Demons, is there any evidence they even exist?

[Ella S.]

What's a vampiress, just a female vampire?
Then what's a vampire, or even a stoic one?
Does this condition have anything to do with the frontal lobe of the neocortex?

I am not a real vampire. It's tongue-in-cheek because I'm a goth and I was often asked if I was a vampire in school. I am a real Stoic, though.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why people waste their time and limited brain power on
moldy superstitions is something I can't figure

Clearly no one has the ability to detect demons, so using it as an answer when it is likely wrong doesn't have any benefit beyond confirmation bias.
Whether one believes they exist or not, no one I have seen on here has presented evidence that they can tell them from a bag of elbows, or bipolar disorder or anything evil that we can concoct on our own.

 

[Audie]

Yep, that is an example. After reading the testimony of those witnesses, a judicious person would examine the details of the testimony, read statements by other witmesses - including even character witnesses, examine material evidence such as the translation itself, and whatever else, perhaps the hat Joseph Smith peered into. Then judgment would come. Truth would be identified, e.g. "the appearance of gold", "plates" of some sort, possibly also bowls, the responsibility of Joseph Smith - "translator" or in the first edition "author", and so on.

A bloody knife lying on the chest of a man who bled to death is evidence, even if it turns out that it was not his blood on the knife and he had not been stabbed. On the other hand, if he was stabbed and it is his blood, that piece of evidence is more pertinent. But pertinent or not, it is evidence. The testimony of a witness is evidence, its pertinence to be determined.

Myself, I would be unhappy to hear that criminal trials no longer allow the testimony of witnesses to determine whether a crime has been committed, what the crime was, and who committed the crime.

Without that single young witness that escaped his efforts, Ted Bundy would still be killing.

If the judicial system adopted your mistaken belief that a testimony is not evidence, what a catastrophe that would be for victims of crime and of social order.

Come now. Of course testimony is of great value.

In the LDS witness example, or flying saucer,
a lot of skepticism is called for.

My intent was a comparison to the Jesus
" testimony" and to witnesses to divers other
supernatural things, for which there is zero
physical evidence nor anything else about the
story that the " reasonable person" would find credible.

 

[Audie]

I am not a real vampire. It's tongue-in-cheek because I'm a goth and I was often asked if I was a vampire in school. I am a real Stoic, though.

 

[Hamilton]

Come now. Of course testimony is of great value.

In the LDS witness example, or flying saucer,
a lot of skepticism is called for.

My intent was a comparison to the Jesus
" testimony" and to witnesses to divers other
supernatural things, for which there is zero
physical evidence nor anything else about the
story that the " reasonable person" would find credible.

My comments were in response to Viker's misunerstanding the role of a testimony:

No evidence. Only more testimony.

I was addressing what a testimony is. I was not addressing "supernatural things".

>"Come now. Of course testimony is of great value."
More than that, it is evidence.


>"nor anything else about the
story that the " reasonable person" would find credible."

That is a careless statement.
Reasonable people, which is probably over 99% of the world population, believe incredible things. Atheists who claim they believe evidence, and scientists who claim "objectivity" are no exception.
And many parts of the Joseph Smith/Book of Mormon story are credible: Joseph Smith was reading his Bible, wondered what church was true, prayed about it, concluded none were true, told some friends a summary of American Indians similar to Ethan Smith's, prayed with some friends, they baptized each other, and so on.

 

[DNB]

I am not a real vampire. It's tongue-in-cheek because I'm a goth and I was often asked if I was a vampire in school. I am a real Stoic, though.

Uh, that would make more sense. I've always understood that vampires were fictional characters, so it became difficult to reconcile the fact that there was a poster on this forum claiming to be one. So, your response precluded the need for me inquire if you were born in Transylvannia.

 

[Hamilton]

Come now. Of course testimony is of great value.

In the LDS witness example, or flying saucer,
a lot of skepticism is called for.

My intent was a comparison to the Jesus
" testimony" and to witnesses to divers other
supernatural things, for which there is zero
physical evidence nor anything else about the
story that the " reasonable person" would find credible.

My comments were in response to Viker's misunerstanding the role of a testimony:

No evidence. Only more testimony.

I was addressing what a testimony is. I was not addressing "supernatural things".

>"Come now. Of course testimony is of great value."
More than that, it is evidence.


>"nor anything else about the
story that the " reasonable person" would find credible."

That is a careless statement.
Reasonable people, which is probably over 99% of the world population, believe incredible things. Atheists who claim they believe evidence, and scientists who claim "objectivity" are no exception.
And many parts of the Joseph Smith/Book of Mormon story are credible: Joseph Smith was reading his Bible, wondered what church was true, prayed about it, concluded none were true, told some friends a summary of American Indians similar to Ethan Smith's, prayed with some friends, they baptized each other, and so on.

 

[Audie]

Do you think J Smith really - really found gold books telling
of Jesus' adventures in the USA?

The one time I asked a morning how he could believe
such a story, and he said he prayed till,God told him. It's true.

That so many people believe utterly false nonsensical
things illustrates well the veryvlow value of testimony
that cannot be confirmed, and far more so when it involves
the supernatural..

People do, generally because the unfortunate seed was planted early, make a special deal for their home religion, when if
told the same things as adults, they'd never buy it.

People are by and large an ignorant cedulous andt superstitious lot, so it's not surprising that millions are gulled.
10 billion saying astrology is real makes it so.

That's all about aspects of human nature. None is about
anything supernatural being real.

 

[Audie]

Clearly no one has the ability to detect demons, so using it as an answer when it is likely wrong doesn't have any benefit beyond confirmation bias.
Whether one believes they exist or not, no one I have seen on here has presented evidence that they can tell them from a bag of elbows, or bipolar disorder or anything evil that we can concoct on our own.

" I can call Daemons from the vasty deep"

 

[Viker]

Testimony *is* evidence,
and admittedly as subject to forensic analysis as other evidence, and as respectable as other evidence.

In many/most cases, there should be corroborating evidence to support testimony, to link the two consistently.

 

[Audie]

In many/most cases, there should be corroborating evidence to support testimony, to link the two consistently.

As not in case of testimony of the 8 witnesses.

In all events, there's hardly worse quality
evidence than eyewitless.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

" I can call Daemons from the vasty deep"

Aquawoman?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Please show where we have harassed you or we have attacked you.

By asking questions?

In our understanding, the Harlot of Revelation chapters 17 & 18 (both chapters) is referencing religious organizations, not individual people.

If any organization condones warfare, especially where a religious organization has members on both sides of the conflict and they’re killing each other (ref.Catholics killing Catholics & Protestants killing Protestants), do you think God approves of that? The God of Love? John 4:8; 1 John 3:10-15
Yes, people are being misled.
But it’s not their fault; it’s the religious organizations & their leaders, the ones who know better, that bear the responsibility, and who will, according to Revelation chapter 17 verse 16, be destroyed by governments of the Earth. (Beasts & horns are identified as governments in the book of Daniel. Ref.Daniel 8:20-22). Atheists might find this particular understanding, intriguing.

I don’t mean to cause you distress, never have; only to impel your reasoning ability, which I know is substantial. And certain questions are effective for doing that.

IMO.

Hope you have a good evening.

I know harassment when I experience it.

What is the point of putting me and another poster on the spot to discuss something that has no bearing on the ability or more precisely the inability of claimants to deliver the goods? It can't be to show evidence for demons. That should exist on demand, given the claims of those that claim to know them.

Should we discuss my claim that demons don't exist? That would be miraculous given I never claimed one way or the other. I asked for the same evidence from believers that the OP did. That is it.

I didn't express an atheistic view as has been alluded. I didn't say that Moses doesn't exist as has been alluded. I haven't said a lot of things that have been alluded, carefully, clumsily, so as to avoid the appearance of the ad hominem from looking like ad hominem.

It is sort of different when the shoe is on the other foot isn't it.

Anyway, I'm not going to discuss this further.

I have made no claims regarding the existence of demons and I have seen no salient evidence from those that do claim they exist. Any conclusions I draw from that are mine, but based on the actions I have seen that belong to others.

 

[Audie]

Aquawoman?

Shakespeare

A quote from King Henry IV, Part 1

I can call the spirits from the vasty deep.Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;But will they come, when you do call for them?

www.goodreads.com

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is so typical of religionists to be happy to
make things up and state them as fact.

We are amused by the inconsistencies and
contradictions that result.

Elsewhere you state as fact that I am a scientist,
one whose beliefs are based on observation.

Here you have it that I'd ignore observation.

The "guarantee" you offer, that I am intellectual.y
dishonest is what we call " psychological projection".
Among other base and Ignoble things that could be mentioned.

Elsewhere you cite observation to back up your conclusion
that theres a "spiritual endowment".
You think you are a " scientist"?




Just in case you do, we remind you that scientists,
or other thnkers with integrity, dont put conclusion first then
trot out evidence and force fit it.

So how do you know if something is immoral, wrong, bad or any other word to that effect?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Shakespeare

A quote from King Henry IV, Part 1

I can call the spirits from the vasty deep.Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;But will they come, when you do call for them?

www.goodreads.com

With no slight to the Bard, I think I still prefer Aquawoman.

 

[Audie]

With no slight to the Bard, I think I still prefer Aquawoman.

I don't know aquawoman, sounds like an
obscurcultural references. referencee.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't know aquawoman, sounds like an
obscurcultural references. referencee.

My mind is full of obscurity and I retain a desire to use it, since it takes up the storage space and I can't seem to delete it.

This forum is my only opportunity. I certainly can't do it in public. People would think I had demons or something.

DC Comics. Queen of Atlantis. I don't think it is an official title.

 

[danieldemol]

If the judicial system adopted your mistaken belief that a testimony is not evidence, what a catastrophe that would be for victims of crime and of social order.

It is not evidence of (or pertinent to) the supernatural, and the same applies in the judicial system outside of Texas in my view.

Otherwise Ted Bundy could have simply provided witness testimony that he saw a shapeshifting cat adopt his form and do all the killings and if the law were to adopt your standard minus the special pleading (which is a fallacy) Ted Bundy would have to be freed based on his "evidence" and would still be killing in my view.

In my opinion.

 

[Hamilton]

Otherwise Ted Bundy could have simply provided witness testimony that he saw a shapeshifting cat adopt his form and do all the killings and if the law were to adopt your standard minus the special pleading (which is a fallacy) Ted Bundy would have to be freed based on his "evidence" and would still be killing in my view.

In my opinion.

Nonsense. I very clearly stipulated the need to examine and analyze evidences provided (both pro and con) and weigh against other evidence. Ted Bundy had every right to claim he had seen your absurd cat commit the crime. Even a poor prosecutor would argue that his testimony put him at the scene of the crime, and would call in a forensic psychologist as well. Without taking your hypothetical Bundy's ridiculously hypothetical testimony as evidence, the prosecutor would have to find another way to place Bundy at the scene of the crime, perhaps the sober testimony of the girl he tried to kidnap plus a few others, which is what actually happened, nonhypothetcally and seriously,

because testimony is evidence.

To elaborate, after which I will end my participation in regards to your confusion about what constitutes evidence:

The "meaning of evidence is reflected in the definitional section of the Indian Evidence Act (Stephen 1872: 149). When lawyers use the term “evidence” in this way, they have in mind what epistemologists would think of as “objects of sensory evidence” (Haack 2004: 48). Evidence, in this sense, is divided conventionally into three main categories: oral evidence (the testimony given in court by witnesses), documentary evidence (documents produced for inspection by the court), and “real evidence”; the first two are self-explanatory and the third captures things other than documents such as a knife allegedly used in committing a crime.

The term “evidence” can, secondly, refer to a proposition of fact that is established by evidence in the first sense. This is sometimes called an “evidential fact”. That the accused was at or about the scene of the crime at the relevant time is evidence in the second sense of his possible involvement in the crime. But the accused’s presence must be proved by producing evidence in the first sense. For instance, the prosecution may call a witness to appear before the court and get him to testify that he saw the accused in the vicinity of the crime at the relevant time. Success in proving the presence of the accused (the evidential fact) will depend on the fact-finder’s assessment of the veracity of the witness and the reliability of his testimony. (The fact-finder is the person or body responsible for ascertaining where the truth lies on disputed questions of fact and in whom the power to decide on the verdict vests. The fact-finder is also called “trier of fact” or “judge of fact”. Fact-finding is the task of the jury or, for certain types of cases and in countries without a jury system, the judge.) Sometimes the evidential fact is directly accessible to the fact-finder. If the alleged knife used in committing the crime in question (a form of “real evidence”) is produced in court, the fact-finder can see for himself the shape of the knife; he does not need to learn of it through the testimony of an intermediary.

A third conception of evidence is an elaboration or extension of the second. On this conception, evidence is relational. A factual proposition (in Latin, factum probans) is evidence in the third sense only if it can serve as a premise for drawing an inference (directly or indirectly) to a matter that is material to the case (factum probandum) .... The fact that the accused’s fingerprints were found in a room where something was stolen is
evidence in the present sense because one can infer from this that he was in the room, and his presence in the room is evidence of his possible involvement in the theft. On the other hand, the fact that the accused’s favorite color is blue would, in the absence of highly unusual circumstances, be rejected as evidence of his guilt: ordinarily, what a person’s favorite color happens to be cannot serve as a premise for any reasonable inference towards his commission of a crime and, as such, it is irrelevant .... In the third sense of “evidence”, which conceives of evidence as a premise for a material inference, “irrelevant evidence” is an oxymoron: it is simply not evidence. Hence, this statement of Bentham (1825: 230):

To say that testimony is not pertinent, is to say that it is foreign to the case, has no connection with it, and does not serve to prove the fact in question; in a word, it is to say, that it is not evidence.

There can be evidence in the first sense without evidence in the second or third sense. To pursue our illustration, suppose it emerges during cross-examination of the expert that his testimony of having found a finger-print match was a lie. Lawyers would describe this situation as one where the “evidence” (the testimony of the expert) fails to prove the fact that it was originally produced to prove and not that no “evidence” was adduced on the matter. Here “evidence” is used in the first sense—evidence as testimony—and the testimony remains in the court’s record whether it is believed or not. But lawyers would also say that, in the circumstances, there is no “evidence” that the accused was in the room, assuming that there was nothing apart from the discredited expert testimony of a fingerprint match to establish his presence there. Here, the expert’s testimony is shown to be false and fails to establish that the accused’s fingerprints were found in the room, and there is no (other) factual basis for believing that he was in the room. The factual premise from which an inference is sought to be drawn towards the accused’s guilt is not established."

The End