Demons - Is There Evidence They Exist?

[blü 2]

The only difference is that Superman is not real whereas God is real.
Sorry, I could not help myself, and I was looking for an excuse to talk to a 'nice' atheist.

I don't think we will live long enough to see it, but I believe that God will win in the end.

Then let's hope it's one of [his] benevolent versions that triumphs. Would 'omnibenevolence' be a new word, or have I been scooped?

 

[Trailblazer]

Then let's hope it's one of [his] benevolent versions that triumphs. Would 'omnibenevolence' be a new word, or have I been scooped?

I don't know about omnibenevolence, but I will settle for benevolence, since that is the only way God has been described in the Baha'i Writings.

 

[danieldemol]

I don't know about omnibenevolence, but I will settle for benevolence, since that is the only way God has been described in the Baha'i Writings.

The Bab described God as the "most benevolent" although Baha'u'llah also described God using such terms as "All Merciful" amongst other descriptions.

 

[PureX]

The Superman stories are didactic, in that Good must win in the end.

That is one of the ideals that the myth represents. That and the ideal of the necessity of physical strength.

The bible stories are a mix of folk-tale, folk-history, real history, rules, songs, poems, wisdom, and so on, with occasional wavering of focus from the implicit moral that God must win in the end.

And none of that matters in the least. Because it's all representative of a set of ideals. Just like the Superman stories are. Though the biblical stories and ideals are far more complex.

Perhaps you and I are not too far apart on this.

Except that my point is that complaining that a biblical myth is mythical is just ... silly. Of course it is. It's like complaining that the Superman story is a fantasy. Of course it is. But none of this matters to the actual purpose or meaning of these mythical stries. BECAUSE THEY ARE REPRESENTATIONAL. If we want to understand these myths: why they were created and what they were intended to convey, we need to aproach them as being representational. Not as being "unfactual". The only reason people keep insisting on approaching biblical myth as being "unfactual" is because they want an excuse to disregard and dismiss it without ever bothering to discern their actual purpose. Again ... silly.

 

[PureX]

Both of you (@Trailblazer and @PureX responded by explaining why "faith" is not "insufficient evidence" and totally ignored the actual question I asked.

That's because you question you asked was based on an inaccurate understanding of belief, and faith. When you can come to understand the difference, and can then rephrase your question, we can then answer it. Although, I believe that if you more clerly understood the difference between faith and belief, you would no longer need to ask your question.

I don't care how you define "faith", but it ain't based on conclusive evidence,

Many, many things in the human experience are not based on conclusive evidence. Thus, most humans do not worship conclusive evidence as the definer of truth and reality, and then wield the idea like it's a gigantic club, as you seem to want to do, here. In fact, it can be reasonably and logically argued that we humans can NEVER have conclusive evidence as that would require omniscience. And that the best we are ever going to get is some degree of relative probability. And this is going to be especially true when it comes to the proposition of the existence of God/gods.

either as @PureX defined it (hoping for something you want to be true) or @Trailblazer would have it (being based on evidence that can't be verified). If it was so based we wouldn't need faith. Do you at least agree on that?

We humans ALWAYS need to engage in some amount of faith because the can NEVER have certainty. Faith is how we keep moving forward when we cannot be certain of the result of our doing so. And I mean logical certainty, not emotional certainty.

Can I get an answer to the actual question, which I'll rephrase to make it clearer? "Do you have any reasonable reason why such a being (God) would value belief based on faith so highly?".

I don't think any of this (our existence) is about what God wants or values. I think it's about our being able to 'define ourselves' through our own choices in life. Including the choice to act on faith, and on faith in what, to adopt belief, and belief in what, and how these effect who we are constantly becoming, ... both to ourselves and to each other.

 

[blü 2]

That is one of the ideals that the myth represents. That and the ideal of the necessity of physical strength.

Yes.

And none of that matters in the least. Because it's all representative of a set of ideals. Just like the Superman stories are. Though the biblical stories and ideals are far more complex.

As well as myth they contain much other cultural material, such as rules/laws, folk-history and real history, poems / songs, wisdom, and political polemic. Not all of it is colored by ideals / propaganda eg most of Ecclesiastes.

Except that my point is that complaining that a biblical myth is mythical is just ... silly. Of course it is. It's like complaining that the Superman story is a fantasy.

You and I might agree about the mythical element, but many don't share that view, nor (as far as I can tell as an outsider) are they encouraged to.

Of course it is. But none of this matters to the actual purpose or meaning of these mythical stries. BECAUSE THEY ARE REPRESENTATIONAL. If we want to understand these myths: why they were created and what they were intended to convey, we need to aproach them as being representational. Not as being "unfactual". The only reason people keep insisting on approaching biblical myth as being "unfactual" is because they want an excuse to disregard and dismiss it without ever bothering to discern their actual purpose. Again ... silly.

But you only have to look at the refounding of the state of Israel after WW2 to see their political uses, which continue in Israel to this day. Though I suspect we'd agree on a lot of that.

 

[PureX]

Yes.

As well as myth they contain much other cultural material, such as rules/laws, folk-history and real history, poems / songs, wisdom, and political polemic. Not all of it is colored by ideals / propaganda eg most of Ecclesiastes.

Yes, most myths incorporate pertinent real-world facts or beliefs to help people grasp and assimilate the ideals they are intended to represent and convey. The Bible is a quite large collections of not just religious myths, but parables, songs, rules, lineages and so on, collected over a long time. So it is very complex, and often contradictory. As would be expected. Which is why it's a mistake for people to treat this collection of texts as if it should be cohesive and coherent and logical and historical. And that goes for both the believers and the detractors.

You and I might agree about the mythical element, but many don't share that view, nor (as far as I can tell as an outsider) are they encouraged to.

But that has always been true of myths. Mostly because a lot of people just have trouble grasping the idea of representation. The idea that the "thing" is not the thing. That it's a 'stand-in' for something else. This is too abstract for a lot of minds to comprehend. They need "X" to equal "X" or they get all discombobulated. So in their minds they let the representation becomes the ideal, and the ideal become the representation. And so the myths become actuality for them, so they can hold onto the ideal in their minds.

I don't think there's anything we can do about this. It just is the way it is for some people. If we attack the false pretense we end up attacking the ideal, in their minds. And of course they will resist that, as I suppose they should. After all, it's the ideals that really matter in the end. Not the pretense. The pretense is just a bad habit.

But you only have to look at the refounding of the state of Israel after WW2 to see their political uses, which continue in Israel to this day. Though I suspect we'd agree on a lot of that.

Humans are going to use and abuse ANYTHING to gain control over the world and each other. That isn't a religious or theological issue. It's a human issue.

 

[nPeace]

You are mistaking the context. "This is contradictory nonsense" came after your quoted text on demons, it did not say "This below is contradictory nonsense" and contained a paragraph break which you have omitted. So the way it was intended to be read was as calling your quoted text nonsense, followed by an explanation of the difference between dark matter and demons - dark matter can be detected indirectly through its effect on what we can directly observe whilst demons cannot be.

Demons can be detected through the effects on what we can directly observe.
There it is. You didn't understand. Read the OP again.

Strawman. I have only said we can observe the effects of dark matter upon other objects unlike demons.

No strawman. You absolutely don't understand what you read in the OP.
Seems you aren't alone though.

What's contradictory is your claim that demons have observable effects on objects we can see, yet are at the same time physically undetectable. That would make them indirectly detectable in my view, *not* undetectable.

Wait a minute.
Is Dark Matter physically detectable. Or the effects?
Aren't you contradicting yourself?

What is nonsense in my view is that they have observable effects on objects we can see, for my explanation of that i refer you back to the cat analogy and its subsequent explanation.

You can see a cat directly. So your analogy flops.

To the contrary, in a world where most peoples time is precious it is entirely fair to point out unnecessary wastage of time. The mean-spiritedness in my view is yours for being mean with the precious resource of others.

If you want to waste your time, do so, but don't blame me for your responding to something you realized was answered. Okay?

Then what is the point of claiming evidence if you have no intention to convince?

I'm not claiming evidence. I presented evidence.
You can dismiss it or accept it. Or complain. That's your prerogative, Daniel.

 

[nPeace]

There are some humans who might sacrifice themselves for the sake of others, particularly if it's family or close friends. But most people probably wouldn't.

Why wouldn't most people?
Let's answer that before I go on, since this is key to covering what you are arguing.

 

[nPeace]

Of course not. All you did is quote a book, whose supernatural claims have no evidence, either.

I told you, something that I cannot use to show evidence of invisible fairies in my garden, as well. Or any imaginary being I might make up.

Ciao

- viole

You haven't told me what evidence is. So since you don't seem to know, or you just don't want to admit to what evidence is, I conclude you just want to distract, and use up space.
When you are ready to discuss what evidence is, and show that I haven't provided any, I would consider talking to you further.
As it stands, currently, you aren't saying anything you actually want a response to.

 

[Stevicus]

Why wouldn't most people?
Let's answer that before I go on, since this is key to covering what you are arguing.

Because they typically don't. Sure, people will give some portion of their surplus resources to help the less fortunate, but that's generally as far as it goes.

 

[nPeace]

That it "existed as a reality" IS AN IDEA.

That's irrelevant. Anything that exists only physically is irrelevant. Because relevance IS AN IDEA.

"Later" is an idea. "First" is an idea. That you think these mean something IS "JUST" AN IDEA in your mind. The very thing that you are trying to claim not to be real are defining reality for you. Can't you see that?

God has been the great mystery in the minds of humans since the dawn if humanity.

Then focus on the fact that it is in man's heads. And that it always has been, and it has effected mankind, greatly, and is still doing so, because it's still in man's heads. Including your own.

Okay. I understand what you are saying, but how do you differentiate between an idea of something that is imagined, and an idea of something that exists, or is real?

 

[PureX]

Demons can be detected through the effects on what we can directly observe.
There it is. You didn't understand. Read the OP again.


No strawman. You absolutely don't understand what you read in the OP.
Seems you aren't alone though.


Wait a minute.
Is Dark Matter physically detectable. Or the effects?
Aren't you contradicting yourself?


You can see a cat directly. So your analogy flops.


If you want to waste your time, do so, but don't blame me for your responding to something you realized was answered. Okay?


I'm not claiming evidence. I presented evidence.
You can dismiss it or accept it. Or complain. That's your prerogative, Daniel.

I think the misunderstanding is because of a language problem. One person uses the term "demon" in a way similar to more archaic way of speaking. Sort of like referring to an alcoholic as being "one possessed by the demon rum". This phrase and the word "alcoholic" refer to the same condition, but expresses it through a different conceptual paradigm. The former a more religious/superstitious conceptual paradigm, and the latter through a more clinical/scientific conceptual paradigm.

The problem goes away for whomever is willing to accept and interpret the other's linguistic paradigm. But that's often difficult when we naturally become biased toward our own.

 

[nPeace]

Because they typically don't. Sure, people will give some portion of their surplus resources to help the less fortunate, but that's generally as far as it goes.

Why? WHY, is the question.

 

[nPeace]

That seems like an irrelevant distraction. If you must reference someone else's words, you should at least try to explain how they're relevant to your own.

You started this thread claiming to have evidence that demons exist. The problem is that you've not actually presented any evidence, you've just made some very general and inconsistent assertions about crime specifically and evil/chaos in general. You've not even presented any evidence for clearly defined changes in those things, let alone that the cause of any such changes is some form of demonic influence.

I was referencing someone all alone. The webpage I linked uses the same exact references I used. It's mine.
Those words are my words... word for word.

 

[nPeace]

Yo, nPeace

All things good with you, I trust?

As you see me, my ole atheist pal.

As you say, first we must understand what a demon is. Demons are a category of imaginary being, usually pictured as servants or followers of a superbaddy, who may have any of a wide range of names, such as Satan, Lucifer (though as a Latinist you'd know that's also a name of Jesus in the NT), the Devil and so on. As with all imaginary beings, other physical and moral traits and practices may be added at will.

Um... No.

Second, the bible reveals knowledge about a lot of imaginary beings. It would sound rather disrespectful to note that DC Comics reveal a lot about Superman but no different principle is involved.

So it's a matter of knowing when to bother and when not to bother. If imaginary beings are causing the subject emotional or mental problems, such as anxiety or paranoia, then it's time to seek trained medical help, you'd surely agree.

I've read parts of the bible carefully, but I won't bother revisiting the parts about demons, because I see no point.

(As you know, both in comedies and in horror stories, at this point the demon fans rush forward and say, "AAGH! Demons are making you say that!!!! We must help you!!!" And that lovely one, "AAGH! Only those possessed by demons deny the reality of demons!!!! You ARE possessed!" But of course the demons they speak of exist only as things imagined in their brains, poor folks.)

Okay. Thanks. Take care, ole buddy.

 

[nPeace]

Maybe a total non-sequitur, but I see one big difference. DC Comics has never claimed that Superman is anything but a fictional character, and that their intention is to entertain. The Bible on the other hand was written by people that did believe they were writing something factual.

I'm not sure if that adds anything to the discussion?

Oh yes it does. Thanks for that.
I've been unsuccessful in reaching anyone's sense of reason, with that. So, I now just ignore it.
You have no idea how many times I tried.

 

[PureX]

Okay. I understand what you are saying, but how do you differentiate between an idea of something that is imagined, and an idea of something that exists, or is real?

Experience.

Everything we experience becomes an idea. (Perception is conception.) Sometimes that idea holds true, and sometimes it doesn't. When it doesn't, we let it go (hopefully) and develop a new idea to replace it.

All that exists outside our minds is undifferentiated and undefined physical phenomena. Some of which we can experience through our senses, and some of which we cannot. But none of it "matters" until we experience it, and formulate an idea of it in our minds. Then we fit that idea into the whole collection of ideas that make up our "reality". That fit is what we call "truth". But sometimes that fit becomes untenable, and we have to drop that idea and adopt another that fits better. That cognates as being more "true".

But in the end, none of us knows how accurate that collection of ideas we hold that we call reality, actually is. Not that we can do anything about it, except to just try and be as honest as we can.

 

[nPeace]

The story of Superman is mythological, as are the stories in the Bible. It's important to know this because when we are engaging with mythological stories, we need to recognize that they are representational. They are not intended to be taken as a statement of fact, but rather as representations of an ideal, or a set of ideals.

Said like someone who lived before existence.

 

[nPeace]

I see the mystery as a great gift. Both for the infinite possibilities that confront us by our not knowing, and for the creative power that comes from acting on them in good faith.

I believe God is a mystery to those who reject his means of communication.