What do atheists have to say about incidents like these?

[gnostic]

I provided numerous sources of evidence, but you are saying that the evidence does not say what it says, and you are saying that it does say things that it does not say.

Then, after that, you deny that the evidence is evidence and say that no evidence has been provided.

That’s usually what people do when they get backed into a corner though, so I completely understand.

In your OP (meaning the thread’s “Opening Post”), you didn’t start off with police reports or with hospital/medical reports, but with tabloids that talk of 200 demons, possessed girl walking on walls and levitating.

You provided this source (from the Daily Mail Online) first, with no official reports until later, but even these sources are somewhat suspected. All the medical report showed that the girl was throwing herself against the wall, not climbing the wall and not levitating.

Had you provided more than just tabloid article in your first post, you wouldn’t be getting so much skepticism in the first place.

But all I still see, is just BS in regarding to demon possession.

 

[Curious George]

This article and link is no better than Hadar Judah’s original article at the OP, which was already full of pseudoscience garbage.

Still waiting for an explanation.

 

[George-ananda]

George, I am more of engineer than a scientist. When I got out of high school, I did a course on civil engineering. And during my mid-30s to today, I was in computer science.

While both course did have some science involved, particularly physics and maths, I don’t consider myself to be a physicist or mathematician, but whether it be engineering or science, I have learned the values of testings, measuring and acquiring and analysing data for whatever work I am doing.

During my computer science course, I have to at least grasp the concept of electrical devices and electronics circuitry. And a lot of that involved in using measurements.

Devices I used to measure any components, can be as simple as multimeters, or something larger like an oscilloscope. Components (eg resistors, capacitors, transistors, IC, etc) can be faulty, but so can any measuring devices, so it is important to have other devices handy, to test if the faults lie with the components or with devices that measure the components.

Mistakes can be costly especially if the necessary tests haven’t been done.

My point is that I prefer to have proper tests done, then just relying on people’s testimonies.

It has nothing to do with scientism, to be objective and thorough.

What I find absurd are people who throw around words, like “atheism”, “materialism” or “scientism”, when others disagree with them. Like when people science background disagree with creationists, and they immediately resorted to using one or combination of these labels on others.

How many times I have seen creationists labelling people being “atheists”, including those people who disagree them happened to be theists?

You are doing exactly the same things. Just because some people don’t agree with your belief or with your methodology of using the unreliable anecdotes, you immediately jump the gun and accuse others of being adherents of “materialism” or of “scientism”.

You do this time and time again. It is silly, and no less immature in using the same tactics as that of creationists.

Well, OK, we can go on forever and yes sometimes imperfect terms are used because there are no perfect terms.

But for us to get to the heart of the matter we would have to discuss how it is more reasonable to believe the full range of alleged paranormal phenomena is better understood as normal phenomena. I would go case by case and ask for the best explanation and then stand back and ask; is it most reasonable to believe they all have a normal explanation. I have done that exercise myself and am a believer in the paranormal from an overwhelming quantity, quality and consistency of evidence. And add to this are wisdom traditions in which these paranormal things are really part and parcel of a grander understanding of reality than current science can investigate.

 

[George-ananda]

So?

I may be younger than you at 52, but there are not much difference in our age.

I just happened to grown to be more skeptical over time, not just with paranormal and supernatural, but with religions in general, because I have not seen any conclusive evidences for either.

The differences are not age, but with matters of belief.

Are you familiar with Vedic and Theosophical world views discussing planes of nature for example?

 

[George-ananda]

There are no more Vedic science than there are Islamic science, Christian science, creation science.

Each one have misappropriated the use of word science for their own agenda.

They are more appropriate called “philosophy” than “science”. Wisdom tradition isn’t science.

Vedic Science is not a term I am creating.

The word 'Science' is being correctly used per Webster's Dictionary

2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study //the science of theology

 

[Tazarah]

In your OP (meaning the thread’s “Opening Post”), you didn’t start off with police reports or with hospital/medical reports, but with tabloids that talk of 200 demons, possessed girl walking on walls and levitating.

You provided this source (from the Daily Mail Online) first, with no official reports until later, but even these sources are somewhat suspected. All the medical report showed that the girl was throwing herself against the wall, not climbing the wall and not levitating.

Had you provided more than just tabloid article in your first post, you wouldn’t be getting so much skepticism in the first place.

But all I still see, is just BS in regarding to demon possession.

Everything is worthy of skepticism simply because you say so. Where does the report say that the child threw themselves against the wall? It does not say that anywhere. Why do you lie so blatantly and carelessly? Keep lying. Your lies expose you for what you really are.

 

[gnostic]

Still waiting for an explanation.

Sorry, it was my mistake of passing judgments before reading it properly because at the same times, I was reading Hadar’s other links.

 

[Tazarah]

In your OP (meaning the thread’s “Opening Post”), you didn’t start off with police reports or with hospital/medical reports, but with tabloids that talk of 200 demons, possessed girl walking on walls and levitating.

You provided this source (from the Daily Mail Online) first, with no official reports until later, but even these sources are somewhat suspected. All the medical report showed that the girl was throwing herself against the wall, not climbing the wall and not levitating.

Had you provided more than just tabloid article in your first post, you wouldn’t be getting so much skepticism in the first place.

But all I still see, is just BS in regarding to demon possession.

Why do you have to lie? It’s fine if you don’t believe what is being said, everybody is entitled to their own opinion.

But when you lie, especially so openly and blatantly, all you are doing is showing that you have some sort of problem.

I will quote everything word for word:

Page 2 of the intake report clearly says:

“Medical staff reported that while the children were at their primary doctor’s office the medical staff reported that they observed [child’s name] be lifted and thrown into the wall with nobody touching him...”

*AND page 4 of the intake report says:

“[child’s name] had the weird grin on his face and began to walk backwards while the grandmother was holding his hand and he walked up the wall backwards while holding the grandmother’s hand and he never let go. He flipped over and landed on his feet in front of the grandmother and sat down in the chair.”

So, where does the report say ANYTHING about a child throwing themselves into a wall?

and all of these lies and dishonesty are coming from the same exact person who earlier in this thread was vehemently accusing me of using the straw man tactic... hmm.

Think carefully before you respond, and try not to lie.

 

[gnostic]

Vedic Science is not a term I am creating.

The word 'Science' is being correctly used per Webster's Dictionary

2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study //the science of theology

Only if you use science loosely...very loosely.

 

[Tazarah]

In your OP (meaning the thread’s “Opening Post”), you didn’t start off with police reports or with hospital/medical reports, but with tabloids that talk of 200 demons, possessed girl walking on walls and levitating.

You provided this source (from the Daily Mail Online) first, with no official reports until later, but even these sources are somewhat suspected. All the medical report showed that the girl was throwing herself against the wall, not climbing the wall and not levitating.

Had you provided more than just tabloid article in your first post, you wouldn’t be getting so much skepticism in the first place.

But all I still see, is just BS in regarding to demon possession.

I’ll link the report again so that there are no excuses.

Intake Officer's Report

Also, you said:

“had you provided more than just tabloid article in your first post, you wouldn’t be getting so much skepticism in the first place.”

Well, the fact of the matter is that the OP does contain links to the official reports (the link to the indianopolis star, which is posted not once but twice in the OP, contains each of the reports mentioned).

What’s wrong with you dude? You try so hard to look like you know what you are talking about, but you for some reason cannot pay attention to the most basic of details.

You must enjoy coming off as an someone who is incompetent.

 

[ecco]

And I generally would say:

I've considered enough phenomena X claims for quantity, quality and consistency to judge that I believe something real and beyond the knowledge of current science is indeed going on.

Ghosts, Veridical Near Death Experiences, telepathy, remote viewing, spirit communication, telekinesis, miracles, etc. to be quality phenomena that I believe to be real.

I asked for verified examples and the above is your response.

I believe telepathy, remote viewing, telekinesis, etc. to be verified by competent parapsychology professionals.

In other words you have not one single verified example.

Theosophy and Vedic Science are not phenomena but wisdom traditions that address issues society calls paranormal or supernatural.

Woo by any other name is still woo.

 

[ecco]

I hold Randi to be nothing more than a showman with an act claiming nobody can produce paranormal phenomena.

Here's the way it worked:
People contacted the Randi Institute claiming they could demonstrate paranormal phenomena.
Randi set up controlled experiments.
People failed to produce the results they claimed to be able to produce.

There is a multitude of evidence available...One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge - Wikipedia
There are other skeptics groups that have had the same results.

I also believe his distortions and dishonesty have been exposed many times by better quality people.

OK. Then it should be easy for you to provide evidence of his distortions and dishonesty.






I look to the positive results claimed by parapsychologists and findings by serious investigators.[/QUOTE]

 

[ecco]

I’ll link the report again so that there are no excuses.

Intake Officer's Report

I read your report - again. There are no first hand eyewitness accounts of any paranormal activity other than that stated by family members.

Prove me wrong. Paste those parts of the report that show otherwise.

 

[ecco]

Vedic Science is not a term I am creating.

The word 'Science' is being correctly used per Webster's Dictionary

2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study //the science of theology

maharishi-programmes.globalgoodnews.com

Vedic science is the term used in modern attempts to systematize ancient scientific thought to be found in early Indian scriptures, especially the Vedas.
​

Note the words: "attempts" and "thought to be"

 

[George-ananda]

In other words you have not one single verified example.

Can you describe your list of requirements for an example to be considered 'verified' by your terms? You can make the requirements impossible, but then so what?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Dont worry, "Satan knows scripture" and so do I.

E ven if the "casting demoms" were not apocryphal,
it would hardly make every ridiculous bit of woo woo
true.

Lol, I understand your view, I do. But we're speaking about people, i.e., Christians, who already say they accept Christ. (I'm one.)
If they question Jesus expelling demons, which many times was mentioned at the same time while he was healing people, then why not question that, too? Then why call themselves, Christian?

Of course, I believe many deny Christ (and, by extension, God) by their willful actions. Titus 1:16

 

[ChristineM]

Well first of all, the source that I posted gave reference to the original source that the story came from.

Secondly, why would you claim that the story is bogus and has not been reported by credible sources without actually checking to see if it actually has been reported by other sources?

I posted the other sources a little while ago

Simple - Because the source you provided is not a credible source. Why should i consider anything they publish as credible?

I am surprised you did not research their utter lack of reporting probity before quoting it.

So post them again, i am not hear to read everything you posted, the forum is far too big and my time is far too short.

 

[Tazarah]

I read your report - again. There are no first hand eyewitness accounts of any paranormal activity other than that stated by family members.

Prove me wrong. Paste those parts of the report that show otherwise.

You should read it one more time, but this time — open your eyes.

Intake Officer's Report

Page 2 of the intake report clearly says:

“Medical staff reported that while the children were at their primary doctor’s office the medical staff reported that they observed [child’s name] be lifted and thrown into the wall with nobody touching him...”

*AND page 4 of the intake report says:

“[child’s name] had the weird grin on his face and began to walk backwards while the grandmother was holding his hand and he walked up the wall backwards while holding the grandmother’s hand and he never let go. He flipped over and landed on his feet in front of the grandmother and sat down in the chair.”

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Here's a good point for me to jump in with a point I have already made in this thread. I am actually fine with science being slow and cautious. However, I (not being an adherent of scientism) consider more than science in forming my overall understanding of reality. Other esoteric wisdom traditions and the paranormal claims of mankind are also things I consider. I feel science is great but limited in what it can know and I consider the full body of all human experiences.
Well the majority of paranormal and spiritual events are spontaneous and not predictable. 'Science' does not work well with such things. Also I think the experimental and paranormal investigative work by professionals is just simply looked down upon by many with an unfortunate arrogant attitude that too many in science seem to hold.
Well, I think you are overrating the understanding of science. To me things like dark matter, quantum mechanics, the nature of consciousness has me believing science (although a great thing) has a long, long way to go. At this point observation can precede understanding.

Science is not slow and cautious. Both have negative connotations. Science is objective, practical, meticulous, and methodical. It is irrelevant if you use a Ouija board, read tea leaves, or arbitrarily define the limits of science, your argument is still just a well-dressed(esoteric) belief based on ignorance.

Well the majority of paranormal and spiritual events are spontaneous and not predictable. 'Science' does not work well with such things. Also I think the experimental and paranormal investigative work by professionals is just simply looked down upon by many with an unfortunate arrogant attitude that too many in science seem to hold.

And what about the minority of events that are NOT spontaneous, and ARE predictable? Can science work well with them? What you fail to understand, is that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to devise a test to verify/validate/prove the existence of the supernatural or the paranormal. We are not asking for people to solve any of the other six Millennium Problems. Setting up sound, visual, density, spectral, temperature, and movement sensors/monitors, throughout a suspected paranormal location, and simply wait on the results is not that hard to do. It is the zero results of doing this thousands of times since the 60's, that have shaped my beliefs and expectations. Not arrogance. If a person claims that they can heal people, see into the future, read minds, mentally move objects, create miracles, or can see ghosts, then let them simply demonstrate it. Not make better excuses why they can't. Surely One claim could have passed scrutiny? Surely ONE person could have collected the cash.

I don't think scientist are arrogant. But trying to shame them into keeping an open mind, is. Most scientists won't trade their rationalism to justify wishful thinking, or an over-active imagination. The supernatural, paranormal, and the spiritual, were stories meant to appease old minds, excite young minds, and entertain little minds. It was never meant to enlighten rational minds.

Dark matter, Dark energy, and the laws of quantum Mechanics are real. They are all verifiable, testable, repeatable, understandable, predictable, measurable, falsifiable, and will produce observable results. Consciousness is a label used to represent the state of being aware of self, and its position within space and time. It is the emergent property represented by less that 5% of the brain's activities. Therefore, ONE represents a conceptual understanding of reality based on zero facts. The other represents a perceptual understanding of reality, based almost entirely on verifiable facts.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I contest your premise that every supernatural claim fails. the question is; WHO MAKES THAT JUDGMENT? I can list professional parapsychologists, investigators and others claiming positive results.

Prizes like Randi's fail to be important to me because the final judge is who? A person and organization emotionally dedicated to the proposition that the paranormal has never been demonstrated. I can find a way to win any contest where I am the final arbiter, right? Wouldn't be hard for a professional magician.

You can make claims about anything you want, or about anyone you want. These claims are all irrelevant, without evidence that can stand on its own. Without evidence that can be falsified or can validate conclusively, claims will always be just that. In early Egyptian history, do you know what people did to the person that exposed that they were being conned? They stoned him to death. Maybe people are better off staying conned, then to expose them to the truth of them being conned.

Prizes like Randi's fail to be important to me because the final judge is who? A person and organization emotionally dedicated to the proposition that the paranormal has never been demonstrated. I can find a way to win any contest where I am the final arbiter, right? Wouldn't be hard for a professional magician.

Randi is a magician of over 50 years experience, so I doubt if he could be so easily fooled by magic or professional cons. However, his foundation is not the only foundation searching for proof of the supernatural or the paranormal. There are other organizations throughout the world. Why haven't any of these professional cons, or magicians, already collected their bounty in over 50 years? What would be the motivation behind hiding a new discovery, and possibly missing out on a Nobel prize? Your view of the motives of professional researchers and scientists is not only skewed, but self-serving. Your logic seems to be, if the results don't fit your belief, just discredit the people deciding the results. This is textbook cognitive bias.