Demons, is there any evidence they even exist?

[shunyadragon]

Yes they are and you haven't given any proof it isn't. Just because you say it is a story, don't make it a story. There is enough evidence and enough external support to validate it.

Now, I know you want it to be a story, but history has enough evidence that it is true unless you want to say that Mohammad never existed too.



I think it does unless you want to rephrase it.

The rules of logic require you to present the evidence to support your claim. There is absolutely no records of Jesus during his life or one generation after his death. Where is the first person witness evidence?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Peter, John Mark, John, James... wait a minute... I already answered that.

Incidentally, they are with Jesus right now



your statement doesn't validate your position or invalidates mine



Which I always will support your position to have unbelief. It is your right!!!



No, you don't accept the history of the resurrection. Big difference! you could read the accounts if you want.




LOL... produce evidence of the body of the empty tomb?



Which I am fine for you to have your belief. I'm not sure why my position irritates you so much (maybe just my interpretation).

You just said a whole lot of nothing here, mixed with some "nuh uhs."

 

[Kenny]

The rules of logic require you to present the evidence to support your claim. There is absolutely no records of Jesus during his life or one generation after his death. Where is the first person witness evidence?

I think I answered this question. Peter, John, John Marc, James to name a few. These are records as written.

 

[Kenny]

You just said a whole lot of nothing here, mixed with some "nuh uhs."

Only in the recesses of your imagination. maybe you should ask God for revelation understanding?

 

[shunyadragon]

I think I answered this question. Peter, John, John Marc, James to name a few. These are records as written.

We have no evidence of what was written during the life of Jesus and two generations after his death.

 

[Kenny]

We have no evidence of what was written during the life of Jesus and two generations after his death.

That isn't the history that I find. You must broaden your research.

 

[DNB]

I’d like to ask you a question concerning the above excerpt….
My intent is not to put you on the spot; in fact you don’t have to answer….


(You are speaking about Christendom’s theologians, right?)
What do you think about these theologians who discuss this hypocrisy of love, but yet are willing to support their respective governments when there is a conflict?

In World Wars I & II, really during most all of Christendom’s existence, have not Catholic theologians killed other Catholic theologians, simply due to political differences & geography? After the Reformation of the 1500’s, Protestants have done the same unfortunately. Letting the sheep slaughter & get slaughtered.

Another question: shouldn’t they instead have proven loyal to their Prince of Peace? It’s not for nothing that Jesus said his followers must be “not of” / “no part” of this world.

If they haven’t heeded the statement made at James 4:4, Jesus’ words at Matthew 7:21-23 might just be applicable.


No reply is necessary. Just to get you thinking about that aspect.

Best wishes, my cousin.

My point was about the profundity of morality and rectitude. These principles were accused of being superstitions, my point was that there are extremely competent theologians ands philosophers that will explain the virtues of wholesome behaviour, and the depravity and consequence of selfish and hedonistic behaviour.
I cannot speak about charlatans, hypocrites, or the immature in Christ.

 

[DNB]

I thought you wuz talking about some
spiritual endowment or ontolpgical whuzzit.

Whatever is the case, again your post has nothing to do
with responding to mine.

oh, but it does, as always.

 

[DNB]

You think it's wise to believe in a fictitious event?

There was no flood. If you ever compretended that, i expect
your world would fall apart.

Beliefs or " philosophy" relying on fiction are empty shells.
A travesty.

But you think its sooo wise. Pathetic.

Well, you can ascribe kidnapping, pedophilia, rape, cold-blooded murder, spousal abuse, etc.. to a neurological disorder as you appear to be so inclined. And, thus, evade the true issue (man's heart), and increase the threat.
I attribute such calculated and continuous behaviour as coming from a spiritually depraved character. There are evil forces on high, influencing man in every manner possible. Man is not exonerated because of this, but is held accountable for his obedience and attraction to such sinister voices.

 

[DNB]

Claims piling on on more claims.

Open your eyes.

 

[DNB]

And again with the argument from ignorance.


This is just not true.
Yes, there are disorders that cause such. There are also disorders that don't.

What's the disorder of a sadist called?

 

[DNB]

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.

...I'd like to reply, but I don't believe that you understood anything that was said?
I'm not talking about inner species conduct.
I wasn't talking about practical behaviour also.
and so on....

 

[DNB]

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

...even if true, that would also require in depth explanation from a secularists point of view.
You're not getting the point, nor do you understand humanity, ...or the animal kingdom.

 

[DNB]

I don't engage in "reckless behaviour." Do you?

Are you saying the other animals are better than us?

Every human doers, whether it be imminent danger, or attrition due to continuous careless behaviour.

For the sake of this argument, animals do appear to be more intellectually sound rather than humans - despite humans having a much greater intellectual capacity.
Spiritual forces influence and affect man's logical capabilities.

 

[Audie]

oh, but it does, as always.

In your fantasy only

 

[Audie]

Well, you can ascribe kidnapping, pedophilia, rape, cold-blooded murder, spousal abuse, etc.. to a neurological disorder as you appear to be so inclined. And, thus, evade the true issue (man's heart), and increase the threat.
I attribute such calculated and continuous behaviour as coming from a spiritually depraved character. There are evil forces on high, influencing man in every manner possible. Man is not exonerated because of this, but is held accountable for his obedience and attraction to such sinister voices.

Hard to converse with someone who just says things.
Spare further response, I wont read it.

 

[DNB]

Hard to converse with someone who just says things.
Spare further response, I wont read it.

There, I gave you something to look at instead.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nope I said ‘Socrates declared that…’, meaning that he could speak and didn’t use sign language.

That would imply that we have first hand accounts of Socrates, which we don't.
What we have are Plato (and a few others) making claims about what Socrates did and didn't say.

Why would his peers make certain things up.

People make things up all the time. Other times, they are simply honestly mistaken and / or misremember.
I'm not saying this one was made up. In fact, I'm not even aware of who said what concerning this subject.
I'm just pointing out that we don't have first hand accounts of Socrates, so any statement beginning with "Socrates declared that...." is misleading at best.
Everything we have about Socrates is, at best, second hand.

It would render everything about Socrates as unreliable and he would have been lost in history.

No, it wouldn't.

If tomorrow we find some ancient Roman manuscript contemporary to Ceasar written by, say, one of his advisors, in which the dude describes the siege against Vercingetorix... and suppose he goes on to say that Ceasar won this battle in part thanks to making his legion invulnerable through magic and let's suppose that this dude says that Julius himself told him that...

We wouldn't believe such a claim, obviously.
But does the addition of that claim mean that the entire account becomes unreliable and that therefor no such siege ever took place?
Off course not...

Each claim stands and falls on its own merits.

You even stated “he's just a normal human who had a few smart things to say.” Surely now you can see how silly and desperate you get when you try to debate.

I stand by everything I said. Your lack of ability to reason logically and rationally, is not a valid point against anything I said.

You are cynical that people do not hear from the spirit realms obviously having no personal experience, it doesn’t mean that others don’t hear spirits.

Not accepting extra ordinary claims because they have no independently verifiable evidence is not "cynical". Instead, it's "rational".

Atheists believe in a lot of irrational nonsense such as mammals, through evolution, can change into different species even though it hasn’t been seen or proven beyond doubt.

1. Google "observed speciation".

2. More theists accept evolution then there are atheists in the world. Contrary to certain fundamentalist's beliefs, biology has nothing to do with atheism and everything with the facts of reality. Most theists don't feel the need to ignore / reject the facts of reality. Only fundamentalist literalists feel that need it seems. Which is logical, since ignoring the facts / evidence of reality is pretty much the only way for them to uphold their dogmatic superstitious beliefs in myths and magic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hmmm... no go. You haven 't proven it is mere anecdotes. We have history and historical documents as well as an empty tomb.

Your "history" and "documents", aka the bible = anecdotes

No double standard... do you have any written material from the aliens?

No. All that alien believers have are claims by alien believers.
Just like in christianity... all that christians have are claims by christian believers.

apples and oranges

Not at all.

Both only have claims by believers (anecdotes / testimony)
Neither has independently verifiable evidence.

Hmmm... Socrates didn't write one statement.

I didn't claim he did?

It seems like you have a double standard.

Ok, make your case. What's my double standard?

Just a reply to your statement. We have historical record.

What you have are a bunch of claims.
You have no historical record.

Julius Ceasar has a historical record.
Octavianus Ceasar has a historical record.
Marcus Aurelius has a historical record.
Napoleon has a historical record.

Jesus, and Socrates, do not.
They only have people making claims.

And as I said, I'm willing to tentatively accept both were real people who had enough impact on others so that their names resonated through history.
But as it is the ideas primarily that are the important bit here, I also don't really care if they were or weren't real people.

Whether Socrates actually existed or not, the stuff ascribed to his potentially fictional self, which is the reason why we even know about the name Socrates, is still worth it.

This is why I said that I don't really care either. It matters little.
But I'm willing to accept tentatively that they were real people. I think that's the most probable.
But just normal people. I need quite a bit more to justify believing extra-ordinary claims like them being "more" then mere normal people...
Mere claims and anecdotes is not going to cut it in that case.

And his disciples not only shared what he said but reached the known world of their time in three years.

So?
That's only, at best, evidence of their resolve - not that their beliefs were accurate.

Truth still holds - and in our book, Jesus believes in you even if you don't believe in Him! (At least within the context of my signature) We believe you have design, purpose and a God destiny.

I don't care what you "believe".

I only care about what you can support and / or rationally justify.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No one knows how evolution works, that’s just it.

No. Biologists, and people with a proper high school level biology education, know how evolution works.

You being willfully ignorant about how the world works, doesn't mean that the rest of us humans do that too.

Humans are trying to make themselves extinct through increasing transhumanism and increasing homosexuality

/facepalm

Typical fundy. Sneak in some gay-bashing at any and every opportunity. Even when it isn't the subject at all.