Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2016/08/12 21:06:25
Subject: Re:Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
If I find X people who SWEAR they've seen a magical flying unicorn, but have no other proof, does that mean their anecdotal evidence is valid? No. (X being whatever large number you wish it to be)
Anecdotal evidence is pretty much the worst there is, as anyone can claim anything.
If you took that evidence to a court would you win the case?
Likely not.
Why not?
because you need credible multiple sourcing.
I made pains to make tis point. Why ignore it?
Because anecdotal evidence sucks, especially when combined with faith in any way as it then it falls back on "But I have faith so I don't feel the need for evidence".
Does it suck? The law uses it everyday to put criminals away in court cases.
Also you are sticking to the dogma that faith is mutually exclusive to evidence.
All I got from this was "Even with no evidence, and thus no reason for a logically minded person to believe it, they should still believe because they can't personally provide evidence against it."
If that is all you not your mind is closed indeed.
There is evidence, you just prefer not to accept it because it involves God. Your choice, but don't pretend its a scientific one.
Sorry, burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, i.e. "demonic possession is real".
Well. There i the evidence of testimony both first hand and third hand of deliverance working. So there is that.
There is a whole internets worth of such testimonies.
You're going down the same route of logic as "I believe in an invisible unicorn that only talks to me, and lives in my sock drawer. Prove it doesn't exist."
I need do no such thing. I ignore the invisible unicorn, first because it likely either isn't relevant or doesn't exist because if it did there would be myriad testimonies of its existance.
Replace "Unicorn lives in my sock drawer" with "demonic possession" and you get my point.
No I dont because you dont have billions of people believing in religions which include as a core tenet of their beliefs that unicorns exist. Wheras Judaism, Christinaity and Islam all point to the existance of demons as core, not fringe, theology.
You don't get it . Believing in demonic influence is as commonplace a belief as any other which causes millions to goto a church, mosque or synagogue every week.
So its not the same as unicorns in your closet.
Without actual evidence (i.e. not random easily made up testimonies posted on the internet where everything is 100% true (/sarcasm for that last bit)) it can simply be dismissed as being non existent, and potentially harmful to people with REAL problems that need a REAL doctor, not some nutjob.
Again, this is core theology, and baked up by testimony like other parts of spiritual life. If you ar going to write off all people who beliee in the deominc as a nurtjob. I have to ask why. Why is it any moe extreme than believing in Moses or Jesus or Muhammed? Noting that all three of these figures preached about, dealt with or had stories related to the demonic.
Now you can choose o be an atheist. But you cannot rightfully claim that anyone who believes any of these religions is a 'nutjob'.
By what right t you write off billions of religious people as mentally ill.
All the religion is doing is giving them something else to be focused on (or addicted to, but that's too strong of a word imo), which is why it works. Not because god magically heals them of their addiction or something similar.
You sure of that. What about the ones who don't want to believe in God and do so reluctantly. Or do so because they were healed, with the healing coming first.
Also what of believers who face serious persecution, who need more than a placebo effect, and those amongst them who know enough about medicine to understand both concepts in tandem.
One of the things easily overlooked in the west is that choosing to join some faiths in some countries is a very bad idea from the point of view of hostile government or local religious authorities.
And all of that from what I looked at was either clickbait articles ("10 Terrifying Cases of Demonic Possession"), or again, unverified anecdotal evidence, or are completely unrelated to what we're talking about.
In short, none of that is evidence.
I found some on that first page. More on the second.
As for Olmos, I don't know enough about it to say one way or the other, but I imagine when you feth up and get sent to prison, you start being willing to accept anything that gives you a "second chance" regardless of what it is.
So it should be replicated everywhere then, and with every prison rehabilitation scheme.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/12 21:11:28
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2016/08/12 21:08:55
Subject: Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
Orlanth wrote: There is evidence, you just prefer not to accept it because it involves God.
No, we reject it because your so-called evidence is complete garbage. All you've been able to come up with is a few anecdotes for things that haven't been demonstrated under controlled conditions, and stating the obvious that a lot of people really believe in god. None of this is at all persuasive unless you already believe in your particular brand of Christianity and want to "prove" to yourself that you're right.
There is a whole internets worth of such testimonies.
Ever hear the saying "the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'"?
I ignore the invisible unicorn, first because it likely either isn't relevant or doesn't exist because if it did there would be myriad testimonies of its existance.
There are myriad testimonies of the unicorn's existence. I've seen lots of them, so many lives changed by the invisible unicorn. I can give you thousands of pages of testimonies if you'd like, but I know you'll reject them because they're about a different god.
No I dont because you dont have billions of people believing in religions which include as a core tenet of their beliefs that unicorns exist. Wheras Judaism, Christinaity and Islam all point to the existance of demons as core, not fringe, theology.
You don't get it . Believing in demonic influence is as commonplace a belief as any other which causes millions to goto a church, mosque or synagogue every week.
So its not the same as unicorns in your closet.
How popular a belief is has nothing to do with how reasonable it is. Belief in demons is no more reasonable than belief in the sock-drawer unicorn, and pointing out how many billions of people believe in demons just means that billions of people are wrong.
By what right t you write off billions of religious people as mentally ill.
By the right of "they believe in something that is factually wrong and completely absurd". Talking about how rude it is to call them "mentally ill" doesn't prove that their beliefs are reasonable, it just demonstrates that in our society we don't like it when you criticize someone's religion too strongly.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2016/08/12 21:16:29
Subject: Re:Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
The Roman Catholic Church's official diagnostic criteria for discerning genuine demonic possession includes speaking in tongues or languages formerly unfamiliar to the possessed person, supernatural physical strength, and visibly negative reactions of the victim to prayers, holy water, priests, etc. But for the modern Church, physical and/or psychiatric disorders must first be ruled out.
The conclusion:
But another way of looking at this same possession syndrome is that in such cases what we are seeing are the most extreme and treatment resistant states of mind manifested in patients who may truly believe themselves to be demonically possessed. The pertinent question then is how best to treat such severely disturbed and deeply suffering individuals? It seems that at least some familiarity with their religious beliefs and meaningful integration of these beliefs into their psychotherapy is essential. These patients have usually tried traditional psychiatric treatment, with its neurobiological bias, to no avail. Providing some way to help such patients make sense of their frightening and bewildering subjective experiences and integrate them meaningfully into a deeper psychological and spiritual understanding of themselves and the world is what real psychotherapy should, at its best, strive toward. Without such a meaning-centered, spiritually sensitive secular psychotherapy (see my prior post), exorcism is seen to be their only hope.
The whole article is worth reading (in my opinion).
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
2016/08/12 21:17:54
Subject: Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
I speak from personal experience which means you can't refute it.
You are trying a counter indicator argument, by proposing a complete opposit to what tyou think the opposing point is. However you fail in doing so fairly.
Speaking from personal experience would not mean it cant be refuted, it means that you have internal easons to believe in a point which should at some level be respected rather than ridiculed without relevant evidence to back it up. Someone else could fairly choose to disbelieve you, but it would be very rude to call you out as a liar without good reason, and a counterpoint of beleif is not that.
Also noone is saying: Science doesnt heal, only God does.
Be fair.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2016/08/12 21:19:30
Subject: Re:Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
If I find X people who SWEAR they've seen a magical flying unicorn, but have no other proof, does that mean their anecdotal evidence is valid? No. (X being whatever large number you wish it to be)
Anecdotal evidence is pretty much the worst there is, as anyone can claim anything.
If you took that evidence to a court would you win the case?
Likely not.
Why not?
because you need credible multiple sourcing.
I made pains to make tis point. Why ignore it?
Because anecdotal evidence sucks, especially when combined with faith in any way as it then it falls back on "But I have faith so I don't feel the need for evidence".
Does it suck? The law uses it everyday to put criminals away in court cases.
Also you are sticking to the dogma that faith is mutually exclusive to evidence.
...
When a court hears a piece of eyewitness evidence, it is not anecdotal, it is specific to the case being tried. Caling it anecdotal is like you telling us you had fried egg for breakfast today and none of us believing you because there aren't 99 other Orlanths of whom 74 also say they had fried egg for breakfast.
If we want to find out the percentage of the population who have fried egg for breakfast, then asking you only is a waste of time. That is anecdotal evidence.
Orlanth wrote: There is evidence, you just prefer not to accept it because it involves God.
No, we reject it because your so-called evidence is complete garbage.
I could expect you to say that. You don't believe in God and therefore all evidence for God is garbage because you daren't consider the possibility of it being anything else.
That isn't a rational argument and you draw that conclusion before even looking at or for evidence. Which shows how devoid of logic and reason your response is.
Ever hear the saying "the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'"?
Sure its a handwaved brought out when you want to. Then put aside when you want a concensus to count.
Edit: Actually come to think about it I misspoke when I even accepted your premise that the evidence presented was necessarily anecdotal to begn with. When it is internally surced especilly by several witnesses at thre site it is NOT anecdotal, but supported evidence.
There are myriad testimonies of the unicorn's existence. I've seen lots of them, so many lives changed by the invisible unicorn. I can give you thousands of pages of testimonies if you'd like, but I know you'll reject them because they're about a different god.
Sure. I can play that game. What history has your religion, where are its adherents, where is the history of belief or hold texts, where are the testimonies. Show me this and I will not disrespect your unicorn or laugh at a doctor who chooses to believe in unicorns and call for his career to be terminated.
This isn't a joke response. One of the Hindu dieties, Ganesh is depicted as an elephant headed man, and IIRC theologically is more elephant than man. I would be ashamed to ridicule or otherhow persecute Ganesh worshippers. Even though a human four armed elephant hybrid is more outlandish an idea than a horse with a horn on its head.
I would hope that you too would not troll Hindus who worship this deity either.
How popular a belief is has nothing to do with how reasonable it is. Belief in demons is no more reasonable than belief in the sock-drawer unicorn, and pointing out how many billions of people believe in demons just means that billions of people are wrong.
Billions of people can be wrong as most of the religions are mutually exclusive you can be assured of that. But you aren't the judge as to whether they are.
By the right of "they believe in something that is factually wrong and completely absurd". Talking about how rude it is to call them "mentally ill" doesn't prove that their beliefs are reasonable, it just demonstrates that in our society we don't like it when you criticize someone's religion too strongly.
Perhaps they aren't mentally ill at all. Perhaps these faiths are shared by intellectuals of all stripes who on a bad day are smarter than the both of us combined. Perhaps their faiths are not absurd. Perhaps God does speak to people. Perhaps it is factually correct. Here is an example for you:
Have you heard of the revised calendar for ancient middle east history. Back until about twenty years ago there was a huge gap in the timeline of middle eastern ancient history. This was because one important source was always dismissed, the Old Testament. However when the Hittite and Egyptian sources were combined with the Bible timeline it actually made better sense.
Historians were forced to conclude there was three hundred year dark age in which no recorded text survives despite adjacent copies of texts from before and after that time. When they got over their dogma of not using Biblical sources as historical sources the timeline was 'repaired' without the three hundred year gap and the history of the ancient middle east made sense.
Here s one example of scholars itself using the Bible as a historical source, after a period of discarding it as a source and finding it better it the evidence that science was finding.
When a court hears a piece of eyewitness evidence, it is not anecdotal, it is specific to the case being tried. Caling it anecdotal is like you telling us you had fried egg for breakfast today and none of us believing you because there aren't 99 other Orlanths of whom 74 also say they had fried egg for breakfast.
If we want to find out the percentage of the population who have fried egg for breakfast, then asking you only is a waste of time. That is anecdotal evidence.
Fine in which case I should have challenged claims that the testimony evidence is 'anecdotal' then. I was taking anecdotal to mean any evidence based on testimony. Which would include valid court testimony.
Enough of it is multiply sources from issue, because it is independently verified from multiple witnesses at source. Some wont be, however those could count as supporting statements.
Thank you this is helpful. So the testimony evidence of healing verified by secondary sources including doctors are NOT "anecdotal". Ok got it. Olmos prison massed testimonies and Argentine government research verifying the miraculous change in rehabilitation rates is NOT "anecdotal", either.
I don't see how this hurts my case. In the churches we are expected to multiple source testimonies anyway, and can never rely on self testimony. You can give your own testimony but the changed life must be witnessed properly over time for any validity to be placed by a claim.
Come to think about it, the Bibles validity of testimonies procedures don't rely on anecdotal evidence at all.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/12 21:54:06
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2016/08/12 22:51:39
Subject: Re:Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
1. As kilkrazy, they said it very well. And faith is exclusive from evidence (real, acceptable evidence, not anecdotal evidence) which is why it's called faith and not evidence/proof/fact
2. Actually it IS the scientific one. As far as science goes, there has been exactly zero legit proof of any god whatsoever. And my mind isn't closed, if you brought me real, tangible proof of god/demons/the invisible unicorn in the sock drawer, I'd accept it and change my view on reality. Until the day you actually provide said proof, I'm just going to keep dismissing god/demons/the invisible unicorn in the sock drawer.
3. Oh, you mean MORE anecdotal evidence? The kind we've been saying isn't valid this ENTIRE time?
4. You missed the point. Replace "invisible unicorn" with "demon" and "lives in my sock drawer" with "is possessing people".
5. Just because something is commonplace does not make it fact. (That's the "Mob Appeal" fallacy btw)
6. Good strawman, I didn't say everyone who believes in religion OR demons is nuts. I said believing in demonic possession are nutjobs.
7. What does any of that have to do with what I said?
9. Was any of it not anecdotal evidence?
10. No, I said I don't know enough, then took a stab in the dark at why it might be working. I could be totally right, or totally wrong I don't know as I said
"In science, definitions of anecdotal evidence include:
"casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis"
"information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically" "
There's the definition of basically every bit of "evidence" you've tried to use. Including the bible, which is a terrible source as not only was it written well after Jesus's death, but also heavily altered.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/12 22:55:50
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
2016/08/12 23:45:41
Subject: Re:Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
Orlanth wrote: I could expect you to say that. You don't believe in God and therefore all evidence for God is garbage because you daren't consider the possibility of it being anything else.
That isn't a rational argument and you draw that conclusion before even looking at or for evidence. Which shows how devoid of logic and reason your response is.
IOW: "UR SO BIASED YOU HATE GOD". No matter how many times you repeat it that doesn't make your evidence any better. I have considered the possibility of god (and even wanted there to be a god) and found the pro-god argument severely lacking. I don't reject your evidence because I refuse to accept the idea of god, I reject it because it's terrible "evidence" for anything. It fails to live up to the standards of evidence we'd apply to other subjects, and it's only persuasive if you already believe in your particular brand of Christianity.
Consider homeopathy in comparison. The supposed mechanism behind it is incoherent nonsense, and it has failed miserably in controlled trials. When we dismiss isolated anecdotes of "this water totally healed me guys, spend all of your money on it!" with "show me the successful controlled trials" very few people would think it would be reasonable to argue that we're just biased and afraid to admit that homeopathy works. Most people would recognize the obvious: that the pro-homeopathy side has done a terrible job of proving their case and they need better evidence before belief in homeopathy is a reasonable thing. But somehow, when it comes to god, the standards change completely and this garbage evidence must be accepted or you're biased against religion.
Sure. I can play that game. What history has your religion, where are its adherents, where is the history of belief or hold texts, where are the testimonies. Show me this and I will not disrespect your unicorn or laugh at a doctor who chooses to believe in unicorns and call for his career to be terminated.
You can play that game, but a game is all it will ever be. Arguing "BUT I HAVE SO MUCH HISTORY" will never be a credible argument. People have believed a lot of absurd things in the past: that the sun revolves around the earth, that the white race is inherently superior to all others, etc. And when they were demonstrated to be wrong no amount of "where is your history of belief" was a successful counter to the criticism. We just accepted that lots of people had been wrong for a long time. And eventually the same will happen with religion.
Billions of people can be wrong as most of the religions are mutually exclusive you can be assured of that. But you aren't the judge as to whether they are.
Why am I not the judge? Because I disagree with your opinion?
Have you heard of the revised calendar for ancient middle east history. Back until about twenty years ago there was a huge gap in the timeline of middle eastern ancient history. This was because one important source was always dismissed, the Old Testament. However when the Hittite and Egyptian sources were combined with the Bible timeline it actually made better sense.
Historians were forced to conclude there was three hundred year dark age in which no recorded text survives despite adjacent copies of texts from before and after that time. When they got over their dogma of not using Biblical sources as historical sources the timeline was 'repaired' without the three hundred year gap and the history of the ancient middle east made sense.
Here s one example of scholars itself using the Bible as a historical source, after a period of discarding it as a source and finding it better it the evidence that science was finding.
{citation needed}
Could you give some more information on this? Searching for "revised middle east calendar" turns up nothing, and the only ~300 year "gap" in history that comes up is some fringe theory that mainstream historians don't take seriously at all.
Also, there's a huge difference between using the bible as a historical source and believing all of its religious claims. For example, let's say that 2000 years from now historians know that 9/11 happened and resulted in major changes in society but the year is no longer known. Then some historian finds a (fiction) novel from 2016 that talks about 9/11 happening in 2001. It has provided useful historical information because even works of fiction often incorporate facts about the real world to make a more appealing story, but that doesn't mean that the historians of 4016 should seriously consider that novel's claims about how Peregrine, chosen warrior of god, defended his nation from the alien tyrants that had been manipulating the Trump campaign when Clinton's victory forced them to resort to conquest by force. Any sensible historian would say "nope, that claim of Peregrine incinerating an alien space battleship with his laser vision is not at all plausible" even though the novel did get the date of 9/11 right.
You can give your own testimony but the changed life must be witnessed properly over time for any validity to be placed by a claim.
And this is what I mean about garbage evidence. A "changed life" isn't evidence for the truth of your religion, just like the happy marriage you have after you stubbornly believe that your spouse is faithful doesn't change the fact that they're cheating on you. It is entirely possible to have positive results from believing a lie, so no amount of "believing in this changed my life" is credible evidence that the belief is true.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2016/08/13 01:14:33
Subject: Re:Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
1. As kilkrazy, they said it very well. And faith is exclusive from evidence (real, acceptable evidence, not anecdotal evidence) which is why it's called faith and not evidence/proof/fact
Faith is not mutually exclusive with evidence. You can believe because of what you know or what you presume.
2. Actually it IS the scientific one. As far as science goes, there has been exactly zero legit proof of any god whatsoever. And my mind isn't closed, if you brought me real, tangible proof of god/demons/the invisible unicorn in the sock drawer, I'd accept it and change my view on reality. Until the day you actually provide said proof, I'm just going to keep dismissing god/demons/the invisible unicorn in the sock drawer.
Go ahead, but that is your choice. However there is evidence out there. I gave some very strong secularly verifiable evidence on the other thread. How a unique prediction event in human history occurred when a two and a half millenia old prophecy was enacted to the day as it was predicted, and its enaction was dependent on too many factors to be feasibly manipulable. This event being the foundation of Israel in 1948.
3. Oh, you mean MORE anecdotal evidence? The kind we've been saying isn't valid this ENTIRE time?
No sorry, you got away with saying he evidence was anecdotal and I didnt chalenge this becasue I presumed you meant that it was all testimony. When in fact what you meant was that you handwaved and decided, prior to examining any of it that all the tesimony was spurious. I should hae known better as you have handwaved evidence away throughout,as have others.
You have nothing to base a blanket claim that the evidence for God is 'anecdotal', when much of the evidence out there is verifiable through mltiple sources and independent witnesses.
5. Just because something is commonplace does not make it fact. (That's the "Mob Appeal" fallacy btw)
I didnt say it was. I said that there was cause not to blanket disegard the evidence or to lump it in the same category as claims that have no or negligible backing. Which is what you are doing.
You are free to disbelieve.
6. Good strawman, I didn't say everyone who believes in religion OR demons is nuts. I said believing in demonic possession are nutjobs.
Not a strawman. As explained the theology of demon possession is mainstream teaching. Jesus preached on it and delivered possessed people according to Bible witness.
Belief in Jesus does not make someone a 'nutjob', so believing the things Jesus believed in doesn't either. It is only consistent:
Mark 16:17 :And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues.
Luke 8:26-29 26 So they arrived in the region of the Gerasenes across the lake from Galilee. 27 As Jesus was climbing out of the boat, a man who was possessed by demons came out to meet him. For a long time he had been homeless and naked, living in the tombs outside the town. 28 As soon as he saw Jesus, he shrieked and fell down in front of him. Then he screamed, “Why are you interfering with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? Please, I beg you, don’t torture me!” 29 For Jesus had already commanded the evil[b] spirit to come out of him.
7. What does any of that have to do with what I said?
9. Was any of it not anecdotal evidence?.
10. No, I said I don't know enough, then took a stab in the dark at why it might be working. I could be totally right, or totally wrong I don't know as I said
Please quantify what you are critiquing. It helps if you leave quotes in.
"In science, definitions of anecdotal evidence include:
"casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis"
"information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically"
However in law evidence such as this can send a man to prison. i.e testimony has validity.
There's the definition of basically every bit of "evidence" you've tried to use. Including the bible, which is a terrible source as not only was it written well after Jesus's death, but also heavily altered.
Where do you get the doctrine that the Bible it has been heavily altered. Other than wishful thinking and handwaves. Also the example given to you is true, Biblical timelines were key to making the chronology of the ancient middle east workable.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2016/08/13 01:32:52
Subject: Re:Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
Orlanth wrote: Faith is not mutually exclusive with evidence. You can believe because of what you know or what you presume.
No. The definition of faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
{same old already addressed claims about how you evidence isn't garbage}
Nope, it's still garbage. No matter how many times you post the same old "evidence", ignoring all of the people explaining why it isn't compelling evidence at all, it will still be just as worthless.
However in law evidence such as this can send a man to prison. i.e testimony has validity.
Testimony also has the least validity of all evidence, and a case built on such fallible evidence and nothing else is an incredibly weak one. And, unlike the way you treat testimony that supports your religious beliefs, in court it is treated with extreme skepticism. Any half-competent lawyer is going to push very hard on the difference between what a witness believes they know/saw/etc and what they can justifiably say they know/saw/etc.
Where do you get the doctrine that the Bible it has been heavily altered. Other than wishful thinking and handwaves.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2016/08/13 02:04:20
Subject: Re:Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
IOW: "UR SO BIASED YOU HATE GOD". No matter how many times you repeat it that doesn't make your evidence any better.
Your argument would be better received if you werent so consistently poisonous about belief in God. You have every right not to believe, less right to ridicule people who do, or just handwave discourse away without ever giving reasoning as to why.
You have very consitently said the evidence is rubbish. You have never articulated why it s rubbish. Partly beause that would involve looking at the evidence, and you prefer to dismiss it a priori.
Consider homeopathy in comparison. The supposed mechanism behind it is incoherent nonsense, and it has failed miserably in controlled trials. When we dismiss isolated anecdotes of "this water totally healed me guys, spend all of your money on it!" with "show me the successful controlled trials" very few people would think it would be reasonable to argue that we're just biased and afraid to admit that homeopathy works. Most people would recognize the obvious: that the pro-homeopathy side has done a terrible job of proving their case and they need better evidence before belief in homeopathy is a reasonable thing. But somehow, when it comes to god, the standards change completely and this garbage evidence must be accepted or you're biased against religion.
Most forms of Christianity is against homeopathy, but the reasons vary. Homeopathy derives and presumed power from potentisation. Solutions are diluted to an extent that you could replace the original mixture with radiactive waste dilute it directly and end up with something potable. As each stage dilutes the solution by approx 99%, and there are normally up to about thirty stages of dilution. Potentisation is a faith based process, as despite the extemely heavy levels of dilution a solution that is purportedly stronger as it becomes more dilute.
Chemically it makes no sense, theologically the options are open, it can make perfect sense, as the potentisation is a personal process. Practitioners are instructed not to just diluted and that doesnt work, it is beleived by homeopathy practioners there is an impartation during the shaking which should be by hand. It is similar in some ways to spiritism, this is why most churches have little to do with homeopathy, as it only makes any sense if it involves spiritual processes, and ones that are as far as we are aware not of God.
You can play that game, but a game is all it will ever be. Arguing "BUT I HAVE SO MUCH HISTORY" will never be a credible argument.
It is a fair argument to provide a distinction between mainstream religion and what you want to pass of as its equivalent.
It is not intended as proof of God of itself.
And eventually the same will happen with religion.
it has already happened. in China there are brutal persecutions of the church justified on the grounds that man has outgrown religion.
The Chinee authorities found a phenomenon they couldnt undestsand though. The more Christians they imprisoned and brutalised the faster the church grew.
Why am I not the judge? Because I disagree with your opinion?
Because you gave your verdict before seeing any of the evidence.
Your right to disagree with my opinion on the other hand is not really relevant to me, except in the manner it is presented. You have right to that opinion and that right is to be defended.
Could you give some more information on this? Searching for "revised middle east calendar" turns up nothing, and the only ~300 year "gap" in history that comes up is some fringe theory that mainstream historians don't take seriously at all.
The three century gap was mainstream thinking until the modern revisions of the timeline. It is still disputed today. Egyptology is rather split on Rohls work, other aspets of middle astern chronology ae rather more accepting because it ties up a lot of loose ends, especially with regards to marrying up international events. It is gaining ground in Egyptology because while it doesnt entirely fit it make sense for it not to. The Egyptians were big on editing their own history, in the way Stalin did millenia later. Unwanted political figures disappeared from artwork and documentation. In some cases this ironically helped preserve their legacy as temples were rebuilt with facing stones faced inwards preserving the original inscriptions. international events are harder to whitewash and those fit in with the New Chronology. Internal historical sources for Egypt however are not reliable due to the methods of politics of the time.
Also, there's a huge difference between using the bible as a historical source and believing all of its religious claims.
This is true, but the corroboration throws cold water on the popular assumption by critics that the Bible must be just a book to fairy tales with zero basis in fact. Historcitiy of the Bible is often challenged and handwaved away.
You can give your own testimony but the changed life must be witnessed properly over time for any validity to be placed by a claim.
And this is what I mean about garbage evidence. A "changed life" isn't evidence for the truth of your religion, just like the happy marriage you have after you stubbornly believe that your spouse is faithful doesn't change the fact that they're cheating on you. It is entirely possible to have positive results from believing a lie, so no amount of "believing in this changed my life" is credible evidence that the belief is true.
Your example isn't a good analogy for a 'changed life'. A cheating wife who returns to her husband contrite and never cheating again and seeking forgiveness is a changed life analogy. In fact its a Biblical one and the very example is used several ties in the Old and New Testaments.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/13 02:16:13
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2016/08/13 02:06:24
Subject: Re:Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
2. Actually it IS the scientific one. As far as science goes, there has been exactly zero legit proof of any god whatsoever. And my mind isn't closed, if you brought me real, tangible proof of god/demons/the invisible unicorn in the sock drawer, I'd accept it and change my view on reality. Until the day you actually provide said proof, I'm just going to keep dismissing god/demons/the invisible unicorn in the sock drawer.
Go ahead, but that is your choice. However there is evidence out there. I gave some very strong secularly verifiable evidence on the other thread. How a unique prediction event in human history occurred when a two and a half millenia old prophecy was enacted to the day as it was predicted, and its enaction was dependent on too many factors to be feasibly manipulable. This event being the foundation of Israel in 1948.
1948 an oddly specific number to supposedly be written into a text that was written and compiled thousands of years ago. Not only that, it's definitely not a stretch of imagination or fact to say that they used a different calendar system to the one we use in relatively modern history. And even if we disregard the date and focus on the event as well as the prophecy predicting just the event, a quick Google search will bring up any number of articles that go on to explain why the prophecy wasn't fulfilled.
I'm sorry, but the way I see it is that this is one of those things that is a real stretch at best and is only strengthened in your mind by your faith.
Wolfblade wrote: 4. You missed the point. Replace "invisible unicorn" with "demon" and "lives in my sock drawer" with "is possessing people".
Your point is not valid. There is no historicity for belief n invisible unicorns,.
-- It is very valid. How is it not valid? -- I'm sure there is much history for it, but I doubt such a thing would ever be well documented (or at least it would never be as well documented as a widely followed religion such as Christianity or Islam).
6. Good strawman, I didn't say everyone who believes in religion OR demons is nuts. I said believing in demonic possession are nutjobs.
Not a strawman. As explained the theology of demon possession is mainstream teaching. Jesus preached on it and delivered possessed people according to Bible witness.
He also supposedly fed a large amount of people with an apparently insufficient amount of food, cured afflictions such as blindness, and so on, but it makes a lot more logical sense to take these sorts of stories as metaphors and/or stories that are trying to teach us something. Same thing goes for Daemon Possession. How do you (or any of us for that matter) know whether or not he was trying to preach metaphorically and/or trying to teach us a lesson?
I'm sorry, but just because an important historical figure who supposedly had God-given supernatural powers preached about daemons and daemonic possession in a way that could have honestly either been literal or metaphorical is not in any way evidence of daemons and daemonic possession.
Orlanth wrote: Mark 16:17 :And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues.
Luke 8:26-29 26 So they arrived in the region of the Gerasenes across the lake from Galilee. 27 As Jesus was climbing out of the boat, a man who was possessed by demons came out to meet him. For a long time he had been homeless and naked, living in the tombs outside the town. 28 As soon as he saw Jesus, he shrieked and fell down in front of him. Then he screamed, “Why are you interfering with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? Please, I beg you, don’t torture me!” 29 For Jesus had already commanded the evil[b] spirit to come out of him.
Quoting the Bible isn't going to help you here, and nor is it evidence. As Peregrine said with the historians and 9/11 example, we have no way for filtering the truth from everything else and thus discerning whether or not daemons and daemonic possession are real from the Bible is impossible.
"In science, definitions of anecdotal evidence include:
"casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis" "information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically"
However in law evidence such as this can send a man to prison. i.e testimony has validity.
But we're not in a court of law. We're debating the validity of the existence of a God or set of Gods, thus what flies in a court of law doesn't necessarily hold up here. In the context of this debate, I postulate that any testimony means very little if you can't back it up. For example: If I claimed to you that I say a unicorn and had nothing but my testimony, would you believe me? I'd be willing to bet that the answer is "No". But if I also came to you with an unadulterated photograph of it as well as some of it's hair that it left on some shrubbery as it went to run away from me, then I'd be willing to bet that you'd at least say "I may be inclined to believe you" as opposed to a flat "No".
You can give your own testimony but the changed life must be witnessed properly over time for any validity to be placed by a claim.
And this is what I mean about garbage evidence. A "changed life" isn't evidence for the truth of your religion, just like the happy marriage you have after you stubbornly believe that your spouse is faithful doesn't change the fact that they're cheating on you. It is entirely possible to have positive results from believing a lie, so no amount of "believing in this changed my life" is credible evidence that the belief is true.
Your example isn't a good analogy for a 'changed life'. A cheating wife who returns to her husband contrite and never cheating again and seeking forgiveness is a changed life analogy. In fact its a Biblical one and the very example is used several ties in the Old and New Testaments.
Peregrine's example may not have been ideal, but their point stands and I think it's reasonable.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/13 02:11:29
2016/08/13 02:19:33
Subject: Re:Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
No. The definition of faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
The Bilbe would disagree with you there.
The apostle Thomas was noted for his faith, despite his honest doubts.
Also Jesus reply to him is indicative. You beleive because you have seen, but blessed is her who has not seen but beleives.
Paul is noted for his faith, yet he believed because he saw, and did not until that point.
1948 an oddly specific number to supposedly be written into a text that was written and compiled thousands of years ago. Not only that, it's definitely not a stretch of imagination or fact to say that they used a different calendar system to the one we use in relatively modern history. And even if we disregard the date and focus on the event as well as the prophecy predicting just the event, a quick Google search will bring up any number of articles that go on to explain why the prophecy wasn't fulfilled.
it does indeed use a different calendar system, the Jewish religious calendar. Which is still in continuous use today. It is exact according to that calendar.
I'm sorry, but the way I see it is that this is one of those things that is a real stretch at best and is only strengthened in your mind by your faith.
Prediction is still accurate to the day based on known biblical start dates for the chronology, the exile and the return to build the temple of Jerusalem.
He also supposedly fed a large amount of people with an apparently insufficient amount of food, cured afflictions such as blindness, and so on, but it makes a lot more logical sense to take these sorts of stories as metaphors and/or stories that are trying to teach us something. Same thing goes for Daemon Possession. How do you (or any of us for that matter) know whether or not he was trying to preach metaphorically and/or trying to teach us a lesson?
I can go along with metaphor, but if so a metaphor for what?
I'm sorry, but just because an important historical figure who supposedly had God-given supernatural powers preached about daemons and daemonic possession in a way that could have honestly either been literal or metaphorical is not in any way evidence of daemons and daemonic possession.
Quoting the Bible isn't going to help you here, and nor is it evidence. As Peregrine said with the historians and 9/11 example, we have no way for filtering the truth from everything else and thus discerning whether or not daemons and daemonic possession are real from the Bible is impossible.
I am not trying to prove anything to you. I know better, there will be no absolute proof until the second coming.
I am pointing out that demonology is mainstream Christin teaching, not fringe teaching. It is no more outlandish than believing that Jesus is God, which is a belief that doesnt attract ridicule from anyone but rolls.
But we're not in a court of law. We're debating the validity of the existence of a God or set of Gods, thus what flies in a court of law doesn't necessarily hold up here.
This is a human argument. Each person sits on their own jury and decides.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/13 02:29:28
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2016/08/13 02:56:59
Subject: Re:Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
Orlanth wrote: Your argument would be better received if you werent so consistently poisonous about belief in God. You have every right not to believe, less right to ridicule people who do, or just handwave discourse away without ever giving reasoning as to why.
You have very consitently said the evidence is rubbish. You have never articulated why it s rubbish. Partly beause that would involve looking at the evidence, and you prefer to dismiss it a priori.
Don't do this. Also, I have articulated why your evidence is rubbish, you just don't like the answer.
Most forms of Christianity is against homeopathy, but the reasons vary. Homeopathy derives and presumed power from potentisation. Solutions are diluted to an extent that you could replace the original mixture with radiactive waste dilute it directly and end up with something potable. As each stage dilutes the solution by approx 99%, and there are normally up to about thirty stages of dilution. Potentisation is a faith based process, as despite the extemely heavy levels of dilution a solution that is purportedly stronger as it becomes more dilute.
Chemically it makes no sense, theologically the options are open, it can make perfect sense, as the potentisation is a personal process. Practitioners are instructed not to just diluted and that doesnt work, it is beleived by homeopathy practioners there is an impartation during the shaking which should be by hand. It is similar in some ways to spiritism, this is why most churches have little to do with homeopathy, as it only makes any sense if it involves spiritual processes, and ones that are as far as we are aware not of God.
You're completely missing the point here. I'm not arguing that homeopathy is valid, or that Christianity supports homeopathy. I'm pointing out the fact that the kind of "evidence" you keep trying to provide in support of your religion is the same kind of "evidence" that we throw out as obvious garbage when it comes to homeopathy. You're trying to set a much more generous standard for what counts as evidence for your own religion.
it has already happened. in China there are brutal persecutions of the church justified on the grounds that man has outgrown religion.
The Chinee authorities found a phenomenon they couldnt undestsand though. The more Christians they imprisoned and brutalised the faster the church grew.
No, that's not what I'm talking about at all. Religion will not end because the state oppresses it and ends it by force, nor do I support that. Religion will end when people say "you know, this is pretty silly" and stop believing.
And of course the church grew under persecution, that's what happens when you make martyrs out of people and inspire sympathy for their position. That, of course, does not mean that the beliefs of the church are true.
Because you gave your verdict before seeing any of the evidence.
I saw your so-called evidence. And I've seen lots of similar so-called evidence in the past. Do not confuse my being completely unimpressed with your weak efforts to justify your religion with being ignorant of what you are claiming.
Egyptologists have not adopted the New Chronology, continuing to employ the standard chronology in mainstream academic and popular publications.
Your supposed victory for bible-based history is actually nothing more than a fringe theory that is not taken seriously by mainstream historians.
This is true, but the corroboration throws cold water on the popular assumption by critics that the Bible must be just a book to fairy tales with zero basis in fact.
Please don't make straw man arguments. Nobody is claiming that the bible contains no truth at all. Even other books of fairy tales (which everyone, including the authors, understands are fairy tales) often include some elements of the real world in the stories. What people are actually arguing is that the parts of the bible that are relevant to theology (IOW, not the random background events/places that have little to do with the story of Jesus) have little or no basis in fact.
Your example isn't a good analogy for a 'changed life'. A cheating wife who returns to her husband contrite and never cheating again and seeking forgiveness is a changed life analogy. In fact its a Biblical one and the very example is used several ties in the Old and New Testaments.
It isn't intended to be a direct analogy for a "changed life". It's simply illustrating the point that sincere belief in something, even sincere belief that allows you to change your life, does not mean that the thing you believe in is true.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2016/08/13 03:11:26
Subject: Re:Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
IllumiNini wrote: 1948 an oddly specific number to supposedly be written into a text that was written and compiled thousands of years ago. Not only that, it's definitely not a stretch of imagination or fact to say that they used a different calendar system to the one we use in relatively modern history. And even if we disregard the date and focus on the event as well as the prophecy predicting just the event, a quick Google search will bring up any number of articles that go on to explain why the prophecy wasn't fulfilled.
it does indeed use a different calendar system, the Jewish religious calendar. Which is still in continuous use today. It is exact according to that calendar.
Even so, that still leaves a large number of articles (which, as I said, can be obtained by a quick Google search) that seem to discredit the fulfillment of this prophecy using logical deduction. Care to address those (or at least their existence)?
IllumiNini wrote: I'm sorry, but the way I see it is that this is one of those things that is a real stretch at best and is only strengthened in your mind by your faith.
Prediction is still accurate to the day based on known biblical start dates for the chronology, the exile and the return to build the temple of Jerusalem.
I'm sorry, but I don't see it. Based on my Google searches, it seems like two dots are being connected out of convenience rather than because they should actually be connected.
IllumiNini wrote: He also supposedly fed a large amount of people with an apparently insufficient amount of food, cured afflictions such as blindness, and so on, but it makes a lot more logical sense to take these sorts of stories as metaphors and/or stories that are trying to teach us something. Same thing goes for Daemon Possession. How do you (or any of us for that matter) know whether or not he was trying to preach metaphorically and/or trying to teach us a lesson?
I can go along with metaphor, but if so a metaphor for what?
I honestly don't know what for because I haven't given it any thought in the better part of a decade, but think about it from a purely logical stand-point (and by that I mean try to ignore the conviction your faith allows): How am I (as an agnostic) supposed to believe that Jesus fed a whole bunch of people with a less than adequate amount of food? From a purely logical standpoint, that's impossible - no two ways about it; so how could it be anything but a metaphorical story or a lesson in something?
Now supposing the Christian God exists, it can be explained quite easily, but nobody outside Christianity who is trying to be convinced of Christianity's "Truth" is not likely to ever suppose that. This means that (as I said before): How could it be anything but a metaphorical story or a lesson in something?
Quoting the Bible isn't going to help you here, and nor is it evidence. As Peregrine said with the historians and 9/11 example, we have no way for filtering the truth from everything else and thus discerning whether or not daemons and daemonic possession are real from the Bible is impossible.
I am not trying to prove anything to you. I know better, there will be no absolute proof until the second coming.
I am pointing out that demonology is mainstream Christin teaching, not fringe teaching. It is no more outlandish than believing that Jesus is God, which is a belief that doesnt attract ridicule from anyone but rolls.
But whether or not Jesus is God as an actual fact that can be verified by the non-believing public is not being brought into question in this thread. The idea of daemons and daemonic possession is.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/13 09:23:15
2016/08/13 04:33:45
Subject: Re:Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
Former presumptive Republican presidential nominee and comedian Donald Trump’s polling performance among likely voters has taken surprising upswing.
The poll response comes on the heels of Trump unveiling a surprisingly softer tone at a rally yesterday.
“Don’t worry about race or religion, you’re all doomed and will cave to my power,” said Trump in blend of several voices. “To me you are but flesh, equally weak and in need of my intervention. There is no Donald, there is only Baal.”
Trump went on to completely abandon his harsh immigration stances.
“Building a wall and banning Muslim entry would mean less soldiers for my dark army,” said Trump. “We need to support our troops by bringing in more!”
According to political analyst and occult expert Rupert Giles, Trump was displaying classical signs of demonic possession.
“If confirmed, this would be the first candidate to suffer from demonic possession since Goldwater,” said Pope Barry Manilow II, a demonic possession hobbyist.
Even some of the more Christian conservatives were more accepting of the Baal-possessed Trump.
Baal Trump even received an endorsement from formal rival Ted Cruz.
“Hillary is pretty damn evil, and so was Trump,” said the Zodiac Killer. “But I think we can all agree that there is nothing on Baal’s public record that shows it is more evil than Hillary or Trump. I’m willing to hitch my wagon and see where this ride takes us.”
Orlanth wrote:Historians were forced to conclude there was three hundred year dark age in which no recorded text survives despite adjacent copies of texts from before and after that time. When they got over their dogma of not using Biblical sources as historical sources the timeline was 'repaired' without the three hundred year gap and the history of the ancient middle east made sense.
Show me a classical historian who refuses to utilise biblical sources, and I'll show you someone who either got their doctorate online, is an amateur, or who every other historian thinks is an unprofessional lunatic.
All religious texts are recognised as 'historical sources', no historian just pretends religious sources do not exist. That would be historical malpractice of the highest calibre. Our goal is to try and sift for the most accurate version of past events, ignoring data of any kind is anathema to that. To a qualified and trained historian, every source is utilised, but it is independently weighed, evaluated for bias, and cross-verified for context and accuracy.
2016/08/13 11:03:16
Subject: Re:Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
1. As kilkrazy, they said it very well. And faith is exclusive from evidence (real, acceptable evidence, not anecdotal evidence) which is why it's called faith and not evidence/proof/fact
Faith is not mutually exclusive with evidence. You can believe because of what you know or what you presume.
2. Actually it IS the scientific one. As far as science goes, there has been exactly zero legit proof of any god whatsoever. And my mind isn't closed, if you brought me real, tangible proof of god/demons/the invisible unicorn in the sock drawer, I'd accept it and change my view on reality. Until the day you actually provide said proof, I'm just going to keep dismissing god/demons/the invisible unicorn in the sock drawer.
Go ahead, but that is your choice. However there is evidence out there. I gave some very strong secularly verifiable evidence on the other thread. How a unique prediction event in human history occurred when a two and a half millenia old prophecy was enacted to the day as it was predicted, and its enaction was dependent on too many factors to be feasibly manipulable. This event being the foundation of Israel in 1948.
3. Oh, you mean MORE anecdotal evidence? The kind we've been saying isn't valid this ENTIRE time?
No sorry, you got away with saying he evidence was anecdotal and I didnt chalenge this becasue I presumed you meant that it was all testimony. When in fact what you meant was that you handwaved and decided, prior to examining any of it that all the tesimony was spurious. I should hae known better as you have handwaved evidence away throughout,as have others.
You have nothing to base a blanket claim that the evidence for God is 'anecdotal', when much of the evidence out there is verifiable through mltiple sources and independent witnesses.
5. Just because something is commonplace does not make it fact. (That's the "Mob Appeal" fallacy btw)
I didnt say it was. I said that there was cause not to blanket disegard the evidence or to lump it in the same category as claims that have no or negligible backing. Which is what you are doing.
You are free to disbelieve.
6. Good strawman, I didn't say everyone who believes in religion OR demons is nuts. I said believing in demonic possession are nutjobs.
Not a strawman. As explained the theology of demon possession is mainstream teaching. Jesus preached on it and delivered possessed people according to Bible witness.
Belief in Jesus does not make someone a 'nutjob', so believing the things Jesus believed in doesn't either. It is only consistent:
Mark 16:17 :And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues.
Luke 8:26-29 26 So they arrived in the region of the Gerasenes across the lake from Galilee. 27 As Jesus was climbing out of the boat, a man who was possessed by demons came out to meet him. For a long time he had been homeless and naked, living in the tombs outside the town. 28 As soon as he saw Jesus, he shrieked and fell down in front of him. Then he screamed, “Why are you interfering with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? Please, I beg you, don’t torture me!” 29 For Jesus had already commanded the evil spirit to come out of him.
7. What does any of that have to do with what I said?
9. Was any of it not anecdotal evidence?.
10. No, I said I don't know enough, then took a stab in the dark at why it might be working. I could be totally right, or totally wrong I don't know as I said
Please quantify what you are critiquing. It helps if you leave quotes in.
"In science, definitions of anecdotal evidence include:
"casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis"
"information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically"
However in law evidence such as this can send a man to prison. i.e testimony has validity.
There's the definition of basically every bit of "evidence" you've tried to use. Including the bible, which is a terrible source as not only was it written well after Jesus's death, but also heavily altered.
Where do you get the doctrine that the Bible it has been heavily altered. Other than wishful thinking and handwaves. Also the example given to you is true, Biblical timelines were key to making the chronology of the ancient middle east workable.
Again, top down.
1. See peregrine's post about that.
2. No, you gave evidence that using certain dates/calendars happens to coincide with what you want it to say.
3. You keep claiming this evidence of yours is 100% legit, and you haven't actually proved any of it to be. So yes, commence handwaving of unverified stories if that's all you can present as none of that is actually valid evidence. Yeah, I know, go figure, people LIE on the internet and so I ask for proof of validity of your otherwise anecdotal evidence.
4. Sure there is. I believe in it, and peregrine says there are many pages. Here, I'll even link you something, not even a google search! http://www.theinvisiblepinkunicorn.com/ That has exactly as much valid proof for invisible pink unicorns as you have for demonic possession.
5. Again, no valid proof = no valid claim = "handwaving away"
6. No, what you said WAS a strawman. You oversimplified my point and misconstrued it to mean something different. And are STILL doing so, I didn't say belief in Jesus made you a nut job I said [b]BELIEVING IN DEMONIC POSSESSION made you a nut job. Bolded and caps so you can see it properly.
7. What does your claim that people have been miraculously healed have anything to do with what amounts to a placebo effect (my exact quote was "All the religion is doing is giving them something else to be focused on (or addicted to, but that's too strong of a word imo), which is why it works. Not because god magically heals them of their addiction or something similar.")
8. (posted as 9, my bad) Was any of the evidence you found NOT anecdotal? I repost the definitions of anecdotal evidence for reference.
"In science, definitions of anecdotal evidence include:
"casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis"
"information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically" "
Is anything you found not passed on by word of mouth? or a story along the lines of "This one time I was possessed..."
9. (was 10) was in reference to you saying Olmos should be replicated.
10. Again, we're not in court, but if we were, there'd be a 3rd party (or more than one) judging said evidence, and examining the source for reliability. However since you can't verify said sources, they really can't be used as proper evidence.
11. The bible wasn't originally written in English obviously, and has been translated MANY MANY times since it was first written, each time never being perfect, not to mention any influence the rulers of the time might have exerted over what was written.
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
2016/08/13 11:35:30
Subject: Re:Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
Possession...how splendidly 14th Century, really, you;d think with 7.X billion people on the planet that the Forces of Darkness would have come up with something better than trying to pick off people one at a time, although Reality TV, the Internet, and Moblie phones do kind of indicate some factions of the Underworld are at least trying to move with the times
"AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED."
2016/08/13 11:53:37
Subject: Re:Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
Good Omens (by Pratchett & Gaiman) wrote:
..Many phenomena — wars, plagues, sudden audits — have been advanced as evidence for the hidden hand of Satan in the affairs of Man, but whenever students of demonology get together the M25 London orbital motorway is generally agreed to be among the top contenders for Exhibit A...
...Most of the members of the convent were old-fashioned Satanists, like their parents and grandparents before them. They'd been brought up to it and weren't, when you got right down to it, particularly evil. Human beings mostly aren't. They just get carried away by new ideas, like dressing up in jackboots and shooting people, or dressing up in white sheets and lynching people, or dressing up in tie-dye jeans and playing guitars at people. Offer people a new creed with a costume and their hearts and minds will follow...
...There were people who called themselves Satanists who made Crowley squirm. It wasn't just the things they did, it was the way they blamed it all on Hell. They'd come up with some stomach-churning idea that no demon could have thought of in a thousand years, some dark and mindless unpleasantness that only a fully-functioning human brain could conceive, then shout "The Devil Made Me Do It" and get the sympathy of the court when the whole point was that the Devil hardly ever made anyone do anything. He didn't have to.
2016/08/13 12:05:37
Subject: Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
Apart from the fascinating back and forth about evidence, the real world tragedies endured by this "belief" are having horrific consequences for real people and children the world over.
Torture, mutilations and death are frequent results endured by innocent and vulnerable people by those acting on their "faith".
I'd like to hear your justifications for the continuation of this barbaric and primitive belief system. Real people are dying horrible deaths, and you are stubbornly refusing to relinquish the idea that somehow this absurd idea is anything other than fantasy.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
2016/08/13 12:28:43
Subject: Re:Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
Orlanth wrote: Your argument would be better received if you werent so consistently poisonous about belief in God. You have every right not to believe, less right to ridicule people who do, or just handwave discourse away without ever giving reasoning as to why.
You have very consitently said the evidence is rubbish. You have never articulated why it s rubbish. Partly beause that would involve looking at the evidence, and you prefer to dismiss it a priori.
Don't do this. Also, I have articulated why your evidence is rubbish, you just don't like the answer.
You mean its rubbish because its rubbish. You posted no reasons. Also you handwaved away all the evidence to the contrary as bogus, without a single reference to a single case. Which s what you do when you make definitive claim there no evidence. It means that even a single piece of evidence dispels your premise.
You are exceptionally sure that its all hogwash you can say that without pointing to a single item of any kind that backs up your persuasion.
You're completely missing the point here. I'm not arguing that homeopathy is valid, or that Christianity supports homeopathy. I'm pointing out the fact that the kind of "evidence" you keep trying to provide in support of your religion is the same kind of "evidence" that we throw out as obvious garbage when it comes to homeopathy. You're trying to set a much more generous standard for what counts as evidence for your own religion.
My points on homeopathy stand as a reference, also to show a distinction. Homeopathy is not a good parallel to religion in general.
Also homeopathy has its adherents in medical profession. For example you can get it on the NHS, whereas you cant get faith treatments on the NHS. Homeopathy might not be universally recognised, far from it, there is opposition indeed calls for it to be removed from the NHS and similar organisations in other European countries. But there is support from a number of qualified doctors and healthcare professionals, and governmental health bodies have decided to continue to fund its application for public healthcare in several countries including the UK. Those are flat facts.
It is in decline though.
No, that's not what I'm talking about at all. Religion will not end because the state oppresses it and ends it by force, nor do I support that. Religion will end when people say "you know, this is pretty silly" and stop believing.
You are working n the blank assumption that you are right. People might not just decide its pretty silly as long as they have reason not to, and they find the reason by experiencing the living God.
You don't understand why China is a good example of your error. In China you have every encouragement to find religion 'silly', the atheist state will educate you to this end, which is what you are hoping the west will follow on. There is s false choice of freedom of religion and joining hampers your career, you may or may not approve of this. If you join anyway the teaching is almost entirely neutered because religions are heavily controlled a to what they can say in order to not interfere with Party truths. For example in the Chinese state church you cannot preach about Jesus because the Party is the answer to problems in peoples lives.
If you join the underground church then things take a very ugly turn. I do not claim you would approve of this.
You see people have every opportunity to find religion silly, China is very 'secular and progressive in this, far more than the west can be. Even if your life stops far short of the point where you will face persecution you will get a strong counter-religious message.
Yet despite that and despite a very nasty future for anyone who decides o be religious anyway, people choose to join anyway.
And of course the church grew under persecution, that's what happens when you make martyrs out of people and inspire sympathy for their position. That, of course, does not mean that the beliefs of the church are true..
That current Chinese regime is not stupid, they offer a lot of atheist carrot and hide the stick as long as possible, and control the media heavily to avoid forging a martyr path. Most are unaware of what happens, and official safe regime friendly churches are open for people to join.
Egyptologists have not adopted the New Chronology, continuing to employ the standard chronology in mainstream academic and popular publications.
The trouble with wikipedia is that it a collage of data. Read the next line.
"By contrast, other Egyptologists recognise the value of Rohl's work in challenging the bases of the Egyptian chronological framework."
Also there are plenty of Egyptologists which support the New Chronology.
http://www.newchronology.org It was even explained why there is a discrepency. Egyptology is an established study with a lot of books on the old timeline, so the new chronology is facing incumbency, and some of the ancient internal documentation that isn't verified by international events is easily massaged. Egyptian documents of who was in charge at what time an who his friends were are as reliable as Soviet era photographs of same.
This is true, but the corroboration throws cold water on the popular assumption by critics that the Bible must be just a book to fairy tales with zero basis in fact.
Please don't make straw man arguments. Nobody is claiming that the bible contains no truth at all.
Actually atheists have been trying to say that a lot. Think of why it took this long for the New Chronology to take shape, because some flatly refused to use the Bible as a relevant source.
Saying the Bible is invalid is very similar to saying there is no evidence for God at all. Just wave ones hands and say it, and convince yourself it is true.
Even other books of fairy tales (which everyone, including the authors, understands are fairy tales) often include some elements of the real world in the stories. What people are actually arguing is that the parts of the bible that are relevant to theology (IOW, not the random background events/places that have little to do with the story of Jesus) have little or no basis in fact.
They say that too. Which is why I can point out and say that Biblical prophecy promise the return of Israel, i.e. the religious stuff, not the David was King history stuff. this was accomplished with the rebuilding of Jerusalem, but the nation did not return, add in the sevenfold curse to the remain time and you come to a certain exact date in 1948....
It isn't intended to be a direct analogy for a "changed life". It's simply illustrating the point that sincere belief in something, even sincere belief that allows you to change your life, does not mean that the thing you believe in is true.
It s evidence that people believe in it and have their lives changed, often in cases where a change of life was highly unlikely. The attribute the life change to the work of the holy Spirit. It is entirely biblical to believe the Holy Spirit changes lives, and attestation to the life changes, supported by witnesses is referred to as testimony.
Proof remains elusive because the Holy Spirit leaves no trace, but the testimony is there to see.
It is also what is relevant. It isn't some dry Biblical study , or ancient promise or statistical anomaly attributed to God. Though examples of those have been given, Testimony is about how God can work in the lives of everyday people. What matters.
Many of these testimonies result in extraordinary walks with God. David Wilkerson's ministry in Cross and the Switchblade is a very good example of such.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/13 12:37:28
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2016/08/13 15:45:45
Subject: Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
My points on homeopathy stand as a reference, also to show a distinction. Homeopathy is not a good parallel to religion in general.
Also homeopathy has its adherents in medical profession. For example you can get it on the NHS, whereas you cant get faith treatments on the NHS. Homeopathy might not be universally recognised, far from it, there is opposition indeed calls for it to be removed from the NHS and similar organisations in other European countries. But there is support from a number of qualified doctors and healthcare professionals, and governmental health bodies have decided to continue to fund its application for public healthcare in several countries including the UK. Those are flat facts.
It is in decline though.
I can't find it now but I saw an interview of the guy in charge of the Homeopathy centre in the UK under the NHS. The interviewee came to the general conclusion that the chemical treatment (ergo basically just water) has no harmful effect (its just freaking water...) but;
1) Treatment does work under the concept of placebo effect which is documented as scientifically valid.
2) Patient to Doctor appointments could be up to an hour in length typically. This is in stark contrast to regular appointments which might be 5 to 10 mins and many places try to keep it under 15. Thus it was felt that the appointment was acting like a counselling session which reduces stress and provides psychological support.
3) The unit did not dissuade patients from seeking normal medical treatment and often viewed the homeopathy as a supplemental form of treatment.
In short at the chemical level it was doing nothing what so ever (its just water/sugar pills); but when combined with the counselling sessions and regular medication it was a semi-viable support form of treatment even if its not working how the patient thinks it is.
In general though how it got on the NHS is a mystery and whilst its had its rise to fame the treatments don't do anything and it should eventually fall to the wayside; if anything its more a symptom of a rising lack of trust in doctors and medical institutions/drug companies within the population; and thus a desire to seek out other forms of medical care. Furthermore as its just water it won't have any negative side effects (ever read medication info-slips - the range of side effects can be alarming and huge on some which are even for many minor doses - of course its all "risk" and for most those problems never arise but it does scare some people who already have very limited medical understanding).
With regards to homeopathy in the NHS, from the NHS website:
Homeopathy is not available on the NHS in all areas of the country. Two NHS hospitals provide homeopathy, and some GP practices also offer it.
So it is not available as standard but would seem rather to be available based on whether there's some quack in the hospital/practice who thinks it is actually worthwhile.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2016/08/13 19:54:10
Subject: Re:Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
Good Omens (by Pratchett & Gaiman) wrote:...There were people who called themselves Satanists who made Crowley squirm. It wasn't just the things they did, it was the way they blamed it all on Hell. They'd come up with some stomach-churning idea that no demon could have thought of in a thousand years, some dark and mindless unpleasantness that only a fully-functioning human brain could conceive, then shout "The Devil Made Me Do It" and get the sympathy of the court when the whole point was that the Devil hardly ever made anyone do anything. He didn't have to.
Reminds me of a scene from Lucifer (the TV series) where he gets right pissed at being blamed for every nasty thing people think up to do to other people. I tried to find a clip but couldn't. Was a great scene.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/13 19:54:51
Good Omens (by Pratchett & Gaiman) wrote:...There were people who called themselves Satanists who made Crowley squirm. It wasn't just the things they did, it was the way they blamed it all on Hell. They'd come up with some stomach-churning idea that no demon could have thought of in a thousand years, some dark and mindless unpleasantness that only a fully-functioning human brain could conceive, then shout "The Devil Made Me Do It" and get the sympathy of the court when the whole point was that the Devil hardly ever made anyone do anything. He didn't have to.
Reminds me of a scene from Lucifer (the TV series) where he gets right pissed at being blamed for every nasty thing people think up to do to other people. I tried to find a clip but couldn't. Was a great scene.
Also refer to the discworld novel Eric for more of Pratchett's excellent analysis of how humans are much better at making life miserable for humans than demons could ever hope to be.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/13 20:04:31
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2016/08/13 21:12:30
Subject: Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
As a witch, I can tell you that Wiccan beliefs don't really have this kind of involuntary possession.
Without a belief in hell or heaven, demons are right out- although we do recognize spirits aplenty, of the benevolent and pernicious variety. But those that would take over a human host that didn't invite them in is not a belief we hold.
I also am quite curious to hear Orlanths answer. His beliefs are fervent, and curiouser and curiouser.
Klawz-Ramming is a subset of citrus fruit?
Gwar- "And everyone wants a bigger Spleen!"
Mercurial wrote:
I admire your aplomb and instate you as Baron of the Seas and Lord Marshall of Privateers.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Star Trek also said we'd have X-Wings by now. We all see how that prediction turned out.
Orkeosaurus, on homophobia, the nature of homosexuality, and the greatness of George Takei.
English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleyways and mugs them for loose grammar.
2016/08/13 21:27:35
Subject: Re:Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
It's ridiculous to see this thread devolve into a shouting match between members of different view points when it comes to faith. The point of debate is to produce an argument that renders response impossible. Faith in anything intangible, whether you got it or not, cannot, by it's nature, be debated away.
