Demons - Is There Evidence They Exist?

[Dan From Smithville]

My claim? I never said that, so not only is your statement irrelevant to anything I said, it seems to be just said, because you have nothing meaningful to say.

Are you saying you accept the theory of evolution and that there was no global flood then? This would be remarkable considering that you started another thread about the existence of demons and claiming evidence for them, while at the same time never presenting that evidence.

I don't know that having nothing meaningful to say is inconsistent here. It may well, were it determined to be an actual example of being meaningless, fit perfectly with the observed presentation so far.

 

[danieldemol]

My claim? I never said that, so not only is your statement irrelevant to anything I said, it seems to be just said, because you have nothing meaningful to say.

There are other facts that demonstrate that the Bible is fabricated or misunderstood evidence, such as the facts which refute the global flood of Noah, or the facts which support evolution, or any of countless other facts which you ignore as part of your science denial in my view.

A view not agreed on by many.

It is trivially easy to go back through your posts, denial of the evident won't help you in my opinion

 

[nPeace]

It is trivially easy to go back through your posts, denial of the evident won't help you in my opinion

Thankfully.

There are other facts that demonstrate that the Bible is fabricated or misunderstood evidence, such as the facts which refute the global flood of Noah, or the facts which support evolution, or any of countless other facts which you ignore as part of your science denial in my view.

A view not agreed on by many.

Irrelevant to your claim that not many agree that evolution is true and that not many agree that Noah's global flood was a myth

My claim? I never said that, so not only is your statement irrelevant to anything I said, it seems to be just said, because you have nothing meaningful to say.

Note :
I did not claim that not many agree that evolution is true and that not many agree that Noah's global flood was a myth.
I know many do.
I said the view that facts demonstrate that the Bible is fabricated, is not agreed on by many. It's a fact. Not a claim.
I said the view that facts refute the global flood of Noah, is not agreed on by many. It's a fact. Not a claim.
I said the view that facts support evolution is not agreed on by many. It's a fact. Not a claim.

It's a view not agreed on - not held - not accepted by many.
That's a fact.

That's not the same as saying many people don't believe xyz.
Twisting things won't help you, in my opinion.
However, knowing what I know of Daniel, I think you genuinely misunderstood. Why, you did that the entire thread. I got it.

 

[nPeace]

Severe case of head in sand.

Ad hominem.
Go ahead. Provide the data that says otherwise. Or...
Just do what you do best.

List of Christian denominations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The difference, off course, is that non-fraudulent science is demonstrable. We can use independent verifiable evidence to distinguish them.

Sounds biased to me.
Sadly, the profit motive has begun to play an increasingly distortive role in the dissemination of scientific research findings. What’s at stake here? Lives, obviously. Less dramatic, but no less important is the question of how we define “knowledge,” and how much we can trust science and scientists. Reasonable people can disagree on how to interpret data, but first, we need good data.

The longer we turn a blind eye to scientific fraud, the more we encourage a pay-to-play system that puts dollars before scientific data, and the more we will erode the public’s trust in science and its authority. That way is perilous.

If scientists - two footed fallible creatures turn a blind eye to fraud, of course they will call it science.\
What... do you think scientists are non human or something?

Scientists turn a blind eye to the fraud that is the ITER nuclear fusion project —

ITER Is a Suicidal Plan That Would Discredit Nuclear Fusion, Scientist Says, Again, New Energy Times, By Steven B. Krivit, Dec. 5, 2020 A retired plasma physicist has given New Energy Tim…

mariannewildart.wordpress.com

Home

edit post Entrepreneur Mastering Entrepreneurship: Insights And Strategies By ReverbPress by Jordan Avery June 3, 2023 edit post Freelance ENTR:

reverbpress.com

...and on and on it goes. Where does it start? Nobody knows.

We can't do that with the many many many many versions of christianity.

Sure we can. Well... maybe you can't, but there is a reason why. Barring that, everyone can.
If you think not, then don't even bother with textural criticism, on any historical text.

All claim to have the "right" version. None can demonstrate they have.

That's not making sense. It's like saying no one can demonstrate that their ancestors were taken into slavery, or that the founder of the Church of Satan isn't known. Nor what he wrote.
Such thinking is delusional.

I can only repeat myself: there are no +30.000 versions of evolution theory. But there are such number of versions of christianity.

Not true. However, don't repeat yourself.
1) Define Christianity.
2) Count how many versions you get of that.

And that's just christianity off course.... To be fair, we would have to pile on all other religions and their denominations as well.
And each of them claims to have "the only Truth (tm)".

Let's stick to Christianity. I mentioned only the Bible and true Christianity.

 

[nPeace]

The predetermination is that if it is in the Bible, it must be true. That is clearly your starting point.

No. Point out where you got that from, please.

I already told you; trying to have a discussion about the assertion in your OP. I don't think the evidence you presented in the OP supports your conclusion at all.

Then show why the evidence I presented in the OP does not support the conclusion at all.

Why shouldn't it be? You're the one claiming t have evidence for a conclusion, so you need to present that evidence in a way others can understand.

I believe I did.
People here are not babies... Right?

I'm not asking for simplification of what you've already posted, I'm asking for more detail and complexity. The scripture you're relying on doesn't describe anything clearly or consistently enough to be taken alone, you need more than that to support any conclusion.

I used scripture only to define demons and describe their activity.
Also, I used a prophecy in the Bible as an explanation given for what everyone is seeing.
I explained why that explanation is supported by the evidence everyone is seeing. I provided the links.
If that's not clear and consistent, then I must not know what is clear and consistent to a person like yourself. I'm sure you are an adult though... Right?

The point is I still don't know what kind of demon concept you're talking about. Different proponents will take the same sources as you and yet come up with vastly different ideas or beliefs. I didn't want to guess as what you're thinking and put words in to your mouth. I'll give it a go if you insist though.

Maybe deal with the OP, rather than presume based on what you hear from others.
I can't help but think you are trying too hard to build strawman arguments.

"Demons are fallen angels, spiritual beings and so not detectable by material human means. At some point in human history (1914?), the war in heaven led to demons coming to Earth and since them some or all bad things that happen to us (at least from the viewpoint of the developed world) are caused by demons by some unknown mechanism.

I would correct this "since them some or all bad things that happen to us (at least from the viewpoint of the developed world) are caused by demons"
Since then, there has been an obvious change, evident in practically every region of the world - it become increasingly chaotic over the last century with concerns about the level of increased crime, and other problems, resulting from man's activities.
...in a nutshell.

Why God allowed all of this is a mystery.

It's a mystery to many, but it only is to those who don't know.

You are one of the people who can somehow detect their influence, consistent with what is written in the Bible and that is your evidence thy exist. Anyone who questions or challenges your conclusion simply can't see this evidence because they're wilfully blind to the spiritual world due to denying God."

Is that your conclusion from the OP?
So, it's a matter of knowing what to look for. If you aren't a scientist with knowledge of what to look for, you would never consider any notion of Dark Matter.
Likewise, if you are not a Bible student, and don't know what to look for, you would never give thought to the presence or influence of demons.

That's fine.
If the Bible is true, billions of people will die in willful ignorance.
Would that fact change because people are willfully ignorant? No.
What do you want me to do... Join you? Why?
I have evidence the Bible is reliable. I have a basis on which to build on knowledge, and move forward in my research.

You don't have to follow me. You don't have to agree with me.
Challenge me, yes, but don't expect me to say I am on your side.
Is that what you are seeking? If not. Pleas continue.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Are you saying you accept the theory of evolution and that there was no global flood then? This would be remarkable considering that you started another thread about the existence of demons and claiming evidence for them, while at the same time never presenting that evidence.

I don't know that having nothing meaningful to say is inconsistent here. It may well, were it determined to be an actual example of being meaningless, fit perfectly with the observed presentation so far.

I think that this thread, as well as the other one quite comparable to it, demonstrates an obvious failure of the theists who claim that demons exist.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think that this thread, as well as the other one quite comparable to it, demonstrates an obvious failure of the theists who claim that demons exist.

I agree. We didn't need two threads to reveal that demonists don't have the evidence for the existence of demons that they claim to have. We didn't need that much of one thread for that failure to be demonstrated.

In my opinion, the honest post for a demonist would be "I believe that demons exist and interact with people to lead them astray, but I haven't got one piece of objective evidence to demonstrate that or explanation to provide to others so they can see that demons exist too".

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I agree. We didn't need two threads to reveal that demonists don't have the evidence for the existence of demons that they claim to have. We didn't need that much of one thread for that failure to be demonstrated.

I agree.

In my opinion, the honest post for a demonist would be "I believe that demons exist and interact with people to lead them astray, but I haven't got one piece of objective evidence to demonstrate that or explanation to provide to others so they can see that demons exist too".

This is similar to how I explain why I'm an agnostic rather than an atheist. I make it clear that I lack any objective evidence to prove that God or any gods exist. I feel that it would be dishonest of me to claim that no gods exist because I can't provide sufficient evidence to prove it one way or the other.

In your personal opinion at least. My personal opinion, however, is that I honestly don't know if any deities exist or not. I don't entirely believe in the existence of gods because, so far in my 50 years of life, I haven't seen any kind of evidence that has convinced me of their existence or, at the very least, felt the presence of one in my life, even when I was a Christian. And while I practice Wicca and Druidry, I'm willing to acknowledge that I lack sufficient empirical evidence or any alleged evidence that multiple deities exist. Having said that, I choose to believe in the prospect of supernatural deities while recognizing the fact that I can't prove or disprove their existence. Ever since I was a child, I've been intrigued by spirituality and beliefs in the supernatural, but I won't claim that I'm fully confident that the God of the Bible or any other deities actually exist. In my opinion, I can't determine whether there is only one God, if there are other deities, or if there aren't any deities at all because I'm not all-knowing and all-powerful, and I can't be in all places at once or explore all of space and time. I acknowledge that I could be wrong or I could be right, but as of right now, at this point in my life, I'm not entirely sure.

Since I disavowed my Christian faith, I've decided that I don't need to believe in the biblical God or in any deities in order to be a good person, to make moral decisions, or to feel peace and contentment in my life. I no longer feel like I need to depend on some god to take care of me or my family. I no longer feel like I need to seek guidance from any gods, let alone the biblical God. I've learned that I can stand on my own and take care of myself. Now I think that my former belief in God was an emotional crutch, but I no longer need or want it in my life. To be honest, I feel like I'm much better off without it. I say that because my emotional well-being has significantly improved since I renounced my belief in God and left Christianity. Honestly, I think that people have to decide for themselves whether they believe gods exist based on the information that they believe is sufficient evidence or whether they don't believe gods exist based on what they consider a lack of evidence. I've yet to find any evidence that convinces me. When I was a Christian, I doubted because I never felt God's presence as other Christians claimed to experience. I spent the majority of my life seeking God, only to end up empty-handed.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Agreed.



This is similar to how I explain why I'm an agnostic rather than an atheist. I make it clear that I lack any objective evidence to prove that God or any gods exist. I feel that it would be dishonest of me to claim that no gods exist because I can't provide sufficient evidence to prove it one way or the other.

I can't say with high confidence having not conducted a formal review, but based on my experience and interacting with them, most of the atheists I have met on here are agnostic atheists. They see no reason to believe, but they stop short of claiming there is no God, god or gods.

Some, perhaps many, believers strike me as contradicting themselves. They claim faith, but their actions make it seem they are entirely unhappy with their own claim and demand that what they believe be seen as some one real truth that wouldn't require faith. Yet clearly lack the evidence that would actually push that over the bar for general acceptance.

 

[Firenze]

Well, I’ve been married, so…..

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I can't say with high confidence having not conducted a formal review, but based on my experience and interacting with them, most of the atheists I have met on here are agnostic atheists. They see no reason to believe, but they stop short of claiming there is no God, god or gods.

Some, perhaps many, believers strike me as contradicting themselves. They claim faith, but their actions make it seem they are entirely unhappy with their own claim and demand that what they believe be seen as some one real truth that wouldn't require faith. Yet clearly lack the evidence that would actually push that over the bar for general acceptance.

I agree. In my opinion, many believers, including some we've seen in this thread, appear to expect other people to accept their beliefs without providing sufficient empirical evidence, and they become agitated, defensive, and accusatory when their beliefs are challenged by those who disagree with them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In your personal opinion at least. My personal opinion, however, is that I honestly don't know if any deities exist or not. I don't entirely believe in the existence of gods because, so far in my 50 years of life, I haven't seen any kind of evidence that has convinced me of their existence or, at the very least, felt the presence of one in my life, even when I was a Christian. And while I practice Wicca and Druidry, I'm willing to acknowledge that I lack sufficient empirical evidence or any alleged evidence that multiple deities exist. Having said that, I choose to believe in the prospect of supernatural deities while recognizing the fact that I can't prove or disprove their existence. Ever since I was a child, I've been intrigued by spirituality and beliefs in the supernatural, but I won't claim that I'm fully confident that the God of the Bible or any other deities actually exist. In my opinion, I can't determine whether there is only one God, if there are other deities, or if there aren't any deities at all because I'm not all-knowing and all-powerful, and I can't be in all places at once or explore all of space and time. I acknowledge that I could be wrong or I could be right, but as of right now, at this point in my life, I'm not entirely sure.

Since I disavowed my Christian faith, I've decided that I don't need to believe in the biblical God or in any deities in order to be a good person, to make moral decisions, or to feel peace and contentment in my life. I no longer feel like I need to depend on some god to take care of me or my family. I no longer feel like I need to seek guidance from any gods, let alone the biblical God. I've learned that I can stand on my own and take care of myself. Now I think that my former belief in God was an emotional crutch, but I no longer need or want it in my life. To be honest, I feel like I'm much better off without it. I say that because my emotional well-being has significantly improved since I renounced my belief in God and left Christianity. Honestly, I think that people have to decide for themselves whether they believe gods exist based on the information that they believe is sufficient evidence or whether they don't believe gods exist based on what they consider a lack of evidence. I've yet to find any evidence that convinces me. When I was a Christian, I doubted because I never felt God's presence as other Christians claimed to experience. I spent the majority of my life seeking God, only to end up empty-handed.

You included this in your last post, so I was wondering if it was an accident or you intended to speak on it. In any event, it drew my attention to read it.

Reading through this, I thought about Pascal's Wager. Especially reading your second paragraph. I have seen Pascal referenced positively by Christians on here before, which I find odd given what they claim in contradiction to the perceived value of his view.

Let me return to this in a moment while I address the statement of your second paragraph regarding goodness and peace. I don't think you need to be a believer to have and adhere to morals or to seek and find peace. People in a variety of practices and beliefs or no particular belief do this all the time. At the other extreme we see those of declared devout faith in a spiritual basis for this do the opposite and not seem to know any peace.

And this is where I think Pascal comes in with regards to some Christians. They will praise the idea of Pascal, but don't seem to pay much homage to the practice of Pascal at the same time. After all, a central tenant of the faith is that being good, moral and upright won't get you into Heaven, but they encourage the idea while demurring the practice despite this. It is almost as if they want people to claim belief regardless of a real faith while disdaining and denigrating the practice at the same time. In my opinion, the praise I see is more for what is perceived as a foot in the door and not for the value of morality and peace that others find and practice. Surely an unjust backhand blow to such productive and useful efforts if that is the only reason that is found to praise it by a believer

Personally, I think it is wonderful that people have and practice morality and seek and find peace with or without the existence a particular religious faith in their lives. Who am I to say that this isn't part of some greater plan I am not privy to. Any claims I make would be presumptuous and imply a knowledge of divine thinking I cannot possess according to any understanding of Christian teaching I am familiar with.

I can't imagine anyone casting aspersions on people of any view that think about right and wrong and focus on doing what is generally considered right. I am certainly glad to know thoughtful people like that exist. The more the better I think.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I agree. In my opinion, many believers, including some we've seen in this thread, appear to expect other people to accept their beliefs without providing sufficient empirical evidence, and they become agitated, defensive, and accusatory when their beliefs are challenged by those who disagree with them.

I accept that they believe. I have no issue with that, because I cannot demonstrate that what they believe is or isn't true anymore than I can my own beliefs. I respect the right to believe even if I don't share the belief. However, there are some theists that don't seem to share that respect and demand that you not only believe what they say they do, but that you believe it by the same mechanisms they do. I don't have much respect for that and find it ironic given that many of these same people will talk about how we have free will. We have a choice, but you can't make any choice but theirs. Very ironic.

However much I respect another's right to believe, on here they make positive claims about something in what is an extension of the public arena. In doing so, they take on the burden, the obligation, to support, explain and demonstrate the validity of their claims. Sometimes, in what shouldn't be as rare an occasion as it is, they do take on that burden and provide the defense of it. Even more rare, they may even recognize that they do not know and can't demonstrate their views as fact.

More often however, there is no evidence presented or what is presented is poorly explained and not really evidence supporting the claim. From there the debate and discussion drift into word games, logical fallacies, diversionary attempts and personal attack. Sometimes posts lead with this and skip any formality of even a meager attempt at rational debate.

Even more odd is the fact that you don't have to disagree with their beliefs, but challenging their claims seems to amount to the same thing for some folks.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, I’ve been married, so…..

Me too brother. I don't know what possessed me.

 

[John53]

I can't say with high confidence having not conducted a formal review, but based on my experience and interacting with them, most of the atheists I have met on here are agnostic atheists. They see no reason to believe, but they stop short of claiming there is no God, god or gods.

I can't speak for the others but that pretty much sums up my position. I would switch in an instance if I was presented with evidence. I'm a professional fence sitter I guess. It pays to be that way for a bird nerd, things like DNA threw the bird world into turmoil. Birds that were considered sub species suddenly became their own species and vice versa. My bird books from the 70's and 80's became redundant. However no amount of DNA testing is yet to find a demon bird (although the Masked Lapwing and Australian Magpie in breeding season come close).

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I can't speak for the others but that pretty much sums up my position. I would switch in an instance if I was presented with evidence.

I've met a couple that I think were positive atheists or hard atheists, but most on here either appear as you or openly state that as you have done. A true skeptic, not accepting on claim, but willing to consider the possibility and given the right evidence, change position.

I'm a professional fence sitter I guess. It pays to be that way for a bird nerd, things like DNA threw the bird world into turmoil. Birds that were considered sub species suddenly became their own species and vice versa. My bird books from the 70's and 80's became redundant. However no amount of DNA testing is yet to find a demon bird (although the Masked Lapwing and Australian Magpie in breeding season come close).

When the Bible was written, the knowledge of biology wasn't non-existent, but it was much more than that. They didn't know about cells, microbes, DNA or things that are part of common education now days. They thought that things could reproduce spontaneously from non-living matter or that smearing bird blood on a person would cure disease, not to mention they didn't understand disease and thought of it as a magical curse. Debunked views, debunked by science.

If we learn something about the world around us, the stand that literalists seem to take is that we should reject that knowledge. Not only that, but there is a concerted effort fronted to support that rejection. Apparently, the view of some Christians is that we can learn about what they consider to be God's work, but only in a limited, very macroscopic and trivial way. If we dig too deep and learn something more basic or some mechanism that isn't explicitly described in a religious book, then it must be rejected as false. No questions. Just accept and shut up. In my view, that doesn't make sense and even goes against what the Bible tells us in many ways.

I can see how this would be difficult for an atheist to give much consideration to. It is difficult enough for me and I believe.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I can't speak for the others but that pretty much sums up my position. I would switch in an instance if I was presented with evidence. I'm a professional fence sitter I guess. It pays to be that way for a bird nerd, things like DNA threw the bird world into turmoil. Birds that were considered sub species suddenly became their own species and vice versa. My bird books from the 70's and 80's became redundant. However no amount of DNA testing is yet to find a demon bird (although the Masked Lapwing and Australian Magpie in breeding season come close).

I can't think of a bird that I would consider a demon or evidence of them, but I did get flogged by a gander when I was a child and I didn't have a lot of love for that bird afterwards.

 

[John53]

I can't think of a bird that I would consider a demon or evidence of them, but I did get flogged by a gander when I was a child and I didn't have a lot of love for that bird afterwards.

Is "flogged by a gander" a euphemism?

I do have confess that I have had my manliness questioned a few times by angry geese.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Is "flogged by a gander" a euphemism?

I do have confess that I have had my manliness questioned a few times by angry geese.

Unfortunately, I was five and it wasn't my manliness that got beaten on. I knew where the geese were nesting and I wanted a closer look. I belly-crawled towards the nest to be stealthy I suppose. The goose was on the nest, but I forgot about the gander. He reminded me of his presence in no uncertain terms.

However, as a euphemism, I can see the potential.

 

[HonestJoe]

No. Point out where you got that from, please.

You're presenting Biblical scripture as facts in evidence rather than claims that would need independent evidence to support them.

Then show why the evidence I presented in the OP does not support the conclusion at all.

Taking your OP alone, the only actual evidence you present is your statements about crime and chaos in general increasing in the world. Not only is that assertion questionable depending on exactly what you're measuring and how, I question the idea that things are significantly worse that any other point in human history. The idea of there being some definitive transition point that needs a specific explanation isn't evident.

Regardless, changes in crime or general negative aspects of society can be and are explained by a combination of any number of different factors, which is why those things have always varied significantly, by both time and place. There is no need for there to be some additional external force causing these things. As yet unknown factors could exist of course (including, but not exclusively, Biblical demons) but the effects in themselves are not evidence of any specific new cause.

Anyway, your OP also claims that only a "Bible student" will be able to see and understand this, so you're not presenting comprehensive evidence at all. Note that this is not the same as scientists and dark matter since anyone is able to observe the effects and evidence around dark matter and even come to understand them to an extent. Even you express a level of understanding of the concepts of dark matter here.

I believe I did.

You were saying you shouldn't need to present your argument in a manner people can understand. Now you're accepting that you do but claiming you already have? The fact remains that nobody here seems to have fully understood your position, certainly not to the point of considering it viable. Again, isn't it possible that you're not being as clear as you think you are?

I would correct this "since them some or all bad things that happen to us (at least from the viewpoint of the developed world) are caused by demons"

How would you know that though? What is the difference between bad things caused by demons and bad things caused by anything else?

It's a mystery to many, but it only is to those who don't know.

Does that mean you do know? Please do share that reason with the rest of us.

You don't have to follow me. You don't have to agree with me.
Challenge me, yes, but don't expect me to say I am on your side.
Is that what you are seeking? If not. Pleas continue.

It isn't really about you, but more anyone else reading who might not be as clear on the flaws in your position. I'm just adding balance. Debates are rarely about the debaters themselves but about the audience.

I don't expect you to change your position any more than you expect me to change mine, though it would be nice if you conceded that you have not provided anything like as clear and comprehensive evidence for your claims as you think. I also wanted to push back against the common issue of scientific terms and concepts being thrown around in matters of religious belief, but formal scientific method being dropped as soon as it becomes inconvenient.