What do atheists have to say about incidents like these?

[Tazarah]

HoweverFrom the OP information. To me the key point of the whole story is that professionals (police, social workers, hospital staff) feel certain they saw things that was outside the range of normal phenomena. Multiple examples are given in the article.

So again a skeptic's position is that all these things are normal phenomena and can be reproduced for the professionals viewing at any time.
However, the OP material describes much more details and events (levitations, kids thrown, graceful glide up to the ceiling, etc.) than your one hacked away example contains.

Anyway we each have to use our own judgment and you can believe whatever you want. As for me, I think this is highly likely to be a case containing genuine paranormal phenomena and that all these things reported are also not unprecedented in the annals of the paranormal.

Instead of just coming out and saying “hey I see what the evidence says but I just can’t bring myself to believe any of it”, some of these people instead attack and criticize the official documents in a childish and irrational manner. That speaks volumes about the levels of their maturity.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Who cares what kind of evidence you expect, and better yet who cares what you think or believe? The official documented reports speak for themselves.

Oh look, now he’s typing in big bold letters. Somebody is getting angry. Lmfao

Not a shred of anger, believe me. I simply like to make sure my intended audience knows the words they should be paying most attention to. Believe me... based on many of my conversations with people much like yourself, they are in dire need of such cues.

At any rate, based on your continual insistence that "the reports speak for themselves", you couldn't be worth any amount of anger even if you tried. And what do the reports ultimately say? That the event was caused by demons? That it was spirits? That it was any other of a million "spiritual" or "supernatural" things that can't possibly have been proven in the situation? Yes... indeed, that is what it says. And you just eat it all up like a yummy slop for breakfast because you just can't help yourself. You don't care about what is real, can be demonstrated, or has actual application in your life. You've proven that with your comments in this thread time and time again.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Instead of just coming out and saying “hey I see what the evidence says but I just can’t bring myself to believe any of it”, some of these people instead attack and criticize the official documents in a childish and irrational manner. That speaks volumes about the levels of their maturity.

I'm going to assume that the both of you are rational thinkers, and don't believe in the silly idea that the only certainty is absolute certainty. Hadar, since you strongly believe in a flat earth, you are a cognitive magnet, that is attracted to any beliefs/ideas/events that have the lowest probability of ever becoming certain. Your greatest fear is a rational explanation. George, you seem to find comfort in applying the margin of error to both falsifiable and unfalsifiable claims alike. In you view, as long as nothing can't be absolutely certain, then nothing can be certain, period. I apologize if I am off the mark.

A rational person would want answers to the right questions. Especially, regarding extraordinary claims. What force is used to generate enough friction to keep someone upright against a vertical wall? It can't be Gravitational(downward only), and it certainly isn't Kinetic(or you would be squished when you hit the wall). Not addressed. Is there any objective, independent, non-testimonial evidence supporting the claim? None. What were the results of further investigation by teams of paranormal investigators? None taken. Was there any direct physical evidence that could be objectively analysed? None. Was there any indirect, or residual evidence that also could be measured and analysed? None. Was there at least a pattern of events, that could predict future events? None mentioned. These are the questions I personally would be asking, regardless of my own personal bias.

Otherwise, any Vegas magic show, can produce the same effects, and achieve the same evidential results. So, if you choose to believe that a person can walk up a vertical wall, or be possessed by a demon, then you can't logically rule out Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Instead of just coming out and saying “hey I see what the evidence says but I just can’t bring myself to believe any of it”, some of these people instead attack and criticize the official documents in a childish and irrational manner. That speaks volumes about the levels of their maturity.

Fully reviewing all possible evidence/counter evidence before coming to a definitive conclusion about something is immature? On what planet?

 

[George-ananda]

Instead of just coming out and saying “hey I see what the evidence says but I just can’t bring myself to believe any of it”, some of these people instead attack and criticize the official documents in a childish and irrational manner. That speaks volumes about the levels of their maturity.

Yes, at some point I think many just become no-holds-barred anti-paranormal types FIRST. I think the objective honesty and full balanced analysis loses the driver seat to an agenda at that point.

Nobody's perfect but I am aware of the leading with an agenda analysis error, so I do my best to fairly consider all evidence and argumentation.

 

[HonestJoe]

Instead of just coming out and saying “hey I see what the evidence says but I just can’t bring myself to believe any of it”, some of these people instead attack and criticize the official documents in a childish and irrational manner. That speaks volumes about the levels of their maturity.

I don’t think anyone is denying the evidence of several people reporting that they witnessed events they couldn’t explain. What we’re challenging is the leap of faith to asserting that the cause of those unexplained events are demons (or indeed asserting any definitive explanation).

On the same basis you’re expecting sceptics to accept the evidence, do you accept that there is absolutely no evidence presented in any of the reports or documents supporting the claim of “demons” (by any conventional definition) being involved (or indeed, actually existing at all)?

 

[ecco]

From the OP information. To me the key point of the whole story is that professionals (police, social workers, hospital staff) feel certain they saw things that was outside the range of normal phenomena. Multiple examples are given in the article.

If multiple examples are given, then it should be easy for you to select one specific example of a first hand report of a paranormal event.

 

[George-ananda]

If multiple examples are given, then it should be easy for you to select one specific example of a first hand report of a paranormal event.

Let's just say I pick one of many just from that article; like the levitation or the kid seemingly thrown into the wall. Then where does our discussion go from there? Are you expecting proof after the event?

Edit: Did you read the article linked in the OP?

 

[SkepticThinker]

That’s because it does not say that.

It does and I posted it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

My bad for butting in. I guess I was trying to point out that influence is a moot point for the paranormal hypothesis. Continue on you two.

No worries.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Who cares what kind of evidence you expect, and better yet who cares what you think or believe? The official documented reports speak for themselves.

Oh look, now he’s typing in big bold letters. Somebody is getting angry. Lmfao

I'm sorry, are you the one trying to refer to other people as immature?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, it says that they “believe”.

If I believe that my dog is a horse, does that mean it is true?

And on top of that, you and your buddy lied and said that “the children were performing for their mother” as if it had been proven as a fact.

Were the staff of the hospital and the investigating police putting on an act for the mother as well?

I'm not saying whether it's true or not, (though it does seem as though it is true).

I'm saying it's in the report. You claimed it wasn't. Several times, to several different posters.

I haven't lied about anything. It says what it says.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That’s because it does not say that.

It absolutely does.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is a firsthand account, like the reports state. Both the officers and medical staff had their statements recorded and written down, and then that same exact information was taken and put into the intake report by the intake officer.

It’s not rocket science.

Hey, don't blame me for your ignorance of what a firsthand account is.

 

[ecco]

From the OP information. To me the key point of the whole story is that professionals (police, social workers, hospital staff) feel certain they saw things that was outside the range of normal phenomena. Multiple examples are given in the article.

If multiple examples are given, then it should be easy for you to select one specific example of a first hand report of a paranormal event.

Let's just say I pick one of many just from that article; like the levitation or the kid seemingly thrown into the wall. Then where does our discussion go from there? Are you expecting proof after the event?

In other words you cannot select even one specific example of a first hand report of a paranormal event.

 

[George-ananda]

In other words you cannot select even one specific example of a first hand report of a paranormal event.

I don’t understand. First hand reports are not hard to come by and are even referenced in that article.

 

[ecco]

My emphases...

To me the key point of the whole story is that professionals (police, social workers, hospital staff) feel certain they saw things that was outside the range of normal phenomena. Multiple examples are given in the article.

I don’t understand. First hand reports are not hard to come by and are even referenced in that article.

What don't you understand?

You've stated,repeatedly, that there are multiple examples of paranormal activity in the article referenced in this thread.

I've read the report. There is no first hand account of a paranormal event regarding the issue in this thread.

When I've asked you to post even one specific example of a first hand account of a paranormal event. You haven't. You've just ducked and dodged.

Perhaps you should retract your claim that there are multiple examples of first hand accounts of a paranormal event. More important, you should admit, even just to yourself, that there are no first hand accounts of a paranormal event in the article.

 

[George-ananda]

My emphases...




What don't you understand?

You've stated,repeatedly, that there are multiple examples of paranormal activity in the article referenced in this thread.

I've read the report. There is no first hand account of a paranormal event regarding the issue in this thread.

When I've asked you to post even one specific example of a first hand account of a paranormal event. You haven't. You've just ducked and dodged.

Perhaps you should retract your claim that there are multiple examples of first hand accounts of a paranormal event. More important, you should admit, even just to yourself, that there are no first hand accounts of a paranormal event in the article.

I now better understand what you are saying. I consider a first hand account the words of an actual witness as those in quote marks in just one example below. Ecco, you may have trying to tie me in with your discussion with another poster, but the definition of a first hand account is not something I think is worth getting testy over.

"He walked up the wall, flipped over her and stood there," Walker told The Star. "There's no way he could've done that."

Later, police asked Washington whether the boy had run up the wall, as though performing an acrobatic trick.

No, Washington told them. She said the boy "glided backward on the floor, wall and ceiling," according to a police report.

 

[ecco]

I now better understand what you are saying. I consider a first hand account the words of an actual witness as those in quote marks in just one example below. Ecco, you may have trying to tie me in with your discussion with another poster, but the definition of a first hand account is not something I think is worth getting testy over.

I got testy over your refusal to make any attempt to back up your claims. I got testy when you implied that I hadn't read the article.

You say you know what a first hand account is and then you post the following italicized comments.

"He walked up the wall, flipped over her and stood there," Walker told The Star. "There's no way he could've done that."

Who is Walker. Where is it written that Walker himself/herself actually saw the event. Is Walker contradicting himself?

Later, police asked Washington whether the boy had run up the wall, as though performing an acrobatic trick.

No, Washington told them. She said the boy "glided backward on the floor, wall and ceiling," according to a police report.

There is nothing in Washington's own report that indicates she said that.

Notice the clever wording:

First hand: No, Washington told them. OK, that sounds like a direct quote from Washington.
----
Then comes the hearsay: She said the boy "glided backward on the floor, wall and ceiling," according to a police report.
What police report? Who wrote the police report? Who heard her say those words?

You just blindly accept these distortions without really thinking about them.


Is this the police report?
Intake Officer's Report
It's what the OP has been erroneously referring to as a police report. But it isn't. It's Washington's intake report.


So, where are we. You stated: "To me the key point of the whole story is that professionals ... feel certain they saw things that was outside the range of normal phenomena. Multiple examples are given in the article."


Three times I asked you to show even one of those multiple examples. Twice you ducked and dogged. Now you posted a few short excerpts that do not support your argument. You show no sources for your comments. So, once again, you failed to provide any evidence that anyone witnessed anything paranormal.



What we have here is a couple of kids living in a really screwed up household and a caseworker trying to get the kids out.

 

[George-ananda]

I got testy over your refusal to make any attempt to back up your claims. I got testy when you implied that I hadn't read the article.

You say you know what a first hand account is and then you post the following italicized comments.




Who is Walker. Where is it written that Walker himself/herself actually saw the event. Is Walker contradicting himself?



There is nothing in Washington's own report that indicates she said that.

Notice the clever wording:

First hand: No, Washington told them. OK, that sounds like a direct quote from Washington.
----
Then comes the hearsay: She said the boy "glided backward on the floor, wall and ceiling," according to a police report.
What police report? Who wrote the police report? Who heard her say those words?

You just blindly accept these distortions without really thinking about them.


Is this the police report?
Intake Officer's Report
It's what the OP has been erroneously referring to as a police report. But it isn't. It's Washington's intake report.


So, where are we. You stated: "To me the key point of the whole story is that professionals ... feel certain they saw things that was outside the range of normal phenomena. Multiple examples are given in the article."


Three times I asked you to show even one of those multiple examples. Twice you ducked and dogged. Now you posted a few short excerpts that do not support your argument. You show no sources for your comments. So, once again, you failed to provide any evidence that anyone witnessed anything paranormal.



What we have here is a couple of kids living in a really screwed up household and a caseworker trying to get the kids out.

All evidence can be challenged into infinity and I have no desire to do that in this case (I am not the OP person and was just a commenter)

I am not going to make this case a personal research project. In fact I have seen people interviewed and this case discussed on TV and other places too. Is it possible that ithe key claims are all based on lies? Yes, always possible. Do I think so? No, I think that is highly unlikely based on all I have seen, heard and know about this particular case, the number and quality of witnesses and the paranormal in general.