That isn't the opinion of the Catholic Church and other "experts" nowadays. How do you know that your opinion of how an exorcism should be performed is the correct way? Especially since there has never been a comparison of different exorcism techniques to see how they work?

So you are saying that all these exorcism stories are bullshit?

That is odd. Serious experts in science devote significant time towards debunking crazies who use pseudoscience to spread lies. Why there are some very intelligent men from the scientific field who have devoted their whole lives to debunking false science, such as James Randi. Why do you think that no one in the church does the same thing to this joker? After all, his efforts simply make thinking people believe that all this demon stuff is baloney and I would think that someone who devotes their entire career to exorcisms would be concerned about his effect on the field as a whole. 

We don't know that he was diagnosed as having nothing wrong with him by the doctors, we only have eyewitness testimony that we know is unreliable because we know they lied to us about other things. The very fact he was admitted to a psychiatric hospital suggests that the doctors involved believed there was something wrong with him. Doctors do not admit you if they believe you are perfectly healthy. It is not the least bit unusual for a teenage boy to have depression, ADHD, autism or a myriad of other disorders that would cause them to exhibit erratic and/or anti-social behavior. Remember, this happened in the 1940's and our knowledge of mental health has grown exponentially since then. It is quite likely that they knew he wasn't acting or thinking normally but did not have the knowledge to determine exactly what was wrong and the medications to treat such things had not been invented yet. 

Then why would demons show up at all? 

So why do you feel a need to assume a possibility that has not been proved to even be a possible when there are other possibilities that have been proven to be possible?

Because you told me he did. You said 

My point is, God does not provide food, nor does he provide us with "everything we need" as evidenced by the sheer number of people who have died throughout history because they didn't have the basic necessities of food, water, shelter and medicine to survive. Everything we need is provided by human labor. 

 Lol, and you just said it again. "He also provides us everything we need." Ask all the people in the world who are dying of malnutrition. Sorry, I am not going to thank anyone for torturing their own son, I think that is absolutely barbaric. Nor am I going to thank anyone who sends perfectly decent human beings to hell. If there is a god, then there are certainly demons because He is clearly demonic. 

Nor does it change the fact that you have zero evidence to support your crazy version of what happened.

I don't doubt the possibility of anything, that is why I have repeatedly asked you for evidence to demonstrate that your explanation is more probable than other explanations. Evidence that you have repeatedly failed to produce. Since you have zero evidence and your explanation is rather extraordinary, your explanation is slightly more improbable than the theory that we do not really exist and are actually all part of a computer program. 

You described your situation as "random" streetlights that only went out only while you were directly under them and turned back on (presumably while they were still in your range of sight). Now you are saying that a whole block went out? If a whole street goes out and comes back on shortly, most likely it was a breaker that got tripped and quickly reset. Doubtful the news is going to report on an outage that lasts only a few seconds, though they would for one that last hours, but you said the lights came back on. 

You said

I even asked you for clarification and you said,

It would prove that you had an electrical problem that professional electricians could not explain, which in and of itself would be noteworthy even before you put forward you demon theory. 

Then why do you believe in them? 

Yet you are saying that the symptoms are medical, so it is medical. A doctor is not an expert on saws, but when you saw off your finger it becomes a medical problem and with some effort a doctor can determine that a saw is what caused the injury (they do it in court cases all the time, an expert witness will analyze pictures of the wound and provide evidence that it was caused by a certain implement)

Do you have any case of a demon that has been documented by doctors? That would be great. 

I believe people who perform credible and repeatable experiments in their field and provide their evidence openly and willingly to other experts in their field for peer review. I do not trust all doctors, there are plenty of them that are scam artists. Fortunately, if you read some peer reviewed journals it is pretty easy to determine which ones just make stuff up and do poor experiments and which ones perform good research. I am not trusting any single doctor, I am trusting that the field in general does a good job self policing their ranks and criticizing the frauds before their crazy ideas become part of mainstream medicine. 

So are you saying that everyone who does not believe in god is possessed by a demon?

I won't deny that sometimes converting to a religion can be personally beneficial in some cases. It can also be extremely damaging (such as you might become a bigot against gay marriage). Nor is turning to religion the only way a person can make a substantial change in their life. For example, numerous studies of drug rehabilitation programs have demonstrated that there is not a significant difference in relapse rates among those who attend religious based programs and adopt a religion and those who attend similar secular programs.

If holding a false belief makes you a better person that is fine with me. Just don't try to convince me that your fantasy is real. And whether or not a believing in a fantasy has more benefits than believing in reality is completely irrelevant to what is fantasy and what is reality. Personally, I believe it is better to know reality than to be blissfully ignorant in some fantasy.   

You are the one who linked me to the story! Now you are telling me you don't even believe it yourself! If you do not believe the branding claims, why do you believe any of the claims? Maybe I am crazy, but when someone lies to me once, I tend to be quite skeptical of everything they claim. 

Probably, because that is the logical conclusion, either self inflicted or inflicted by someone else. They would put the person in a psychiatric ward where they would be restrained, and presumably the demon would keep making brands so then they would be studying the cameras trying to figure out how they got there. At that point it would become news at least among the psychiatrist journals. However, it appears that it has never actually happened.  

Except we have no clue how it ended because we don't know who he is. We are told that he grew up with "little to no recollection" of the events and outwardly has the perfect American family blah blah blah. But we also all know those people who have a "perfect" family and have some serious problems that they just don't talk to anyone about. That is why every time there is some murder everyone comes out of the woodwork going "I don't get it, he was such a nice person and seemed so happy."

All we have is the word of an author, who you say you don't believe all the claims he relates so we already have a credibility issue. We don't know how long the author talked to him, nor do we know if he was honest with the author. Since he insisted on keeping his name private and claims he doesn't have a recollection of the events, it is clear he does not want to talk about it. People generally have no problem talking about things that turned out just fine. You will find the same type of approach taken by many war veterans who get back and will refuse to talk to anyone about what they saw and what they did while outwardly having a normal life. Just because a person's life looks fine on the surface, does not mean that there are not serious problems beneath.

Hell, when my marriage ended everyone was shocked because they thought we had a "perfect" marriage and we faked it straight through Christmas and I moved out New Years Day. 

I suppose it is possible that he doesn't recall the events at all. It was no doubt a traumatic experience, even if you discount the stories of all the screams and pleading, it was widely reported in his hometown newspaper that he was possessed and essentially destroyed his ability to go back to his old school or neighborhood, which on its own can be traumatic to a kid. Maybe he was mentally strong enough to get through it and live a rather normal and well adjusted life. There are people who get molested as children and manage to go about their lives perfectly normal as well, there are people who fight in wars and manage to come back and live perfectly normal lives, there are people who can get through any number of traumatic experiences and live normally.

That doesn't make such things positive, because we know in many cases people are not able to live perfectly normal lives after experiencing them. At best, this is a case where the exorcism didn't cause any lasting damage to the kid, I don't think you can call it a positive outcome unless you can prove that things like the body branding and levitation were actually happening and that the exorcism was preferable to those.  

by definition, it is an airplane.  See:  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/airplane?s=t.  Only if it is unable to fly is it just a car.  

I guess if you really want to get technical, we could argue that when the wings are folded up, it is unable to fly and when they're out it's able to fly... Then by definition it could be just a car... but only when the wings are folded in... My point would still stand then that cars can't fly.  

False analogy AGAIN ! Stop comparing fiction to mechanics !  Don't understand ? Then tell me. 

And AGAIN !! Now you're comparing the whole of science to "spirituality". I told you in my last reply why that doesn't work. 

*sigh*   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_car_(aircraft)

The lengths you go to just to build yet another false analogy. 

Which I did. Because those were the only things I could think of that you can't fake.

That you should quit making them, and giving me the proof I asked for, or simply admit there is no proof for demons ? 

I mean, seriously, if you're going to accuse someone else of being "weird, strange and funny", then why not give an example ? You know, add some proof to your claims ? 

And I also left it up there as a reminder that I already did. Underlining it alone isn't gonna get your attention, so I'll use bold font as well : You can't explain nonsense with more nonsense. 

If you still don't get why trying to prove nonsense by adding more nonsense doesn't work, then tell me. Heck, I'll explain with an analogy, an actual working one, since you like them so much.

Sorry, wrong again. Try reading what I actually wrote. 

Nope, again, just read what I write. It will save us both so much time. 

Mainly because you have great trouble actually reading what I write, and what you make of it bears not even a little resemblance to what I actually said. It's really quite extraordinary.

? Um...no, sorry. For starters, you'd have to read what I actually wrote before you could even manage a half decent imitation. 

Meh. Not really. Just try to stick to the subject and we'll be done in a jiffy.

???????? LOL !

BECAUSE YOU KEEP BRINGING IT UP AGAIN !

Dude, if you don't even know yourself why you keep doing that, then how am I supposed to know ??? 

Hey, here's an idea : Why not just stop doing that ? 

Then explain. And try not bringing up any more arguments I already addressed. 

Oh really ? Then what about all those endlessly repeated analogies where you compared proof for cars to proof for demons ? 

So you either still don't understand why you can't just go drawing parallels between fiction and mechanics, or your selective blindness has struck again.

Which is it gonna be ? 

Are you kidding ? You couldn't have made it any easier for me if you tried.

If hanging on to a false analogy like this is "reasonable", then I dread to read what comes next.

Changing things around again, and saying it's "just as is is good" ? No, sorry, you compared "proof for demons", to "proof for cars"

Or I could just claim you did what you actually did, namely, compare "proof for demons" to "proof for cars".

Which is what I claimed. 

Link is up there. Or you could just google this stuff yourself before you go making useless false analogies.

It would be a "flying car" as the link explains. 

Am I typing in invisible ink ? I said your cars analogy is a false analogy, because you can't compare "proof for demons" to "proof for cars". If you don't understand why, I'll happily explain.

"My" proof ? Have you once again forgotten which side of this argument you claim to be on ? 

Yeah, and you know what's even worse ? You already gave up the argument you were trying to defend with your false analogy anyway ! So basically, you've been wasting my time. Gee, I hope you didn't do that on purpose.

So anyway, now that that mess is all cleaned up, please produce the proof for demons, or admit that there is none. 

Nope, still comparing mechanics to fiction, which doesn't work. And still not grasping that you already gave up the argument you were trying to defend with your false analogy in the first place. 

The proof will SEEM irrational, remember ? So yeah, no more excuses. Produce the proof, or admit there isn't any.

Again, that is not what I wrote. How hard is it to read what I actually write ??? 

No, because you can't prove nonsense with other nonsense. If you don't understand that, then tell me. I mean, I can't just go assuming that you don't understand that. 

Really ? It's pretty straightforward : You claim there is proof for demons. You ask me what would be acceptable proof. I tell you. I tell you WHY it's acceptable, and why your other suggestions are not. You force me to repeat those explanations by not reading what I write, and clinging to false analogies you already gave up many posts ago.

So after I have repeated my ignored or misrepresented explanations, I repeat my original request : Produce the proof, or admit there isn't any. 

Really, what's not to understand ? But do tell if you still don't. I'll happily explain again. 

Well, we've established it's a false analogy, so yeah, of course it's not logical. As for me turning it into a "tangent", hey, you kept digging it up again, so don't blame me. 

I've already explained that, many, many times : Because those are the only things I can think of that you cant fake. If you don't understand what that's essential, then tell me, and I'll explain. Again.

If it's not possible, then there is no proof for demons. But you say there is. That means you either can answer those questions yourself, or you accept proof that isn't acceptable at all, for reasons I've already explained in detail, again and again. Either way, you're in trouble.

Forgot already ? The proof is going to SEEM like nonsense before it's produced. And you haven't produced it yet. 

Thanks ! 

Again, the proof is going to SEEM irrational, before it gets produced. Which hasn't happened yet. 

Unfortunately for you, I don't. 

Nope, and that's not what I did. And that's also not how you would dismiss those silly alien stories the scientologists are selling. Or are you telling me you took all their courses ? 

I think you'll find people argue plenty about the meaning of life. 

A statement that explains the meaning of a term. In this case, there isn't one. Which makes it too easy to fake, so it's not relevant in a search for acceptable proof.  

"Unfortunately" ?? Are you kidding again ? This just keeps getting easier. 

But you just AGREED with my rules, so why would I need to "stuff" them into you ???

And I didn't. You made another false analogy and I explained why it qualified as such. If you don't understand why, then say so. 

What do you mean ? You made another false analogy and I explained why it qualified as such. If you don't understand why, then say so.

Yes, your false analogies are getting old. Stop making them. 

??? A "tangent" from what "point" ? Stop making these vague claims and try making your "point" without yet another false analogy. 

What "approach" ? What are you talking about ? 

But you didn't make a "point" ! You made another false analogy. I've already explained why they don't qualify as "points".

Can't make heads nor tails of the first sentence, and the second one is a non-sequitur. 

Again, I have already explained why "spirituality" doesn't count as proof, and you have accepted my "rules" that disqualify it. 

Also, it's not my fault that you keep making false analogies, or seem incapable of acknowledging that fact, and AGAIN, we already agreed acceptable proof is going to SEEM impossible/irrational/nonsense before someone produces it. 

I'm sure I'll have to repeat all that plenty more times. Not a problem. 

Yeah, and I've been waiting for you to actually read it. But sure, I'll explain again : It's too easy to fake, so as we agreed, it doesn't work as acceptable proof. 

No, sorry, we already agreed on my "rules" for acceptable proof, so if it's an "excuse", it's one you agree with. Which leaves you with no other choice : Produce the proof, or admit there is none. 

I did actually ?? I did actually what ? 

Well yeah. If something exists, then of course acceptable proof is possible. 

Wait a minute..."what I have " ??? Did you forget again ? YOU ARE THE ONE WHO BELIEVES IN DEMONS ! 

For pete's sake , deny WHAT ???????

Forgot AGAIN ?? We already agreed that you don't get to decide what "logical proof" for demons is ! 

We AGREED on my "rules" for acceptable proof !! We AGREED ! 

YES !! "In OTHER WORDS" !! Words I never wrote ! Stop doing this !!

For the last time (Ha !), I know the proof is acceptable because I know you can't fake it ! You AGREED with that rule ! 

Why do you need my help when you already agreed with my rules ??? If you don't understand, then why agree with my rules ?????

But you already agreed with my rules !

Because you kept making the same mistake I already dealt with ! 

Every single time I dealt with one of your objections, I asked you to tell me if you didn't understand my explanation. If you don't answer that question, then how am I supposed to know you're not simply ignoring everything I tell you ? 

If you're talking about laws in "other worlds", that would fall under explaining nonsense with more nonsense, which we agreed can not lead to acceptable proof. 

And if you're having trouble sticking to the subject, here it is again :

Produce acceptable proof (we agree on the rules for that), or admit there is none.

I see facts leave you even less than monosyllabic. Okay then. 

? 

The false analogies were yours. If you don't want people wasting time explaining why you shouldn't use them, then I suggest you don't use them anymore.

Can be, but isn't, when the patient is kept away from proper medical care, as the cases brought up show. 

What can or cannot be done about a medical condition, is something medical professionals are trained for and capable of judging. However, your opinions on such matters are irrelevant. Surely you understand that at least ? 

Your question does not answer mine, so I will repeat : You will keep openly supporting this exclusively toxic nonsense, no matter who suffers for it ? Just as long as it isn't you ? 

The problem is people who believe in "demons", and aren't content to keep this insanity to themselves, and shamelessly stick their heads in the sand when confronted with the results of their "beliefs". So yes, I am most certainly confronting that problem.

And you are trumpeting your support for these insane and destructive beliefs to anyone who will listen. 

You were aware of such a case, and you presented it as holding proof for "demonic possession". Clearly, the one needing an education there was you. 

And as that same case showed, you don't need to be "aware" of anything to be a tragically negative influence. Just openly supporting this insane notion is quite enough. 

Then try some facts instead of "belief".

So you use vague language on purpose in such a situation ??? "Includes" ????? 

What I need is for you to actually read my request : Please show me a reliable source that reports something positive that could not have occurred without belief in "demons" or "possession".

People change, WITHOUT belief in "demons" and "possession". I asked for something that COULD NOT have occurred without belief in "demons" or "possession". 

You are conveniently forgetting the subject of this "written test", so your attempt at sarcasm is yet another waste of time. 

No, it does not. We are discussing the abuse caused by this very specific, already debunked, medieval fantasy. You seem very eager to discuss something else. Ashamed of your "belief" after all ? 

Yes, they do. That's what facts do. "Belief" in "demons" and "possession" on the other hand, does not justify even the mild annoyance it would cause in a best case scenario. 

Patently false. We have answered even the questions designed to lead us as far away as possible from what we were actually discussing. As for you, at this early point in your reply, you have already failed to answer two direct questions. More to come, I'm sure. 

And no, not a single one of the questions or statements you jumbled up, have been open to "interpretation" by anyone with even a passing knowledge of the English language. Which makes your selective reading comprehension problem very strange indeed. 

Again, you have mysteriously managed to "misconstrue" some remarkably simple sentences. 

And that is exactly what you did not do. The examples were already given. 

Um...no, what happened was your exact words were quoted, together with the sentence they were supposed to "clarify", to show the painfully obvious difference between the two.

The example Mouse underlined for you shows you do no such thing. 

Simply suggesting someone's answers aren't simple and straightforward doesn't make them so. Please remember to bring facts to accompany your accusations, or don't make them at all. 

The facts say otherwise. Again, said facts have been underlined for you , and I had to reference them in an earlier reply already. 

Considering your remarkable lack of knowledge about the case you brought up yourself, that doesn't really mean much, does it ?  

? How does your strange reading comprehension problem even relate to being "knowledgeable on the subject" ???

??????????????????????

He's been asking you for WEEKS ! 

No, you have admitted it only seems irrational before it's produced, and you have agreed with his rules for determining "acceptable proof". 

It's now up to you to produce it, or admit there is none. You have left yourself no other way out.

There are no other facts that amount to anything at all. As your repeated failure to come up with anything positive that could not have occurred without it shows. 

Again, completely false. You have accepted his rules to determine acceptable proof. 

Just read what you wrote. Please, just read it : "the "sad facts regarding demonic possession" don't get to the point... "?

If facts don't get to the point, then what does ??

Again, the facts are there, so no-one need make any assumptions. 

Again, patently false. I have provided facts relevant to what we're discussing, namely the exclusively negative results of a belief in "demons" and "possession". I have given you chance after chance to come up with even one single example of something even remotely positive that could not have occurred without said belief.

You have failed to do so every time. 

You don't remember ??? How many times now have I asked you for even a single example of something even remotely positive that could not have occurred without said belief ??

You brought one of them up yourself, and again, there are no cases were anything even remotely positive occurred that could not have happened without it. 

No.

The cases I have brought forward can NEVER be described as "very little". You need to read every single one of them again, if you ever even did that in the first place.

Then we agree that "belief" is completely powerless, which again brings up the same question : Why you didn't pick the rational explanation when there's a perfectly good rational one ?

? 

I'm sorry, but that in no way whatsoever addresses my question. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I'll repeat : If you were ever in the position of the person who planted the whole "demonic possession" idea in Anneliese Michel's mind, would the resulting tragedy be enough to convince you of the toxic nature of your "belief" ? Or would you deny any responsibility and simply go on spreading your "belief" in "demons" and "possession" ? 

No, since you haven't even be able to come up with a single example of anything positive that could not have occurred without it. 

We'll get to credibility once you produce an example. 

Again, nothing positive happened there that could not have occurred without it. 

Once again, I find myself forced to remind you to read all about the cases I linked you to. 

"Fun" ? No.

Again, those two are related through facts. 

No, that door remains closed, because the belief we are discussing is not involved in any of those other causes. Again, please stick to the subject under discussion. 

I ,of course, did no such thing, so yes, you obviously "misread" something again. State your "point" and "case" and if you draw any conclusions from something I said, quote me verbatim, so I can correct your mistake. 

??

Me assuming you're an idiot is somehow essential to "getting somewhere" ? Sorry, but again, I see no reason to make that assumption at this point. 

Again, you have already agreed to his rules for determining acceptable proof. 

He debunked your attempt to declare his proof "irrational", and now that you agreed to his rules, he has debunked any and all future attempts to get around the necessity of providing said proof, or admitting there is none. 

Again, completely untrue. He has made you admit his proof is not "irrational", and after your week-long struggle to make him ask for some other kind of proof, he has now made you agree with the rules he used to come up with that acceptable proof in the first place.

Then give me the example I asked for.

Or simply admit there are none to be found.

then it sounds like we have a different subject to discuss first

part of the personal guidance I would hope would include solid evidence, but as we are all more than aware, solid evidence doesn't work unless you want it to... if you want to believe something... or not believe something, all the "solid evidence" in the world isn't going to change your mind... personal guidance if you allow it will

nice

exactly, so what would that solid evidence be then if demons were real? 

I've mentioned friends of mine who dramatically changed and came to know Jesus through their understanding of demons, I've mentioned earlier the record keeping that the Vatican does with such cases as well as any spiritual influence, good or bad and how they determine it.  

Also, if stories have dozens of explanations as you say, how do we deduce the one true explanation?

that's still happening today... it's not their fault they're starving... but I also believe that people in general are at fault be it that we do literally throw out tons of food a year in our country alone, enough food to basically feed every starving person in the world.... we also have the resources to educate those starving communities on how to be self sufficient, but again, we're not doing that abundantly enough.  Do you really believe that the resources aren't here?  Do you believe people make food or do they just plant the seed and care for the plant?

point and case right here... "we have to do it and humans are notoriously self centered."  Why should God have to send it to them?  He told us in the Bible that we're responsible for each other and that we should take care of each other.. He wasn't just talking about friends and family.  

...and right here you're making it more and more clear that it's us as humans that are the cause of the problems, not God.  Like you said; "distributing food is exceptionally hard especially since areas that have food shortages tend to be those that have high levels of violence."  that would put some of the blame on those people at least, but at the same time, it's making it clearer and clearer that the resources to feed them are there.

really?  You're telling me that kings and royals starved when their people did?  Yes, there were droughts and famines in history, but it's hard for me to believe that there was less food in the world then when there is a larger population than ever now... it was more likely that people were somehow cut off and/or did not have the help from theri neighbors.  

of course not.  I believe they exist because I've seen their effects, have reliable sources explain situations that have happened concerning them, I've seen the effects of God and know Him personally.  I know sources that have great stories of His actions too.  I've seen the changes in people, so dramatic and so quick that psychology wouldn't have a rational explanation for it.

Doing research into the history of religions and peoples, all of the ones I've researched have been traced back to a judeo/Christian origin and yet I can't find an origin for the belief in the Judeo/Christian God despite attempts at trying to explain that he's really Ba'al and/or other random gods throughout history which happened to be around amidst those who believed in YHWH.  

when confronting those who seem to know a bit about the history, they try to claim belief in YHWH by name can't be found before a specific date, but before a specific date, it seems that humanity didn't know God's true name and would call him by many different names, but characteristics trace that following to this same following.  

Beyond that, every explanation I've gotten against God has been poor at best, not that some for God haven't been poor, but none against have been reasonably concluded by at least the individual explanations I've gotten.  

The problem here is your comparing physical causes to spiritual ones... That would be the "false analogy" Mouse has been trying so hard to pin me on.  Doctors only know physical or psychological causes and electricians are pretty much restricted to physical causes.  Out of the 2 an electrician would be the one to determine the demon problem, but probably wouldn't understand it as that unless they were gifted in that department.  They would determine outside interference if it was that consistent, but ultimately likely second guess themselves when they can't find anything that would cause it.    The problem with demonic interference, just like a thief, it's not consistent

that is the most rational reasoning I've heard to date on here... thank you

there is evidence out there.  But this is why I ask people what they're looking for... In most cases, those who believe there is no evidence are not looking for the actual evidence... the other wall that is hit is that the actual evidence either doesn't come from a source they find reliable or the evidence isn't sufficient for them to accept because they have bigger issues with the subject than just the topic at hand.  Typically it's that the evidence is not necessary to investigate if they can come up with another possible reason... There's a word for that and I forget, but the word summed up basically states that the most commonly accepted reason or cause isn't necessarily the correct reason or cause.  But if one can't consider all of the other possibilities as "possibilities" then they'll be satisfied with the most common reason or cause.  In most cases, it wouldn't make a difference, but in the case of diagnoses with doctors, it could be the difference between life and death... Spiritually speaking, the rammifications are just as severe.

not all churches are good

let's see where we go with what i gave above

The same way we can determine any story that has erronius information to be true.  Logical deduction.  

all in all, I can't be sure this had a positive outcome anymore than anything else I read about that I wasn't an eye-witness to

nothing anyone can provide can justify any abuse sourced to any reason.  It's no different here, but we can't just ignore everything that can be associated with abuse because people got hurt by ignorant people.  that doesn't leave much left.

I hope not, I don't particularly feel like teaching elementary school. The bible purports to relay the story of a particular period of history- it is claiming that what it says happened, actually happened. Evidence, is information collected independent of the bible that suggests that the events in the bible actually did or did not happen. If I tell you "I ate lamb chops for lunch", that is a claim. Evidence that might support that claim would be the dirty plate, leftover bones, that there are no more lamb chops in my freezer etc. The bible makes a claim about what happened, it is not in and of itself evidence. And since we are talking about a single claim from the bible (that demons exist), just because the bible says they exist is not evidence because I do not recognize the bible as an authority. If demons are real, one would expect evidence of their existence completely independent of the bible. 

A few websites for you to check out on the basics of reasons and evidence. 

http://redschoolhouse.org/drupal/book/export/html/92

http://mental.psych.northwestern.edu/publications/explanation_evidence.pdf

Nonsense. Solid evidence works whenever a person is willing to make their conclusion based on reality. Whether you want to believe something or not is completely irrelevant, I believe many things that I would prefer not to believe. So give me some evidence. Not explanations, not theories and not claims. Evidence please. Because the only reason I do not believe in demons is because I have not seen a shred of evidence that they exist. 

You went all crazy when Anonymouse suggested what kind of evidence and I don't care to travel down that road. Just give me whatever you have.

Ok, we have established that we have a lot of people who make claims. So what? Claims /= evidence. As far as your claim that people change due to their belief in god I am not disputing. I agree that beliefs can change people, but that says nothing about whether or not the belief is factual. People are changed by false beliefs all the time.

The logical thing to do is to look at the evidence and believe that the most probable explanation that is consistent with the evidence is true. 

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Exactly who is at fault varies by specific situation. 

Maybe we do, maybe we don't. Educating entire civilizations is an immense task and it becomes exceedingly difficult to educate people who do not wish to be educated and cling to their local superstitions. 

There probably are not enough resources for everyone in the world to live like you and me for very long. To feed everyone? We could theoretically get that done at least. Yes people make food, at least in order to have enough food to feed the whole world. Going out to your backyard garden and planting a few seeds and caring for the plant isn't going to produce enough. World food production requires man made chemicals, genetically engineered plants, modern tractors and modern preservation methods- all man made. 

Of course humans cause the problems because there is no god. It would be ridiculous of me to blame a being that I do not believe exists. That would be like blaming demons for my light going out. 

Yes, really. No, kings and royals did not starve because they got first dibs on the food. When there wasn't enough to go around it was peasants that starved first. Although, for some civilizations, the entire people starved to death including the privileged classes. I would highly recommend that you read Collapse by Jared Diamond where he details how various primitive cultures collapsed and in some cases went completely extinct. Lack of food due to climate change, poor farming practices, drought, floods, fires etc. has been one of the main causes in history. He lays out several case studies and is one of the most fascinating history books I have ever read.  

http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Societies-Choose-Succeed-Revised/dp/0143117009

(mods please edit link to give the site $$) 

Are any of those effects observable by anyone other than you?

Not interested in god, just demons for now. 

Oh really? Are you a psychologist? From what I have read psychologists have all sorts of rational explanations for why people change. 

You obviously haven't researched very many religions then. There have been hundreds of religions that have nothing to do with the Abrahamic god.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions

Here is a decent list to start with. You will note that it conveniently separates the Abrahamic religions from all the others. 

So all you have is explanations that seem to make sense to you. Do you have any evidence? I don't care to argue about whether or not people believed in the Abrahamic god or not, it makes no difference to me and their beliefs have no bearing on whether or not he exists.

I would expect both to be able to tell me that they can't solve the problem because it is spiritual. They are after all the ones who would most frequently witness the problem because they are the ones that people would call first. Whether or not they are capable of solving the problem is not relevant to whether or not they are capable of recognizing they cannot solve it. 

That is why I am asking you where the evidence is because I don't care to spend my life looking for something when it probably doesn't exist. But since you say there is evidence out there, you must know where it is. Why are you keeping it so secret?

Then show me some evidence and explain to me why I should consider it evidence of demons rather than the most likely cause. 

In my experience most of them are not. 

Was there evidence up there? I must have missed it. 

You're trying to apply a scientific process to a piece of fiction ! 

I never said what you claim I'm "saying" in your question. Why should I explain something I never asked you to do ???

We already agreed it can only SEEM nonsensical/irrational/whatever next you think of.

Don't make mistakes like that, and I won't have to point them out. 

I addressed every single weird or irrelevant thing you brought up, and repeatedly explained my reasoning behind dismissing your objections. "Believers" discredited themselves long before I came along. That's what makes this so easy. 

You got caught with your hand in the fallacy cookie jar. You can either honestly admit your mistake and move on....or you can pout. 

Meh, it's not really a lot when you take into account that I'm constantly having to repeat myself for most of it.

Ah, okay. Well, I did give you a choice of three, and let's not forget that we now agree on the "rules" used to determine acceptable proof. 

How can you say that my proof "can't work" when we already agreed on the rules to determine what makes for acceptable proof in the first place ? 

What I said was that it's 100% accurate to say that there's no proof for demons. I explained my reasoning behind coming up with acceptable proof for their existence, and you agreed my "rules" for that made sense. 

I don't understand. Why would you need "an explanation" when you already agreed that my rules for determining what is acceptable proof make sense to you ? 

Why would you need something explained to you when you already admitted it makes sense ? 

Those days are behind us. I'm pretty sure you'll think twice before trying another false analogy, and now that you've agreed to my "rules", well, this is pretty much over.

Cool story. Not proof, though.

Again, we already agreed that the proof is going to SEEM nonsensical/irrational/whatever's next, until it's produced. 

And yet that is exactly what you just tried to do with your cool story. If you understand you shouldn't do it, then don't. It really is that simple. 

Again, we already agreed it's going to SEEM like nonsense before someone produces it. 

And it will also seem nonsensical before it's produced. 

Since you're the one who's convinced there is such a thing as acceptable proof, and you agreed with my rules for determining what makes for acceptable proof, you're the one who should know how to produce it.

Because if you don't, well, that would mean there is no such thing as acceptable proof. 

Ah, it's good to see you remember everything you did wrong. But um...try to remember it at the right time, okay ? 

And you agree with my "rules" for coming up with said claim, so you're once again asking me to explain something you already agreed makes sense. I really don't understand why you keep doing that. 

Here, once again, is what I actually claim : That it is 100% correct to say that there is no proof for demons. When asked what I would accept as acceptable proof I gave you the choice between producing an actual demon, a demon-controlling ring from the Solomon stories, or a demon-powered generator. 

The person who can answer that question, will be able to produce acceptable proof for demons. Since you can't answer it yourself, it's about time that you admitted that there is no proof for demons. 

My point is you dismissed it without taking all their courses, or going through all the "information" they would consider essential for "understanding the truth" of their claims. 

And I'm telling you that's a very sensible approach to take, and I applaud you for it.

In fact, I'm taking that very same approach right now, with your "demon" claim. 

Facts are facts. Sorry.

Um...no, I clearly said there is no workable definition.

No, we were talking about "spirituality". 

If you're going to keep throwing accusations at me, at least try to make them a little less vague. "You did, actually", doesn't give me much to go on. 

?

So apart from you agreeing with my rules for determining what makes for acceptable proof, what else do I need ? 

We agreed on the rules that determine acceptable proof. I'm sorry, but that already happened. 

"Study" ?? What "study" ? 

What do you mean "avenue of proof" ?? 

And you agree that it's acceptable proof, let's try to keep that in mind. 

Nope, only going to seem like it until it's produced.

Another claim of mine with which you agree. Let's keep that in mind as well. 

No, nonsense needs acceptable proof in order for it not to be nonsense. We agreed what makes for acceptable proof, and we agreed it will seem nonsensical before it's produced. 

Again, it will only SEEM like nonsense before it's produced. You seem to have trouble understanding that, which is weird, since you already agreed with it.  

?

But all those things you just mentioned are facts. Facts you don't even argue with !

If facts won't "help" you, then what do you want from me ? Lies ?

Look, I'm sorry, but there is no way out of this for you. You will either produce the proof we both agree is acceptable, or you will admit there is none. 

Heck, you're almost there, or didn't you notice that you almost admitted that acceptable proof for demons isn't possible ? 

Keep going, you can do this !

which is why we may have another topic to discuss first.  I hope you don't feel like teaching elementary school.  We'd likely get nowhere.  

Glad you linked those... the first link makes a valid point; "evidence that your readers accept" basically meaning evidence isn't always evidence regardless if it's evidence or not.  What?  well, I've been trying to figure out what my readers here would accept as evidence... They've given me their take, but now I'm stuck with a new problem.   How do I explain to my readers that evidence they're looking for isn't realistic?  Also, how do I find new ground that might be more realistic with those same readers?  

this is exactly what i've been trying to get at... you want some sort of lab test, which depends on physical means for proof.   How do you expect to get physical results when studying something metaphysical?

well, let's see, personal experience and eye-witness accounts are more claims rather than evidence... stories from history are just that and no history can be considered evidence, congruent claims are still just claims no matter how ironic.  Physical damage caused by demons are typically explained away by other means... be it that a demon has to use physical means to hurt in a physical way for physical evidence, that physical mean is usually to blame and not the source...  Also change in mental state, though typically has no one psycological answer still is explained away by a laundry list of psychological disorders and thus a non-believer would assume many things went randomly wrong with the person all of a sudden and/or the change though miraculous still had an unknown outside source...  The Bible falls under the history category...

Considering all of that.  We're running out of means of evidence for you.  I guess it would come down to you experiencing a demon first hand... that would not be a realistic means of proof and likely demons would not cooperate in a controlled environment... so I'm stumped... what else is there as far as evidence that you would accept if in fact a metaphysical existence actually is reality?  

The only other approach i can think of that has been done and can be retested is if you truly from the bottom of your heart seek out God and start walking in His ways.  The changes that happen in you would be the proof and the process you go through would allow you to see the evidences of a metaphysical existence.  This would require personal guidance as well as solo exploration.  

But usually not for the better

though as I was saying, that's not always the case, so should we rather be wrong and assume the most probable explanation is the evidence, or should we investigate futher to make sure the conclusion is sound?

agreed

If they do not wish to be educated, then it becomes their problem, not everyone elses, but there are milliions out there who would welcome the education and yet are not getting it... And we do throw out tons of food, you can research that yourself.  

the task may be immense, but if we had done it from day 1, the task wouldn't be so bad... the longer we wait, the more immense the task becasue the larger the problem becomes

all in all, it still comes back to people being the problem... which was my original point.

There are studies that would dispute that.  This link shows the simple math aspect of the studies:  http://true-progress.com/the-earth-can-feed-clothe-and-house-12-billion-people-306.htm

My original point was that humans were the problem... but I disagree that they're the problem BECAUSE there is no God, rather it could be because they deny God or ignore God's advice and Laws.  Though then again, if you're pushing God away, I guess for them, there really is no God, because Hes' not welcome there.

I supported the idea that there were famines in history... that would include what you added above, but as you said, royals got first dibs and the first to starve were those lowest on the totem pole.  Thanks for the link though.  

They've been observed by millions, so... yes.  if it was just me, I think I'd be going to therapy.

same topic.. be it that God is the creator of all, you would understand why I brought God into the picture.  Demons and God are similar beings in the sense that they exist metaphysically.  the effects are also seen in similar manner

I concentrated in psychology and work in the field of social emotional disorders, but this is not about me.  Of course they have all kinds of explanations, becasue they all exist... but one explanation does not negate another.  Psychology deduces the most likely cause and treats from there.   When that treatment doesn't work, they recheck the conclusion of cause... many times that conclusion changes if the results aren't as expected.  Sometimes it takes years of digging and sometimes they never get it.  None of that in any way counts out the possibility of demonic influence.

Not directly maybe, but if you dig far enough, the root of the tree typically goes back to that origin... not to say erronius followings and religions haven't just sprung out of nowhere, they have... but that does not discount the claim.  IT's all the ones i've researched... I've researched mostly the larger ones and not the subcategories and random small community religions that pop up and dissapear throughout history.  

That link is just a list and doesn't go into the history and origins... I woudl have to link each one to it's own study and deduce from there... that would be quite a task... I've been studying them for years and have many years ahead.  

If you're looking at a good summary of that history, the book "The Next Christiandom" does a good job of it... though the main focus is the future of Christianity, the author felt it important to look at the history of religion in general... again that is not exhaustive either and talks about the origin and migration habits that have branched off the origin and helped the origin spread.  

Just history on that topic.

I agree with you here completely... and herein lies the problem... anyone who is a claimed expert in their field is going to have an extremely difficult time admitting when they are not capable of solving a problem that allegedly is happening in their field of expertise. 

Also, if they're not believers themselves, how could they possibly conclude a spiritual cause?  They would be racking their brains trying to figure out what they're missing and never find it.

I'm not keeping it secret, but just like one of your links above explained... I need to find what evidence works for you.  There's a lot of it out there, but I'm not going to spend my time going through each aspect of it just for you to shoot it down because you can't see it as evidence... What you think might work might not, but then I will tell you and explain why.  Then I would hope we could go on from there and find something else that might be possible.

This is why I thought we needed to go onto something else first... How do I convince you that something was the cause of a demon if you can't even accept the possibility of a metaphysical existence?

sadly that might be true

You have to understand that the claim you are making is extraordinary and as such is going to require extraordinary evidence. If your claim was something mundane like "I ate eggs for breakfast" I would probably be willing to accept your word for it because it is an extremely plausible claim. When you are making a claim about something that is highly improbable, people are going to expect more extensive evidence. Now I am as guilty as the next person at just throwing my knowledge out there without any evidence, for example that random information about the origins of psychiatric drugs is just random trivia that I happened to know and thought it applied to the conversation so I put it out there, but didn't bother providing evidence for it as my claim was neither extraordinary nor vital to the conversation.

Recently, I did make a rather extraordinary claim on this site. http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/33861 I claimed that it could be possible to use a 3D printer to print human tissue, organs and in the future maybe entire limbs. So to support that claim I linked to several scientific journal articles which include detailed descriptions, pictures and each one references dozens (in one over 120) other similar works and all of them subjected to peer review. For the extreme skeptic who doesn't view such journals as an authority, which laboratory the experiments are being conducted in is clearly listed at the end of the article and you can easily call them up and ask for a tour- very few people take that much interest in what these scientists are doing they are more than happy to talk to you about it in most cases. Or for the die hards, you could even repeat the experiment yourself and see if you get the same results.

Now you are making an extraordinary claim and your evidence amounts to stories that you openly admit have explanations that are mundane and the only argument is that the most likely explanation might not be the actual explanation. I'm sure even you can see how that is not particularly persuasive?    

You are the one who claims that these demons have physical manifestations, so even if you can't provide physical proof of a demon itself, you should be able to provide physical evidence of its manifestations and evidence that they are not caused by other physical explanations. 

Simple, show me evidence that your method of exorcism and praying to god cures certain physical problems better than medicine.

Walking in his ways? No thanks. I enjoy drinking, gambling, multiple sex partners and generally living my life in hedonistic sin. Which I have been assured by many a theist that my life is "empty" and that I am not "really" happy. But when I look at their lives compared to mine, I am having a lot more fun and have few regrets so if this is "empty" and unhappy, I'll take it. Why would I want to change when I already enjoy life far more than most people I observe?

We should always continue investigating and when we find evidence that makes an alternative more probable than what we currently believe we should change our beliefs. That is how science works. But until you have evidence that supports an improbable conclusion, there is no reason to believe it. 

Well as humans some of us tend to have empathy even for those who are willfully ignorant. That is why many people spend their lives trying to convince people in Nigeria to use condoms to control the AIDS epidemic, even though the culture remains highly resistant to the use of condoms. I never disputed that we throw out tons of food, just pointed out that production is not our current problem.

People have been working on it from day 1. We benefit now in that we have far more technologies available to us to actually help solve the problem. As a percentage of world population, the number of people suffering from malnutrition is about half of what it was in the 1970's (the farthest back UN stats go). Sure, still way too many but the solution remains stabilization of violent areas and the introduction of modern farming practices- not prayer. 

That doesn't dispute what I said at all. In fact, it confirms it. They are basing their math on using "high productivity" grain and farming practices, which means modern farm equipment, fertilizers and genetically modified plants. Using what god supposedly provided us would be organic farming which has significantly lower crop yields. Studies have indicated that organic farming result in yields that are 11-35% lower per acre than conventional farming. (depending on the crop and soil. Areas with great soil have closer to conventional yields while areas with poor soil (most of Earth) have much lower yields)  http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nature11069  

This was in response to your question

My point was that what god supposedly gave us is not sufficient to feed the planet. The basics of planting a seed, watering it and letting sunlight do its thing is not enough. We have to create artificial fertilizers, modify the genetics of the plant and do an awful lot of making in order to have a viable food system for our species. So yes, humans make food because god didn't do it and the resources weren't here until we made them. God did not create nature well enough to provide humanity with our necessities- humans have managed to modify it enough.   

Yet whether or not a person goes hungry has nothing to do with whether or not they are "pushing" god away. So to my original question, why thank god for food? He doesn't make it, he doesn't provide it, he didn't do anything.

That was my only point. It is absurd to claim that god provided sufficient resources to feed the world when throughout most of human history there were not enough resources to feed the entire world. 

Nor does any of it make the possibility of demonic influence more likely. 

Obviously the "major" religions all branch from the Abrahamic god. The Europeans conquered the world and nothing spreads religion like an empire. Since the major empires were Christian or Muslim, they spread their religion. Religions that developed independent of European influence are completely unrelated. All of the pre-Euro American religions, Indian religions and Asian religions have nothing in common with the Abrahamic god and either have multiple deities or none at all. Monotheism has gained dominance in the world the same way and for the same reason that the American dollar has dominance in the world financial markets. 

So where are all the journal articles on these problems that they can't find solutions to? Name an uncured disease and I can find hundreds of articles of doctors specifying the experiments they tried that failed completely and those that show some promise.  

I just want a comparative study for starters that demonstrates exorcisms are an effective treatment. None has been done. Why? If it is real, why has not a single exorcist bothered doing a basic before and after test comparing a treated group of people, to a control group and then to a placebo group? It is standard practice for every other medical technique or drug.

I accept it as a possibility. I just consider it highly improbable because there is no evidence. 

You are asking me to do it though.. You're asking me to prove to you demons are real in a very specific manner.  So I need you to explain how it's possible if demons were real.

we never agreed it can "ONLY" seem... rather that it "can" seem, yet that does not suggest all possible avenues of evidence to be possible

those rules are a basis, they don't describe how your proof would work.. btw, it's been a while.. why don't you remind me the 3 possibilities for proof and number them... that way I can refer back to this post next time we tangent so far I forget some.  

now you're mashing your reasoning... you did say that it was 100% accurate to say there's no proof for demons... your reasoning behind coming up with accetpable proof was a different post and that reasoning was "you can't fake it"... which isn't justifying it, only clarifying why your choices were so limited...  

Your "rules" were jsut that... they were not again justification of your expected proof and/or an explanation of how that would be possible if demons were real.

Your "rules" were just that... they were not again justification of your expected proof and/or an explanattion of how that woudl be possible if demons were real.

be it that I debunked your false analogy excuse... nah.

do you see how you contradicted yourself here???

you said it, not me

I was repeating your alleged answers to the question... sorry that wasn't clear here.

Ah, ok, there's the three again...

a demon controlling ring... producing an actual demon.. or demon-powered generator... and... how do you propose these would be possible if demons were real?  This is what I need from you... I never claimed any of these things were possible.

But yes, I claim demons are real.  So if they really are... you must explain how those would be possible in order for me to show you that proof because again, I never claimed any of that was possible.    

I've noticed... but instead of rationally dismissing it, like I would.. and I told you that i have not completely dismissed any of it, you have decided to take the ignorance approach by saying that you don't need to understand because you already know.

there isn't one... there is no workable definition... same difference

to explain how what you're asking for could be possible if demons existed.  Simple if what you're asking for is truly rational.

your request of evidence... the means by which you would accept this understanding.

Ok, how does me agreeing to your rules suddenly make me agree that your proof is acceptable?  Explain this to me please.  I really don't understand.

no, what I seem to have trouble with here is why you can't explain how it's possible... either explain how it's possible if demons were real or admit that your possibly nonsensical proof is really nonsense.

How does that explain your avenue of proof as possible?  I need to understand how it's possible if what you claim is true about this being valid proof.

no, just a clear answer to the question I've repeated.

somehow, I don't feel very trapped here.

Just give me the answer I've been asking for and we're there

I do understand how extraordinary the claim I'm making would seem to someone who doesn't believe in it... especially if they can't even grasp the concept of a metaphysical existence.  The stories I've presented are only as well known as they are because of their likely embellishments.  Otherwise what kind of story is; "jimmy was possessed with a demon, we performed the typical spiritual guidance and exorcism and the demon was gone".  The typical response to that is... sure ok, if that's what you want to believe and it is long forgotten.

Typical situations like this are also usually handled in the same way a doctor would handle a patient's medical records... they're typically not out on the internet for all to see.  This leads up to the idea of testing the possibility... but how do you test a being with choice?  Where do you begin?  We can't sample a spirit being... (or for the sake of arguement, demon) and put it under a microscope for observation, or lock it in a room, or even perform lab tests on it... so where does that leave us?  It takes away the basis of every atheists understanding of reality.  

Yes, I do realize the stories given  are not particularly persuasive and most people who don't believe or don't want to believe reason their way around any spiritual possibility.  This is why I've mentioned to a few people that we might need to discuss some other things first... like maybe the possibility of a metaphysical existence to begin with and see where that goes... it likely goes back to the issue of how to study that and so we deduce again with experinces and those who dedicate their lives to studying it by physical means... Ghost hunters are typically how they're understood.  The only evidence they have is EVP's and possible orbs or energy figures caught on film.  Of course there's criticism around all that and whether what they're hearing or seeing is really spirit or just energy imbalance... either that or maybe they faked the whole thing with some high tech editing software.  

How about the whole origin discussion.  Most non-believers have their own ideas of what was before the alleged "beginning"... that's typically where we take these conversations... no use arguing a big bang happening or not... If it did, it doesn't negate the possibility of intelligence behind it and if it didn't it also doesn't prove that there is intelligence behind it.  We then get into the discussion with some that it was all an endless cycle of expansion and contraction, or that it all came from nothing, or that multiple universe theory that claims that the expansion, contraction and explosion is happening constantly.  All of those to me take more faith to accept than accepting an intelligent being behind it all.  Especially seeing as more than 80% of people in the world claim to believe for one reason or another that there is a metaphysical existence.  At least 50% of them seem to have some personal experience with it.  Beyond that, there's many claimed spiritual books out there allegedly written or inspired by a metaphysical being.  Many of those when scrutinized run into many inconsistency issues and/or a clear basis of origin and parallel to a particular following of some sort.   This brings us to the Bible.  This is one of the most difficult things I have found for an atheist to discuss... mainly becasue a lot of them dont' seem to have a clear understanding of it and likely have not learned much about it.  I usually like to start with that.  If I can find a basis for discrediting scripture, we can find a basis for discrediting the possibility of a metaphysical existence be it that it's claimed to be inspired by a metaphysical being.  

Thank you for being able to take a step back from the flow of the thread and actually have some serious conversation.  I hope this clarifies a bit my position and why I take the approach I do... and why it's different with each individual person.  I hope also you can see why I ask for reasoning and offer alternatives when that reasoning isn't sound.  

What does a demon leave behind physically when it manifests itself?  This I honestly don't know.

I don't believe I ever claimed that exorcism and/or praying to god cures problems "better" than medicine.  or cures physical problems at all, though I do believe praying can help.. we only discussed exorcisms to get rid of demons... which is where the demand for proof of demons came from.  I would never deny someone medical attention because I thought prayer would be the cure, rather I believe that through prayer, possibly medicine or a proceedure that might not have cured would ultimately cure.

understand they're coming from the perspective that there's a life after this and that you're condemning yourself in that life to come.  BTW, I don't believe all of the above is against God's Laws... especially seeing as one of Jesus first miracles was creating wine from water so that an already half drunk party could have more to drink.  

I agree there... however this goes back to the subjectiveness of "evidence"

you're sure prayer had nothing to do with it what-so-ever?

I understand... point and case though is like you said, production is not the problem... in other words, there is enough food without synthetic means to feed the world.. and then some.

well, to the contrary... if God is who we believe He is... then he did everything, because He had to create it to begin with.

or less likely...just making a point becasue you challenged my understanding of psychology

Probably in the Thestic libraries... however, I dont' think it's really that common either.

Hard to capture a demon probably.

...that you have seen right?  I accept that as a reasonable stance... I've been there.

What I am asking you for is acceptable evidence, and you already said you have no problem with my method to determine what acceptable proof is.

That's going to come up a lot, isn't it ? Thank jebus for cut and paste.

I already told you and you already agreed : If demons are real, then there is acceptable evidence. It really is that simple. 

And again, since we already agreed on my method for determining what makes for acceptable proof, it then makes no sense to suddenly describe it as "in a very specific manner". 

Do I have to explain that ? Because I will if I have to.

We have already limited our "avenues of evidence" to acceptable proof, the qualifications of which we have also agreed upon. And I already gave you several choices that fit those qualifications. If it's not "possible" to produce this acceptable proof, there is only one conclusion left :

That there is no proof. 

See, this is a recurring problem you can't seem to shake : Do you really not realize that "how the proof would work" is not my problem, since I'm not the one defending this ridiculous claim ? 

A: "Dragon's are real !"

B: "Okay, let's see one then"

A: "Um..how would that work ? Cuz I have no idea. Tell me"

B: "?"

You are effectively asking me to produce the proof for you, and you apparently don't even realize how utterly ridiculous that is. This really is quite fascinating, in a strange sort of way. 

If you don't like tangents, then don't go off on so many. I mean, look at how hard you made me work just to make you admit your "irrational proof" excuse didn't work. You could have just agreed with me from the start.

And you can pick either an actual demon, solomon's demon-controlling ring (or any other demon-controlling device), or you can just make me a demon-powered generator. Number them as you wish. 

And please remember, all these fall under acceptable evidence, following the rules we already agreed upon, so don't waste my time trying to dismiss them. 

No, you're just trying to obfuscate to win time. No worries, though. I'll rephrase...as soon as I can figure out what you're trying to misinterpret this time. 

Um, yeah, "different post"..still talking about the same thing, though. 

I also mentioned that explaining fiction with yet more fiction would also not be acceptable. You agreed this made sense. 

What do you mean "justifying" ? You AGREED with my reasoning ! Why would I need to "justify" rules you already agreed with ?! 

Again, you agreed with my rules, so what "justification" are you even talking about ? And also, AGAIN, why would I need to explain to you how proof we both agree would be acceptable, should be "possible" ? If they exist then ALL acceptable proof is possible ! It can only be impossible if they don't exist ! 

Nope, you did no such thing. Simply denying you did something that anyone who can read can check, is not "debunking". It's lying. 

And you can't prove something is "reality" just by claiming it is. Only acceptable proof will help you there. Which does not include cool stories, no matter how much you like 'em.

Lol ! It's a "contradiction" to say something that seems "irrational", will also seem "nonsensical" ? This should be good. Please do explain.

Well, your only remaining argument seems to be that I should do all your work for you, so yeah, I said it. 

? You were "repeating" "alleged answers" to a question I hadn't had a chance to answer yet ?? Uh, yeah, that wasn't very clear at all. Apology accepted.

You most certainly did. You claimed there was acceptable proof, and you agreed on my rules for determining said acceptable proof. So again, if demons are real, then there is acceptable proof, and it is possible to produce it. If it's not possible to produce said proof, then there is no acceptable proof for demons.

The only real mystery here is why you are unable to admit this. 

This makes no sense at all. Why would the person who's asking you for acceptable proof for your supernatural claim, have to explain to you how that is even possible ? 

And again, yes, you did. You claimed there was acceptable proof, and you agreed on my rules for determining said acceptable proof. So again, if demons are real, then there is acceptable proof, and it is possible to produce it. If it's not possible to produce said proof, then there is no acceptable proof for demons.

Do you need this simplified even further ? Because I can do that. 

Okay, now this is downright bizarre. Why say "rationally dismissing it, like I would", and then admit that you've not completely dismissed any of it ??? Are you saying you have not completely dismissed scientology's amusingly insane science fiction stories ???

Btw, would you like to buy a diamond mine ? Some prime Florida real estate ? A bridge ? A really big French statue ? 

And now it's "ignorant" to dismiss supernatural claims that don't have any acceptable proof ? You know what the word "ignorant" means, right ? Because I'm starting to wonder. 

You said "your workable definition", so no, not "same difference". 

Simple, if demons exist, then there is acceptable proof for this claim, so it would be possible to produce it. If it's not possible, then there is no such thing as acceptable proof, and it would be about time for you to admit this simple fact. Or produce the proof I asked for. Either is fine.

If your claim is true, then yes, it would be simple for you to produce acceptable proof. And again, we already agree that it is rational to ask for acceptable proof for a supernatural claim, and we also agree that the proof I ask for qualifies as acceptable, so you will either produce it, or admit that there is no acceptable proof.

Like you said, simple.

? But we already agreed on what makes for acceptable proof. Geez, how many times ? 

?????? Seriously ? 

Because the rules determined what makes proof acceptable. And the proof I asked for follows those rules. Understand now ? 

No, the incredibly simple fact that you're not grasping, is that it's not the job of the person asking for acceptable proof of a supernatural claim, to explain to the person who believes said claim how this is even possible. 

The acceptable proof I asked for can only be "nonsense" if your claim is as well. If you're finally ready to admit that, then please do. 

Again, it's not the job of the person asking for acceptable proof of a supernatural claim, to explain to the person who believes said claim how this is even possible. If it's your opinion that it's not possible to produce acceptable proof, then I really don't understand why you're having such trouble admitting that there isn't any. 

You got that, many times over. But I guess I'll have to rephrase a couple of times before it sinks in. No problem. You've already shown that you're capable of understanding some of the things I had to explain to you, so I have high hopes. 

Reality is not a "trap". Reality is your friend. 

Then I guess we're there.

..unless you didn't get the "correct" answer again. Like I said, no worries. The last time you didn't "get" something, it took a while too, but you got there in the end. 

Hmm, I suppose I should have worded my statement differently...  Here you go: "I would prefer for it to be impossible for people to murder, rape, or torture each other."

That's quite an assumption you made there, caposkia. You're quite wrong, however: I feel your God should be punished because He decided to create this universe--knowing full well the amount of suffering that could result.

Well, since I've (so far) been able to get every single person I've ever wronged to forgive me for doing so, I would say I do "have the power to save [my]self from [my] transgression".

I rather doubt your above statement is true. However, to be clear, what "problem" of mine are you referring to?

I have a hard time believing you don't know how false your above statement is. I doubt you could even give evidence that non-theists "abuse to gain power and control" at a higher rate than Christians.

I'm pretty tired right now; I should be able to respond to the rest of your statements before the end of tomorrow, though.

agreed, however, we aren't both on the same page in regards to what you're asking for.  You feel it's acceptable evidence, I feel it's nonsense.  I need you to explain how it's possible if in fact demons are real.  I don't know how what you're asking for would be possible.  

You have to explain how what we agreed on suddenly validates your alleged proof if demons are real.  I need to understand how it's possible.  

acceptable to you, not to me.  Honestly, if someone had a "demon powered generator" and told me they were running their house on it... I would have a hard time believing the power was coming from demons.  In fact... I probably wouldn't believe them at all...  

You are though.. you are the one defending the claim that if demons were real than the fantastic three would also be possible.  I don't understand how you make that connection.  I need an explanation from you.  It is your problem.... unless you want to try something else as far as reasonable evidence for demons.

well, let's see, to ask to see one would typically require a trip to the dragon's layer be it that dragons are considered physical beings and not spiritual beings.  I would likely tell you where I know one lives and take you there.... I would then let you walk into its layer and let me know how it turns out

be it that you asked for these things that I've told you basically aren't realistic, yea, you need to show me how that proof works... or admit that the proof your asking for is "utterly rediculous"

really... it's hard work for you to write 3 things down?  how long does it take you to reply to each post then?  a couple days?

Just like with your dragon, you'll have to find someone who summons demons in your area... I don't and won't do that.  I don't just mess around with demons like they're a novelty.  That's not how it works.  

they do?  see this is where I don't follow

you can keep trying to put the blame on me, but unfortunately for you, I've already told you I'm not avoiding anything. I am making you confront your absurdities... we're almost there...

...and yet you're asking me to explain fact with fiction... how does that fit in?  You are stuck on fiction, when what I've been trying to pull you towards is fact.

You need to justify your means of proof

I have not denied anything... what is it you think i'm denying here?  my debunking is also there for everyone to read... I think you're hoping you can tangent yourself far enough away from those posts that people will forget.

exactly.. so let's see if we can make progress here:

as you said, you can't prove something is reality just by claiming it is... your'e claiming that if demons are reality, then a demon controlling device and/or a demon powered generator is also reality.  You are indirectly claiming to me, who accepts that demons are reality that those things are also reality.   I can't see how they are... you're claiming they are, then ignoring me when I ask you for an explanation.  Are you not doing the very thing you keep trying to accuse me of doing?

no, all you need to do is explain how your "acceptable proof" is reality if demons are real.  I'll take it from there.

ah, I didn't think they were actual answers.   Had me worried for a second

I think the question I have is how is it acceptable proof... and the "it's the only proof you can't fake" is not an answer on how that becomes reality.  I can't fake a Harry Potter appiration either, but it's also not possible.   That is essentially what you're asking me to do.  It's like you want me to get the Bloods to visit your house.  Not something i'm willing to tamper with.  

you're asking me for proof that you can control demons, or that I can make them appear to you, or that I can create a generator that runs off their... I dont' know, plasma or something, none of that is a reasonable means of proving demons exist.  None of that is based on spiritual law or spiritual understanding.  It's not based on logic.

I'm glad you see it makes no sense.  

I know what it means, and no, I was saying it's ignorant to claim that you don't need to understand the subject matter because you already know the answer or the result. 

Thanks for finally answering, but do you see where this doesn't make sense?  Let's run through it.

"if demons exist, then there's acceptable proof for this claim"... ok follow you so far... "so it would be possible to produce it"... sure ok.. "if it's not possible, then there's no such thing as acceptable proof"... ok "...and it would be about time for you to admit this simple fact.  Or produce the proof I asked for.."  ok, here's where I lose you.  acceptable proof yea,  but where in our conversations did we both agree that what you're asking for is acceptable proof?  It seems the term is subjective here.

they don't though... if i asked you to produce for me a supernova to prove to me it's real, would it be acceptable proof?  Would it also be rational for me to deny their existence if you couldn't produce it for me?

I would too, but choice is either all or none

well, I figured that fit into what you just said,. sorry for misunderstanding.  God knew what the universe could be like without him and what it could be like with Him.  But God also wanted beings that loved him by choice and accepted him by choice, not by force.  YOu can't receive true love and praise when forcing someone to do it.

Then why do you still suffer it?

the depression you mentioned

I never said that.. I guess I should have said "can lead to"

that's fine, take your time

And the church has never had anyone do an in depth study of these records? It is perfectly possible to protect patient confidentiality, yet still supply detailed information of the disease. It is routinely done for academic purposes in the medical industry. Why doesn't the church have something similar? You expect me to believe that demonic possession has been around since the beginning of time and not one doctor or scientist has taken note of it and been able to provide any evidence of it. Furthermore, you make guesses that the Catholic Church has records hidden somewhere with such information, but from what I can gather you have never seen it yourself. Do you know of anyone who has seen it and has perhaps provided a summary of what they found? 

Yet you have already admitted that the observable cases you have posted were at the very least "exaggerated"; so if even you don't believe them, why should I? So state later in your post that demonic possession "isn't as common as one might think", here you are saying it is an everyday occurrence like gravity. Make up your mind, which is it?

Note: A few people have watched a leaf fall and thought "hmmm, I wonder why it does that" and went on to create detailed hypotheses on how it might work. Many detailed experiments have been done to test them and we have some idea of how it works. To this day, many scientists continue experimenting with gravity and create new ideas of how it works. I wonder why all the people who see demonic possession don't think it should be as researched as gravity is. Is there not a single curious person who has witnessed demonic possession? Even though it has been around since the beginning of time?....

But wait, it turns out many a psychologist has studied demonic possession. It also turns out that what demon possesses you and what type of exorcism helps you lies solely on what religion you are (sneaky little demons only possess people who believe in them). Several scientific journal articles have been written examining the phenomenon. Interestingly, not one has offered evidence that demonic possession is real, none have shown that exorcisms work other than perhaps as a placebo effect, and they all have been able to tie the supposed symptoms to well known psychological disorders (except for symptoms like levitating which have never been proven to actually occur).

http://www.shsu.edu/~piic/winter2008/Thomason.html

http://web.mit.edu/pmaceves/Public/beep/psychodynamics.pdf

http://easap.asia/journal_file/0001_V10N1_p14.pdf   

You will also note that Dr. Chiu Siu Ning who wrote the article in the last link specifically holds open the possibility of demons, although over the last 13 years of study in this area has not been able to provide a shred of evidence. 

I know you have four conversations going on simultaneously, but I have already stated I don't care for either a magic ring or demon generator. I am not particularly picky, just provide me some type of research where someone did some experiments that had results suggesting that demons might be real. You don't even need to prove to me 100% that they exist, just something that increases the probability that they exist to a level where I can say "hey, that isn't a batshit crazy idea" 

So? Is it impossible for an omnipotent being to approach and inspire a single person? 

Then where is the research of exorcists attempting to figure out how to determine whether symptoms have a psychological cause or a demon one? Isn't it rather irresponsible to do an exorcism if the exorcist doesn't even know if a demon is the cause? If demons were real I would expect several detailed articles and books on the subject of determining if a demon was really the problem. 

If I am in heaven, I presumably still have love for the people I loved while alive right? So I would be sitting there playing my harp in the clouds or basking in god's love or whatever your conception of heaven is; meanwhile, I would know that my Grandma and several of my dearest friends are suffering in hell. To me, that would be worse punishment than anything I could possibly imagine. Could you be happy in heaven for eternity if someone you loved suffered in hell? What does god do? Brainwash everyone so they don't remember that their loved ones didn't get to the VIP section?

So it was because of human evil that we couldn't invent things like tractors before the 19th century? And suddenly humans were less evil so we finally get to enjoy god's gifts of tractors, fertilizers and genetic modification so that we can finally feed the whole world almost 2000 years after Christ supposedly sacrificed himself for all of our sins? Maybe being omnipresent god just doesn't appreciate how long 2000 years is for humans.

Which is it? Is it uncommon or is it all around me? 

"Ol' Zuula you nut, now c'mon. C'mon. I want to talk to Dana. Dana. Just relax, c'mon. Dana. Dana. Can I talk to Dana?"

Please start this thread - I think it's important that your lack of knowledge regarding genetics is laid bare and you can learn from it before you start banding around quotes like the above which are incorrect, and hanging ridiculous ideas like intelligent design off the back of them.

Perfect opportunity to learn something here.

Consistent symptom patterns would at least be a start. It would indicate that there is at the very least some problem that mental health experts have not solved. Or in the case of demons obsessed with electronics, a problem that electricians have not been able to solve. (I am happy to report that Boeing has solved their battery problems for their 787s, fortunately the problem wasn't demons.) So if studying possession cases is not appropriate for giving me the answer as to whether or not demons exist, what will? 

When someone tells me a story and I catch an outright lie in the story, I tend to be even more skeptical of everything else they tell me; especially when I find the other things they are telling me hard to believe anyway. Now if everything they tell me that is verifiable turns out to be true, I am going to be more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt on the things that are impossible to verify. Since it is generally impossible, or at least incredibly laborious, to independently verify everything that people tell you, I think that giving more credibility to sources that have proven accurate and less to sources that have proven wrong/misleading is a great way to save time. While a source that has been wrong about somethings may be right about others, it is prudent to be more skeptical with them. 

Scientists study things that are not constants all the time. Many believe that gravity is not as constant as previous gravitational theory has suspected. And Dark Matter may or may not be constant. We don't know because we haven't even proved that it exists yet. 

Let us assume for the sake of the next couple paragraphs that demons are real and they do possess people. There are two possibilities, either demons possess anyone or demons only possess believers. If the former, symptoms like speaking in a low voice and claiming to be a demon would not be limited to believers. You would expect to see such symptoms in anyone who is possessed. Furthermore, exorcism working as a cure would not be limited to believers, it would work on anyone who is possessed (or at least have the same success rate). So why don't we see non-believers exhibit these symptoms?

If the latter possibility, that demons only possess people who believe in them, wouldn't the quickest and best way to eliminate demons be to stop believing in them? Kind of like the Matrix where the best way to not get hurt is to believe you will not be hurt.

I agree it makes perfect sense that exorcism can work as a placebo since most of the problems it intends to solve are mental. I don't know if any of the links I posted address it, but I have read articles from psychologists on both sides of that fence. Some argue it doesn't hurt anything, so why not; others argue that performing an exorcism just allows the patient to stick their head in the sand and ignore a potentially serious issue causing more harm in the long run. In my non-expert opinion, I think both sides raise valid points and which approach is better depends strongly on the specific patient. For myself, I prefer to deal with what is real than believe in a fantasy. Although in my life I have met people who clearly ignore reality and are apparently happy to believe in the fantasy they created. If it works for them, I am not going to burst their bubble. As I stated before, I believe that religion is a fantasy, but I know many people who have personally benefited from their beliefs.

If it occurs among multiple people it is repeatable. If it only happened once and will never happen again, then I don't see a reason why we should worry about whether it actually happened or not.

EVPs have already been debunked thousands of times and considering that in our modern world in any given location there are hundreds to thousands of voices flying around the air from radios, CBs, cell phones, satellites, wifi etc. plus the white noise effect which is the equivalent of the childhood past time of staring at clouds and seeing shapes in them (do kids do that anymore? Probably not with all the new video games and such.) It is hardly surprising that you are going to occasionally pick up a voice or two over any electronic device. For some reason, high quality recording equipment which is capable of filtering out noises and focusing on one channel at a time have not found any ghosts, demons or spirits.

The only non-debunked videos are the ones that no one has bothered spending time to debunk. The inherent problem with skepticism is that it is a lot easier and faster to make stuff up and fake it than it is to prove it was a fake, so skeptics are always a little bit behind. Plus with the internet and everyone carrying a camera in their cellphone there is simply so much bull out there that most of it isn't worth the time to debunk.

Many studies have been conducted and some have shown small positive results. Prayer is certainly capable of changing a person's mindset, as is meditation and general optimism. Studies in which other people prayed for a particular person without that person knowing have shown that it makes no difference whatsoever. If you can show me evidence where prayer has a substantial effect on something that the person praying has no control over and the persons mindset cannot influence it would certainly be worth looking at. For example, if you could show that prayer increases the odds of winning the lottery or make you a winner long term at roulette etc. it would certainly be surprising to me. I have witnessed many a person praying to god at the poker table; it doesn't seem to help.

I believe you are talking about the VMAT2 gene which was hypothesized by Dr. Dean Hamer to be correlated with religious beliefs (not any specific belief but just supernatural beliefs in general)

http://www.amazon.com/God-Gene-Faith-Hardwired-Genes/dp/0385720319

My understanding is that even Dr. Hamer has separated himself from the claim that the single gene plays a significant role in religious beliefs. Although, our understanding of precisely how much we are controlled by our genetics vs. our environment is a very young area of science and there is little doubt that in 50 years we will be looking back and laughing at how wrong we were with all of our theories. I do find it quite plausible that there might be a series of genes that make a person more likely to be religious/spiritual. We don't know what much of our genetic code does yet. 

If there is a gene or combination of genes that makes a person more likely to believe, I would think that is a serious conflict for most Christian denominations because how could a loving God punish a person for not believing when their ability to believe is directly controlled by their DNA? IOW if belief is controlled by genetics then it is as much a choice as any disease caused by genetics, which totally destroys the idea of freewill that most Christians have. 

We should be questioning the Book of Mormon the NWT and all other religious texts that you dismiss. I hold them all to the same standard and have the same opinion of them all. You believe the Bible but dismiss all the others. What kind of an angel uses torture? Maybe one that comes from the same god whose idea to save humanity was to create a son for the sole purpose of being tortured to death on a cross as a method for him to forgive the rest of humanity. Maybe the same one who decided that a good way to straighten out humanity was to have a gigantic flood that killed almost every living person on the planet along with virtually every animal. Maybe the same one who thinks that sending people to hell for not believing in him is a good idea. Maybe the same one who likes to test the faith of his followers by asking them to do things like sacrifice their son. Or destroys everything in a righteous man's life including killing his ten children- not because he did anything wrong, but because Satan was talking smack. Given God's history as given in the Bible, I think the story is perfectly consistent with his character. 

Well last year the Vatican announced they were going to digitize a million+ pages of their library so maybe we will find something there. I find it hard to believe there is anything worthwhile on demonology and none of the academics who have been there studying in the Vatican library haven't seen fit to write a journal article on it.