Demons, is there any evidence they even exist?

[Dan From Smithville]

I COULDN'T BE BOTHERED TO LOOK IT UP, I SAID, when the answer is just a question away. If no response, then I don't care.

Would it be fair to say that you believe in the existence of demons, but you cannot demonstrate a material basis for that belief?

 

[DNB]

I don't have an atheistic perspective, so I can't speak to it.

Is there going to be any attempt at all by you to demonstrate what you claim? Ever?

...beginning to lose interest.

 

[DNB]

You need to relax. Maybe it's demons?

In the very question I responded to you made the statement "stem from the fact that you're an atheist", so you claim to know he is an atheist and not know it. Much like you claim demons are substantial and also immaterial. I'm not sure what you know.

I SAID, DOES IT STEM FROM THE FACT....

MAMA FLIPPIN' MIA!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I SAID, DOES IT STEM FROM THE FACT....

MAMA FLIPPIN' MIA!

I've lost interest.

 

[DNB]

I've lost interest.

Thank you!

 

[Daemon Sophic]

From an atheistic perspective (yours), how is evil derived from stardust and protoplasm? From your worldview, on what grounds would you even deem something as evil, if it's all subjective at this point - some are racists and proud of it, some enjoy rape, porno, or pedophilia.
If you think that universally, all men agree that murder is wrong, how come when a dog kills a cat or squirrel it is not considered as a wicked act?
You're overlooking, or taking for granted the fact that humans have been endowed with a conscience and sense of morality (created in the image of God).
Your demand for justice indicts your perspective that there is no God, spirituality or absolute morals and truths.

I don't have an atheistic perspective, so I can't speak to it.

Is there going to be any attempt at all by you to demonstrate what you claim? Ever?

I can demonstrate that DNB is wrong about believing that the concept of wrong and right (i.e. evil and good) are derived from divine gifts to humanity alone, along with our free will. If this were true, then other animals would feel no emotions or even conceive of the idea that a wrong was being committed, even if it happened right in front of their faces. They would be implacably passive about depravity and injustice when they saw it. And further, they would never show compassion, empathy, or altruism.

And if you haven’t seen videos of animals saving unrelated other animals (and/or humans) often at risk to their own lives, then you should check out this site called YouTube.

They do all this (in the minds of many religious humans) without “souls”, or “free will”, or whatever.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't have an atheistic perspective, so I can't speak to it.

Is there going to be any attempt at all by you to demonstrate what you claim? Ever?

You don't have an atheistic perspective? ???

 

[YoursTrue]

I can demonstrate that DNB is wrong about believing that the concept of wrong and right (i.e. evil and good) are derived from divine gifts to humanity alone, along with our free will. If this were true, then other animals would feel no emotions or even conceive of the idea that a wrong was being committed, even if it happened right in front of their faces. They would be implacably passive about depravity and injustice when they saw it. And further, they would never show compassion, empathy, or altruism.

And if you haven’t seen videos of animals saving unrelated other animals (and/or humans) often at risk to their own lives, then you should check out this site called YouTube.

They do all this (in the minds of many religious humans) without “souls”, or “free will”, or whatever.

You know that from tests? What if the basis for the theory is wrong?

 

[DNB]

I can demonstrate that DNB is wrong about believing that the concept of wrong and right (i.e. evil and good) are derived from divine gifts to humanity alone, along with our free will. If this were true, then other animals would feel no emotions or even conceive of the idea that a wrong was being committed, even if it happened right in front of their faces. They would be implacably passive about depravity and injustice when they saw it. And further, they would never show compassion, empathy, or altruism.

And if you haven’t seen videos of animals saving unrelated other animals (and/or humans) often at risk to their own lives, then you should check out this site called YouTube.

They do all this (in the minds of many religious humans) without “souls”, or “free will”, or whatever.

Wow, that's amazing, animals are truly righteous creatures - demanding justice and equity simply for the principle of it, and no selfish or preferential motivation whatsoever.
This video really settles the issue: man came from monkeys,...or, at least, grape eating Capuchin monkeys, locked in cages under a controlled and experimental environment.
What a revelation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thank you!

No, no. Thank you. I'm pretty sure you made my point for me.

A progression of a demonstration of normal human anger through a progression of posts with normal text to posts of mixed normal text and all caps to posts of all caps.

People do not apparently need to be possessed by demons to do things that can be seen as wicked and what some might claim is demons or demon possession out of a demand to meet pre-existing views of belief and not fact. Clearly, who could tell the difference and since we have evidence of human wickedness, the most reliable cause for the observed outburst is human.

Unless, you--perhaps someone else?--were using that to show the action of demons?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The charlatans are exposed but the legitimate psychics are not exposed, they are confirmed.

Myeah most charlatans are always said to be "legitimate" until they are exposed as charlatans.

Show me a single "legit psychic" who actually passed proper testing. Surely you are able to do that, since you claim that they are "confirmed", which would indicate passing proper testing.

So, have they collected their million dollar prize yet from the James Randy foundation?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I asked you a simple question....

No, you were replying to @Dan From Smithville , who asked you a question. And you responded with a question.

...does your disbelief in demons stem from the fact that you're an atheist, and therefore do not accept the existence of any entity within the spiritual realms?

My disbelief in demons stems from the same source all of my disbeliefs stem from, including my atheism: a lack of evidence to justify belief in it.

Or, you believe in God, but not angels or demons?

I disbelieve all those things, because all those things lack any evidence to justify belief.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Has instances of demon possession been documented?

Claims of such surely have been.

You are aware of the term, so therefore you have heard of such circumstances - are these simply fictional occurrences, or is there a contingency of reliable testimonies claiming the veracity of such a phenomenon?

I don't really care about "testimony". Testimony isn't reliable. Testimony is the primary reason so many innocent people end up in jail anyway.
It's independently verifiable evidence which eventually gives them their freedom back (if such occurs..).

Independently verifiable evidence is what is reliable.
You speak of "reliable testimony". What do you mean by that? What makes it "reliable"?

If the latter, that would be evidence. All psychosis known to man are not all derived from chemical imbalances or organic ruptures or deformities - some of the symptoms allude to wicked and perverse speech. This is not a misfiring or short-circuiting issue, if so, that would merely result in incoherent or irrational speech and functionality.

Why would that be the case?
That's quite a claim. It will require evidence.

Not to mention an argument from ignorance...

"i don't know / can't explain, therefor demons"

Racism, for example, is evil, it's not the same thing as dementia which merely causes one to become disoriented, forgetful or inept.

The two (racism & dementia) don't even belong in the same sentence.

Hearing voices that coerce one to murder others, is not due to a chemical imbalance.

And yet, the voices -and misapprehension of reality in general- go away with medication that reintroduces chemical balance. As all double blind studies clearly show.

Where's the double blind studies of treating such with exorcisms or whatever instead?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

From an atheistic perspective (yours), how is evil derived from stardust and protoplasm? From your worldview, on what grounds would you even deem something as evil, if it's all subjective at this point - some are racists and proud of it, some enjoy rape, porno, or pedophilia.
If you think that universally, all men agree that murder is wrong, how come when a dog kills a cat or squirrel it is not considered as a wicked act?
You're overlooking, or taking for granted the fact that humans have been endowed with a conscience and sense of morality (created in the image of God).
Your demand for justice indicts your perspective that there is no God, spirituality or absolute morals and truths.

Morals clearly aren't absolute at all, since they keep evolving over time.
We used to think slavery was okay. Then we changed our minds.
We used to let racism rage so much so we didn't even have a word for it. Then we changed our minds (and still in the process of doing so).
And so on.

It is us humans who are at the steering wheel of this moral development.
These modern morals and humanistic values, are not in line with ancient religions that claim "absolute morality".
What those ancient religions do line up with though, are the general morals of the sub-culture at the time where the religions originated.

This is why the bible is fine with slavery and regulates it. It is why it says that gays having sex should be put to death.
It is why it is misogynist.

These are things that reflect the morals of the culture it came from.

We are social creatures. Like in all social species, it necessarily goes hand in hand with certain "rules of conduct". This is important for the group to survive and prosper. The strictest implementation there is "there is no *i* in team". Living socially is always a balance of "me vs the group", and more collectively your group vs other groups.
This inevitably leads to conflicts of interest. So as a group, you need a way to resolve such without ending up in anarchy and dissolvement of social structures. Together you are strong, alone you die.

I don't get why people are surprised that there is such a thing as morality. Those are just the abstraction of the "rules of conduct" that a human has within his social group.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Wow, that's amazing, animals are truly righteous creatures - demanding justice and equity simply for the principle of it, and no selfish or preferential motivation whatsoever.
This video really settles the issue: man came from monkeys,...or, at least, grape eating Capuchin monkeys, locked in cages under a controlled and experimental environment.
What a revelation.

You’re unredeeming sarcasm does nothing to defend your now falsified theory.
Try again.

You're overlooking, or taking for granted the fact that humans have been endowed with a conscience and sense of morality (created in the image of God).
…

So. Per you. Humans alone have been granted the divine power of “conscience and sense of morality”.
Yet this has been and continues to be repeatedly falsified.

So.… since your theory has been patently falsified let us alter it. There are multiple options:
- Humanity was not created in the image of God.
- If God started it all, then clearly God created all animals with the same sense of consciousness and morality, yet this truth was somehow left out of the book called ”The Bible“ (translation = “the book” ) and probably other human writings on theology.
- There is no god.
- if this God character did create the universe and all the creatures in it (all of whom have morality), then it didn’t happen the way you think it happened.
- ….etc….etc…..there are many more that I’m sure we could all come up with, with just a little brainstorming.


You see @DNB , the theory must conform to reality.….Not the other way around.
So if your original theory is shown by the facts to be false, (as yours was) then you have to swallow you ego and pride, admit it was wrong, and try to create a new hypothesis which encompasses what we all actually see. That’s how science works.

 

[Trailblazer]

Myeah most charlatans are always said to be "legitimate" until they are exposed as charlatans.

To claim that all psychics are charlatans just because some psychics are charlatans is the fallacy of hasty generalization.

Show me a single "legit psychic" who actually passed proper testing. Surely you are able to do that, since you claim that they are "confirmed", which would indicate passing proper testing.

If I told you about one would you believe me?

 

[DNB]

No, no. Thank you. I'm pretty sure you made my point for me.

A progression of a demonstration of normal human anger through a progression of posts with normal text to posts of mixed normal text and all caps to posts of all caps.

People do not apparently need to be possessed by demons to do things that can be seen as wicked and what some might claim is demons or demon possession out of a demand to meet pre-existing views of belief and not fact. Clearly, who could tell the difference and since we have evidence of human wickedness, the most reliable cause for the observed outburst is human.

Unless, you--perhaps someone else?--were using that to show the action of demons?

Hi DFS, wickedness and depravity defy human intellect. Therefore, to be degenerate and unsound is not human.
You have yet to explain the prevalent, and to a large degree, predominant, irrationality that is evidenced in all humans.

 

[DNB]

No, you were replying to @Dan From Smithville , who asked you a question. And you responded with a question.


My disbelief in demons stems from the same source all of my disbeliefs stem from, including my atheism: a lack of evidence to justify belief in it.


I disbelieve all those things, because all those things lack any evidence to justify belief.

Man is a spiritual being - an axiomatic fact. Thus, there exists a spiritual realm.

 

[DNB]

Claims of such surely have been.



I don't really care about "testimony". Testimony isn't reliable. Testimony is the primary reason so many innocent people end up in jail anyway.
It's independently verifiable evidence which eventually gives them their freedom back (if such occurs..).

Independently verifiable evidence is what is reliable.
You speak of "reliable testimony". What do you mean by that? What makes it "reliable"?



Why would that be the case?
That's quite a claim. It will require evidence.

Not to mention an argument from ignorance...

"i don't know / can't explain, therefor demons"



The two (racism & dementia) don't even belong in the same sentence.


And yet, the voices -and misapprehension of reality in general- go away with medication that reintroduces chemical balance. As all double blind studies clearly show.

Where's the double blind studies of treating such with exorcisms or whatever instead?

How can a person conjure up such wickedness simply due to a cross-wiring in his brain? Like I said, malfunctions in the human psyche result in aberrant, radical and unpredictable behaviour - not calculated mischief and depravity - deriving pleasure from evil.

 

[DNB]

Morals clearly aren't absolute at all, since they keep evolving over time.
We used to think slavery was okay. Then we changed our minds.
We used to let racism rage so much so we didn't even have a word for it. Then we changed our minds (and still in the process of doing so).
And so on.

It is us humans who are at the steering wheel of this moral development.
These modern morals and humanistic values, are not in line with ancient religions that claim "absolute morality".
What those ancient religions do line up with though, are the general morals of the sub-culture at the time where the religions originated.

This is why the bible is fine with slavery and regulates it. It is why it says that gays having sex should be put to death.
It is why it is misogynist.

These are things that reflect the morals of the culture it came from.

We are social creatures. Like in all social species, it necessarily goes hand in hand with certain "rules of conduct". This is important for the group to survive and prosper. The strictest implementation there is "there is no *i* in team". Living socially is always a balance of "me vs the group", and more collectively your group vs other groups.
This inevitably leads to conflicts of interest. So as a group, you need a way to resolve such without ending up in anarchy and dissolvement of social structures. Together you are strong, alone you die.

I don't get why people are surprised that there is such a thing as morality. Those are just the abstraction of the "rules of conduct" that a human has within his social group.

You're wrong - you did not address such acts of altruism where the compassionate or charitable person does so with no vested interest of his own. Morality does not always equate to pragmatism, especially when one ,make a sacrifice for another.
Why do only humans have a moral conduct? Like I said, animals kill or harm often indiscriminately, and never has one lost any sleep over it. And, yet, their social structure does not dissolve into chaos.
Again, you're taking man's innate spiritual endowment for granted, and trying to ascribe a mere intellectual or practical derivation for it.