Demons, is there any evidence they even exist?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Have you not read any of the posts, Audie?
Billions of worshippers, debates, dialogues, literature, degrees, religious shrines & altars & temples, liturgies, prayers, and conduct, all in the name of religion and spirituality, all throughout the world, and the centuries. And, for the life of you, you cannot deduce that man is intrinsically a spiritual creature?
...and you call yourself a scientist???

A far easier and more justified conclusion is that humans are intrinsically superstitious.

 

[JDMS]

Ella, you appear to be a very reasonable person to me, and I believe that if we were friends in real life, I'd feel comfortable telling you about my psychic medium abilities and demonstrating them to you. In fact, reading your post confirms my decision to include skeptics in my paranormal investigations, and if one or more of them is willing to participate in a reading, then I will privately share a message with them if the opportunity arises. Over the years, I have given readings to many people who don't believe in the paranormal, and none of them remained skeptical after I revealed personal information that was only known between them and their deceased loved one. That includes my first therapist (read about it here), as well as a couple of other therapists and a psychologist. In addition to what I've written in my previous post here, I've also shared how I knew when a friend tragically died (read about it here), when my relatives died (read about it here), and when I've had extraordinary experiences that I couldn't confirm with other present witnesses or document with my ghost-hunting equipment, as I explained in an older post here. In fact, I've spent over a year posting on this forum about my personal experiences as a psychic medium (such as this post here) and a seasoned paranormal investigator (such as this post here) and commenting in many other threads as well.

I, too, wish I could personally come with you during an investigation or what be. I consider myself a skeptic but have always wanted to have a down-to-earth believer show me what they see. I can't exactly trust things I see on film or people I don't personally know, and mediums I do know have not felt comfortable sharing their practice with me, so I've never had the chance to put my doubts to the test with an experienced medium such as yourself. I hope you continue to provide the skeptics in your life a chance to learn, because many of us want to, but simply don't have the opportunity to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes... but we don't have evidence of mythical aliens. Our records show that we have eyewitnesses of resurrection.

There are more records of "eyewitnesses" of aliens then there are of an alleged resurrection of a jewish carpenter 2000 years ago.
And the people who claim to have witnessed those aliens are even still alive today. So you can go and meet them and actually talk to them.

We don't have to rely on millennia old copies of copies of translations of copies of translations of translations of copies of copies.... etc.

But somehow, you find the latter more believable then the first.
I think that's odd.

 

[Kenny]

There are more records of "eyewitnesses" of aliens then there are of an alleged resurrection of a jewish carpenter 2000 years ago.
And the people who claim to have witnessed those aliens are even still alive today. So you can go and meet them and actually talk to them.

We don't have to rely on millennia old copies of copies of translations of copies of translations of translations of copies of copies.... etc.

But somehow, you find the latter more believable then the first.
I think that's odd.

Then feel free to believe there are aliens.

Do you believe that Socrates existed and that his words are true?

There are copies that are thousands of years old and copies that are only 500 years old... negligible differences.

I find it comforting.

 

[Audie]

And with that question, you have literally acknowledge that belief in demons has nothing to do with evidence and everything with a priori religious beliefs.

In other words: in order to "justify" a belief in demons, one has to follow a religion that requires belief in demons.
So having to believe it, is seen as the justification to believe it.


It doesn't get any more circular then that....

But have you seen anything sillier?

 

[Audie]

I'm sure all kinds of people claim to have witnessed all kinds of things.

Claims require evidence though.

There are eyewitness accounts of mermaids.

A whole group of people signed sworn- before- God,
statements that they saw Josph Smiths gold books of Mormon.

 

[Apostle John]

There are more records of "eyewitnesses" of aliens then there are of an alleged resurrection of a jewish carpenter 2000 years ago.
And the people who claim to have witnessed those aliens are even still alive today. So you can go and meet them and actually talk to them.

But somehow, you find the latter more believable then the first.
I think that's odd.

The only rational explanation for those records of ‘alien’ sightings is that they are spirit induced phenomena. That is they are hallucinations induced by the spirit realms, as all hallucinations are. This phenomenon is evidence of the existence of spirit realms and so your former substantiates the latter.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Do you think that a conclusion of demons without evidence should be the only conclusion considered even if the result is someone failing to receive needed mental healthcare just so that others can be comfortable in their beliefs?

I don't.

Well, nor do I.
Mental health is a complex issue, and is not necessarily about demons.

 

[Audie]

I did. This is behavior that is beneficial for the group and / or sub-group.
The group ultimately is more important then the individual.
Because together social species are strong and alone, they die.




All social species have social structures / rules of conduct.
This is not unique to humans at all.




So do humans when it comes to members of other species / groups. Go take a look what happens to a wolf if he starts killing or harming members of his own pack indiscriminately...



But what you said simply isn't true.
There is no social species on earth where members of the group get away with "killing or harming" other members of said group indiscriminately.
Even if it happens high up the hierarchy, sooner or later, the "lower end" of the group will engage in some sort of revolt / mutiny.

In a social setting, there is only so much that one will be able to get away with within that social structure concerning asocial behavior.
This goes for all social species.


I don't subscribe to your a priori, unsubstantiated, undemonstrable, religious beliefs concerning the human condition.

We've seen sorry attempts to prove God but
that one has to be one of the shabbiest

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then feel free to believe there are aliens.

I'm not the one who believes extra-ordinary things on the basis of mere anecdotes / "testimony".
It's YOU who thinks mere anecdotes / testimony provide enough justification for belief.

I was merely pointing out your hypocrisy and / or double standard...
You find the (alleged) anecdotes / testimony of a handful of people who've been dead for 2000 years enough to believe what they claimed...
But the MANY MANY MORE people still alive today who testify to having seen / been visited / been abducted by aliens, that you don't believe. That you don't find sufficient.

Clearly something doesn't add up here.
Clearly some type of double standard is in play.

Do you believe that Socrates existed and that his words are true?

I don't really care. I'm willing to tentatively accept Socrates to having been real. After all, there isn't anything extra-ordinary claimed about the dude. The story of Socrates doesn't attribute any magical powers or whatever to the man.

Instead, he's just a normal human who had a few smart things to say.
Nothing special.

Now, if the claims would for example include that he was a survivor of Atlantis, had telepathic powers and could work miracles... that I would not believe.
Such claims require a lot more justification to be believable.

There are copies that are thousands of years old and copies that are only 500 years old... negligible differences.

I find it comforting.

"comforting" is not really a solid justification to accept things as true.

 

[Audie]

I, too, wish I could personally come with you during an investigation or what be. I consider myself a skeptic but have always wanted to have a down-to-earth believer show me what they see. I can't exactly trust things I see on film or people I don't personally know, and mediums I do know have not felt comfortable sharing their practice with me, so I've never had the chance to put my doubts to the test with an experienced medium such as yourself. I hope you continue to provide the skeptics in your life a chance to learn, because many of us want to, but simply don't have the opportunity to.

Someone told me while I was at uni in USA, about being askedc
to witness and photograph some bigfoot evidence.

It was all pretty silly stuff but the one I remember
was about footprints.

Damp leaf litter in a cow pasture trampled by cows.

While the Bigfoot hunter was excavating a Bigfoot track,
my friend started putting all his we8ght onto one foot ,
making a deep footprint.


" Oh look, here's a GOOD ONE! " says the hunterm on seeing it.

He then dug it out to a size 25 or so, put a white string
In a foot outline around it.

Bigfoot evidence, the equal of any you will see.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The only rational explanation for those records of ‘alien’ sightings is that they are spirit induced phenomena. That is they are hallucinations induced by the spirit realms, as all hallucinations are. This phenomenon is evidence of the existence of spirit realms and so your former substantiates the latter.

No. Clearly it is evidence of hallucinations induced by the toxic farts of extra-dimensional dragons.

 

[Apostle John]

I'm willing to tentatively accept Socrates to having been real. After all, there isn't anything extra-ordinary claimed about the dude. The story of Socrates doesn't attribute any magical powers or whatever to the man.

Instead, he's just a normal human who had a few smart things to say.
Nothing special.

Now, if the claims would for example include that he was a survivor of Atlantis, had telepathic powers and could work miracles... that I would not believe.
Such claims require a lot more justification to be believable.

Socrates declared he had a guiding spirit speaking to him that occasionally forewarned him that he was about to make a mistake which he paid due attention to. His peers didn’t seem to mock him for this aspect of his life or say he was unwell probably because they believed in some gods.

 

[Apostle John]

No. Clearly it is evidence of hallucinations induced by the toxic farts of extra-dimensional dragons.

Drivel doesn’t win a debate.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Socrates declared he had a guiding spirit speaking to him that occasionally forewarned him that he was about to make a mistake which he paid due attention to. His peers didn’t seem to mock him for this aspect of his life or say he was unwell probably because they believed in some gods.

First of all, Socrates declared nothing at all as everything we know about him comes from Plato.

Secondly, that isn't surprising considering how superstition was rampant in those days.

Julius Ceasar claimed to be a god and a descendant of Venus.
Doesn't make Julius Ceasar ( = the normal human) any less real.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Drivel doesn’t win a debate.

Exactly.

Funny how you can instantly recognize it when others engage in it.

 

[Apostle John]

First of all, Socrates declared nothing at all as everything we know about him comes from Plato.

Do you see how silly and desperate you get to win a debate?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you see how silly and desperate you get to win a debate?

What is silly and desperate about stating facts?

There are zero records of Socrates himself.
Everything we (think to) know about him, comes from the hand of Plato primarily, and a bit from Xenophon and a few others.

Although it would explain a few things about your rather bizarre posts at times, if you truly think that stating facts is "silly and desperate".


Talking about "silly and desperate to win debates" though.... What do you call it when somebody quotes a single irrelevant line from a post to reply to, while completely ignoring the actual main points raised in that post?

 

[Apostle John]

What is silly and desperate about stating facts?

There are zero records of Socrates himself.
Everything we (think to) know about him, comes from the hand of Plato primarily, and a bit from Xenophon and a few others.

Although it would explain a few things about your rather bizarre posts at times, if you truly think that stating facts is "silly and desperate".


Talking about "silly and desperate to win debates" though.... What do you call it when somebody quotes a single irrelevant line from a post to reply to, while completely ignoring the actual main points raised in that post?

It may well have been a fact (I didn't fact check it). You used it, however, to assert Socrates didn’t declare or say anything which to me demonstrated silliness and desperation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It may well have been a fact (I didn't fact check it).

You should fact check a bit more. It will help you in all kinds of area's.
Make sure you use appropriate sources though.

Having said that.... so when you claimed that "socrates claimed that..." you didn't know if that was factual?

You used it, however, to assert Socrates didn’t declare or say anything

Which is a correct reply to your post.
YOU said that "socrates claimed that...."

This is false. Instead, what is correct is: "PLATO claimed that socrates claimed that...."

We don't have any claims by Socrates himself.
You might consider that an irrelevant detail, but I surely don't.
There's a huge difference.

which to me demonstrated silliness and desperation.

Meanwhile, still no reply to the actual point raised in the post you originally replied to.

Let me add another example next to Julius Ceasar: George W. Bush.

He's on record as having said that God told him to invade Iraq.

I accept Bush exists.
I accept he was the president of the US in 2003
I accept he ordered the invasion of Iraq at that time.

Does that mean that I also have to accept his claim that god told him to do it?
Answer: off course not.