Demons, is there any evidence they even exist?

[danieldemol]

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.

Why would a forensic psychologist be needed if they did not doubt his "evidence" of the shapeshifting cat? Calling in forensics implies doubt in his testimony in my view.

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it here.

In my opinion.

 

[Audie]

Why would a forensic psychologist be needed if they did not doubt his "evidence" of the shapeshifting cat? Calling in forensics implies doubt in his testimony in my view.

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it here.

In my opinion.

Like right even tho rong?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

You keep calling them "historical records"

“The Thermian society fell into disarray for 100 years, their goals and values had become scattered, they were oppressed, antagonized, and enslaved by the Sarris Dominion. It was only when they began to receive transmissions from Earth, of the original Galaxy Quest series that they were able to unite. They remodeled their entire society based on the television program because of their naive nature they failed to fully understand the program, believing it to be a historical document.”
Thermians

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Since man's ego, vanity, selfishness, hatreds, bigotries, even selflessness and altruisms, dictate the majority of his actions, his rationality gets superseded by these influences - like, smoking cigarettes against all logical persuasions to not smoke.

What is the source of these evident and counter-intuitive influences, that do not exist in any other creature?

Why are you asking me? Why are you not simply answering my question?

You claimed it was evidence for "demons".
I asked you how it was evidence.

Your reply should be an explanation of how it is evidence.
Instead, you offer a question which seems only meant as a preparation for a gigantic argument from ignorance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are describing an impetuous act, one where no time to analyze or rationalize, for various reasons, are available - the perceived threat may be imminent.

But, when man is in an environment where he is able to think clearly, assess the evidence, and calculate his thoughts, it is under these conditions where he draws his conclusions about life and its source, man and his nature, good and evil, etc...

Again, no.

With that dangerous predator example, I was just describing a situation of how such cognition errors gave our ancestors a survival advantage.
We ALL engage in it. Again, this is why science is so succesful. Because it completely avoids such by demanding objective evidence and testability.

Here's an example of where I myself have been guilty of it....

A while ago I moved into a new house. At times, there was a sewer smell at times in the house. We didn't know where it came from. The stench wasn't constant. It just kind of turned up now and then. So I was looking for the cause. This was by the end of the summer. In Belgium, it often rains then.

I noticed that the smell was more frequent when it was raining. So I assumed the rain was causing it, so we went looking with that assumption in mind.
But rain had NOTHING to do with it. It was just a coincidental correlation. There was no causal link AT ALL. As it turned out, it was just a broken toilet. A toilet we didn't use that often. When flushing, the water in the bowl didn't rise high enough again. This left a tiny small gap through which the smell could escape into the house.

That was it. Classic false positive. Classic confusing of a coincidental correlation with a causal link.


These psychological pitfalls manifest in ALL KINDS OF WAYS.

We seek patterns. And when we don't find them, we simply invent them.
It's what living things with a brain do.

When you are aware of these psychological weaknesses, you can try and guard against them. But you'll still fall for them sooner or later.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Is that way the VAST majority of innocent people who get convicted to jail time, are found guilty based on mere testimony?

If you wish to call it "evidence", then it is by far the most unreliable evidence there is.

I can't call it evidence. Testimony instead are CLAIMS. Claims are not evidence. Claims require evidence.

 

[Hamilton]

Why would a forensic psychologist be needed if they did not doubt his "evidence" of the shapeshifting cat? Calling in forensics implies doubt in his testimony in my view.

You seem to want to have your cake and eat it here.

In my opinion.

No two ways about it. A forensic psychologist may or may not be called to testify, regardless of whether one is "needed". In courts there are both a prosecuting side and a defending side. Commonly both sides call witnesses. If one side believes a psychologist can discredit a witness serving the other side, even if that witness is giving a rational, credible, and absolutely true testimony, that first side may call in a psychologist or other source to refute the testimony. They are not needed. They are an option, as are witnesses, etc.

I am not concerned with the absurdity of a shape-shifting cat. I was, as I have already said, addressing the legally recognized role of witnesses' testimonies as evidence. If you are not willing to read and understand what I have posted, your opinion may be irrelevant.

 

[danieldemol]

No two ways about it. A forensic psychologist may or may not be called to testify, regardless of whether one is "needed". In courts there are both a prosecuting side and a defending side. Commonly both sides call witnesses. If one side believes a psychologist can discredit a witness serving the other side, even if that witness is giving a rational, credible, and absolutely true testimony, that first side may call in a psychologist or other source to refute the testimony. They are not needed. They are an option, as are witnesses, etc.

So you think courts have time to waste doing unnecessary things? They are options which are called upon as needed in my view.

I am not concerned with the absurdity of a shape-shifting cat.

Then why raise that it is absurd if it is truly irrelevant? Do you enjoy wasting peoples time?

And why is a shapeshifting cat any less absurd than that of many people being allegedly resurrected from the dead, allegedly appearing to many other than because you were indoctrinated into belief in one and not the other?

"I was, as I have already said, addressing the legally recognized role of witnesses' testimonies as evidence. If you are not willing to read and understand what I have posted, your opinion may be irrelevant."

But you haven't cited any court cases outside of Texas where a court has accepted claims of the absurd (ie miracles) as evidence, you've merely claimed they accept such miracle claims as evidence in my view.

In my opinion.

 

[DNB]

Why are you asking me? Why are you not simply answering my question?

You claimed it was evidence for "demons".
I asked you how it was evidence.

Your reply should be an explanation of how it is evidence.
Instead, you offer a question which seems only meant as a preparation for a gigantic argument from ignorance.

The question was rhetorical, obviously.

 

[DNB]

Again, no.

With that dangerous predator example, I was just describing a situation of how such cognition errors gave our ancestors a survival advantage.
We ALL engage in it. Again, this is why science is so succesful. Because it completely avoids such by demanding objective evidence and testability.

Here's an example of where I myself have been guilty of it....

A while ago I moved into a new house. At times, there was a sewer smell at times in the house. We didn't know where it came from. The stench wasn't constant. It just kind of turned up now and then. So I was looking for the cause. This was by the end of the summer. In Belgium, it often rains then.

I noticed that the smell was more frequent when it was raining. So I assumed the rain was causing it, so we went looking with that assumption in mind.
But rain had NOTHING to do with it. It was just a coincidental correlation. There was no causal link AT ALL. As it turned out, it was just a broken toilet. A toilet we didn't use that often. When flushing, the water in the bowl didn't rise high enough again. This left a tiny small gap through which the smell could escape into the house.

That was it. Classic false positive. Classic confusing of a coincidental correlation with a causal link.


These psychological pitfalls manifest in ALL KINDS OF WAYS.

We seek patterns. And when we don't find them, we simply invent them.
It's what living things with a brain do.

When you are aware of these psychological weaknesses, you can try and guard against them. But you'll still fall for them sooner or later.

You are ascribing such a justified conclusion, whether correct or erroneous, to a man who rapes a woman, or beats his child, or kidnaps another one's child???

I'm not talking about having an incorrect conclusion to a regular every day phenomenon. I'm talking about men playing hypocrite and demon, by not treating others as how they demand that they get treated. I am referring to humans senselessly destroying their lives with drugs and alcohol, and reckless living, when every brain cell in their head tells them of the absurdity of what they're doing.

I'm talking about ego, arrogance, apathy, sadism, hedonism, megalomania, etc...
That is, spiritual wickedness that all men succumb to, and regret later - man is not in control of himself.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are ascribing such a justified conclusion, whether correct or erroneous, to a man who rapes a woman, or beats his child, or kidnaps another one's child???

What the aitch are you babbling about?

I'm not talking about having an incorrect conclusion to a regular every day phenomenon.

I'm not either. I'm instead talking about the psychological common denominator that underpins faulty reasoning, which more often then not leads to false conclusions, in general.

I'm talking about men playing hypocrite and demon, by not treating others as how they demand that they get treated. I am referring to humans senselessly destroying their lives with drugs and alcohol, and reckless living, when every brain cell in their head tells them of the absurdity of what they're doing.

And I'm talking about your cognition error when you blame that all on "demons".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The question was rhetorical, obviously.

Mine wasn't.

I'm actually asking you to explain how it is evidence for "demons".

You're not even going to attempt to answering that question properly, are you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I was, as I have already said, addressing the legally recognized role of witnesses' testimonies as evidence.

I agree there is a legally recognized role for that. More often then not, out of necessity.
But you don't seem to appreciate how notoriously unreliable such is.

Again: the vast majority of innocents in jail, were put there when the courts only had "testimony" as a basis for their judgements.
If and when they see their case overturned and released again, it is then done so based on actual evidence (like DNA etc).

It is kind of disturbing imo how much courts tend to rely on mere testimony.
People lie. People make mistakes. People misremember. People are easily manipulated.

There's a million and one ways of how mere "testimony" will lead to false conclusions.

1000 testimonies saying the same thing will be instantly discarded when a single piece of objective evidence says the contrary.
That's how weak "testimony" is and how strong objective evidence is.

 

[Muffled]

It's as easy to,show thoughts are real as to show that air is real.
Testing either will get tangible results galore.

" Demons" have all of the typical characteristics of the nonexistent.
Any rest will fail to get any results whatsoever.

"I can call Demons from the vasty deep"

" Why yes, so can I, so can any man..But do
they come when called?"

My first experience with a demon came with a revelation that the person who had the demon tended to look up as if listening to a voice and then called me father. There was no way the person could have known I was religious. I was not in a religious setting nor did I wear any religious items.

 

[Muffled]

Of course you believe. Farmers farm, believers believe. It's like a profession.

I believe there is more in this world than is in your philosophy. Paraphrase of a statement by Hamlet in the play by the same name.

 

[Muffled]

Hmm, there are types like that, I once worked for one and would say they ticked all boxes of an extreme personality disorder. I remember someone in my position who appeared not to mind him saying he was ‘infected/affected’. Another told him in a group meeting he needed the s**t kicking out of him. He just responded by smirking/laughing saying you can’t do that. At the time I was leaving one of his colleagues whispered in passing that ‘he was demented’.

Years after I left evidence suggests he brought a university department to its knees. It made the national news with talk of closing it as students were leaving and numbers were low. He was the only one the vice chancellor asked to leave but he wouldn’t go claiming on a forum there was ‘no rot’. The government forced the vice chancellor to move to another position with Tony Blair saying he wanted no one to leave. Two years later he left, probably had to although I don’t know what the reason was. He’s still beavering away creating at another place.

I believe the problem is that not all creations are good.

 

[Apostle John]

I believe the problem is that not all creations are good.

That’s definitely the problem. I believe they will have to stay behind and finish it off, this age of grace and the Tribulation that is.

 

[SkepticThinker]

My first experience with a demon came with a revelation that the person who had the demon tended to look up as if listening to a voice and then called me father. There was no way the person could have known I was religious. I was not in a religious setting nor did I wear any religious items.

How did you know it was a demon?
The word "father" doesn't necessarily carry any religious baggage with it. It seems that you just assumed it did, because ... ?

Without any further information, it sounds like what you just described was schizophrenia.

 

[Hamilton]

So you think courts have time to waste doing unnecessary things? They are options which are called upon as needed in my view.

Which is what I said. I was not addressing how much time courts have, nor how they should use it. I was addressing the value of witnesses and the options of attorneys.

Then why raise that it is absurd if it is truly irrelevant? Do you enjoy wasting peoples time?

I hardly think adding a word is "wasting peoples time". If you believe I am wastng your time, there is any easy way to solve your problem. I "raised" the absurdity of the example because it was a poor - and absurd - example. That should have been obvious.

And why is a shapeshifting cat any less absurd than that of many people being allegedly resurrected from the dead, allegedly appearing to many other than because you were indoctrinated into belief in one and not the other?

That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact yhst witnesses' testimonies are evidence.
I never said a shapeshifting cat is less absurd than "many people being resurrected from the dead" and so on. (You criticize me for referring to a shape shifting cat, but then continue quibbling about it.)

"you were indoctrinated"
Ah-ha, now I see. It's not the value of eye-witness testimony that bothers you, but what they claim to have witnessed. You seem to be trolling me for my Christian beliefs. Joke's on you. I am not "Christian".

But you haven't cited any court cases outside of Texas where a court has accepted claims of the absurd (ie miracles) as evidence, you've merely claimed they accept such miracle claims as evidence in my view.

In my opinion.

You seem to have missed a lot of what I have posted. I have never said courts should accept "miracle claims" as evidence. I have said that the testimony of a witness is evidence in a court of law.

You are contributing nothing positive to the limited observation I have made. You seem to be talking about Christianity for the purpose of denigrating its believers. You seem to think I believe in miracles. You seem to want much more legal explanation than I have already posted from SEP. You seem ignorant of evidentiary law. I see no benefit for either of us in continuing this discussion. Find someone else to argue with.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

“The Thermian society fell into disarray for 100 years, their goals and values had become scattered, they were oppressed, antagonized, and enslaved by the Sarris Dominion. It was only when they began to receive transmissions from Earth, of the original Galaxy Quest series that they were able to unite. They remodeled their entire society based on the television program because of their naive nature they failed to fully understand the program, believing it to be a historical document.”
Thermians

What about Gilligan's Island?