstantiated opinion over experience and the Word of God. I believe the obvious is that you are oblivious.

 

[FreeTHinker4eva]

I'm going to presume by "spirit" you mean otherworldly or intangible. Does this mean a human or other creature of this-world cannot be a demon? Could you give an example of what you'd consider to be a demon?

Although this is probably beyond the scope of the thread, what makes something "evil?"

Some 'thing' in and of itself cannot BE evil as it is inanimate. We can perceive it as 'evil' through our own thought processes; through the power we give over to those thoughts.

Human Intent followed through with action. It is written that Jesus said; intention is everything. .."You will know them by the fruits of their spirit..."