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.

 r_squared wrote:

 sebster wrote:
....No, it's never okay to bash someone's religion.

We can still have legitimate criticism, challenge of privilege and insistence of a separation between religion and state though?

Of course. Why would you ever think otherwise? None of those things have anything to do with being disrespectful and bashing someone's religious beliefs.

 r_squared wrote:

 sebster wrote:
....No, it's never okay to bash someone's religion.

We can still have legitimate criticism, challenge of privilege and insistence of a separation between religion and state though?

Some posts in this thread have definitively gone beyond that into bashing. Which is why I assume Sebster said such.

 Tyr13 wrote:
I think hes talking about cults, not actual religions. Ie, scientology, stuff like that. Which generally *are* at least somewhat acceptable targets.

I don't get that from his post at all. My reading was that while we are 'allowed' to be dismissive of small religions, we are expected to be polite to major religions, which he thinks is wrong. My point was that it is wrong, but only because we shouldn't be rude or dismissive of any person's religion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 r_squared wrote:
We can still have legitimate criticism, challenge of privilege and insistence of a separation between religion and state though?

Of course, those things are a healthy and important part of a democracy.

One important thing to remember is that criticism of a religion and seperation of church and state actually works best when there is an understanding individual's religious choices will always be respected. We can't have decent, constructive conversation about a religious organisation if its followers are fearful that any criticism of their religious organisation will end up in them getting punished or criticised as individuals.

'Exorcism' might 'cure' someone on the basis that a religious delusion can be treated by something the patient believes in. But let's not kid ourselves that any priest is literally removing evil spirits and demons from people, it's utterly preposterous.

On another forum I recall someone describing how possession by spirits was a real phenomenon and children had been cured by exorcism despite being violent and in some cases needing to be held down. Apparently they had the strength greater than that of an adult. Anyone with experience of a child who is mentally disturbed and really going berserk could get this impression but really possession isn't at all credible but handling physically violent children is something professionals have much training in, it's not a nice thing to deal with.

Now let's get this straight, possession by demons isn't real so that means the child is suffering from some psychiatric or physical condition, but instead of qualified individuals dictating treatment, the accepted solution is to have several adults hold that child down and carry out an 'exorcism' - and this doesn't amount to some form of abuse?

I'm sure this occurs in very few cases, but even one is too many. Possession isn't real, the treatment at best is a trick in the mind, so any attempt to force treatment upon someone is wrong.

Howard and I have similar feelings. The ritual or exorcism is as good a placebo for the cure of 'demons' as anything else. I see no harm in it so long as the act isn't harmful in itself.

However, being that this doctor likely makes decent sums consulting on these cases, my views are summed up as such: the efficacy of snake oil is always touted by those who profit from its consumption.

 gunslingerpro wrote:
Howard and I have similar feelings. The ritual or exorcism is as good a placebo for the cure of 'demons' as anything else. I see no harm in it so long as the act isn't harmful in itself.

However, being that this doctor likely makes decent sums consulting on these cases, my views are summed up as such: the efficacy of snake oil is always touted by those who profit from its consumption.

I would argue that treating a complex mental disorder which is producing behaviour which could be misconstrued as "possession" with a simple placebo is always harmful. You are not identifying the true cause of the behaviour and treating it and it is not going in the persons medical records.

I think that undergoing what could be a violent psychotic episode should definitely be on your health record and be call for serious medical examinations to try and identify the cause, whether or not you "got better" after undergoing an exorcism ritual.

But what if it is a demon hiding by making it *look* like mental illness.

Also, how do you tell if it is a demon or a ghost?

One thing is to realise that mental imbalance is something people can hide quite well for a long period of time. Especially in todays world where even within families we can spend more time apart from each other than within each others company. As a result a mental condition that has good and bad days or which swings in and out of extreme episodes might well be considered "cured" by exorcism which might either have placebo effect for a time or which coincides with the end of a short term bad episode.

Whereupon the person suffering is then seen as cured when in fact all they've learned is to repress or hide their condition even more. Which of course, without long term treatment or observation by trained professionals (which is, of course, not fool proof) means that any potential damage continues to be done.

In short all it does is provide short term relief for those around the person suffering but likely no actual help for the person suffering

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
'Exorcism' might 'cure' someone on the basis that a religious delusion can be treated by something the patient believes in. But let's not kid ourselves that any priest is literally removing evil spirits and demons from people, it's utterly preposterous.

On another forum I recall someone describing how possession by spirits was a real phenomenon and children had been cured by exorcism despite being violent and in some cases needing to be held down. Apparently they had the strength greater than that of an adult. Anyone with experience of a child who is mentally disturbed and really going berserk could get this impression but really possession isn't at all credible but handling physically violent children is something professionals have much training in, it's not a nice thing to deal with.

Now let's get this straight, possession by demons isn't real so that means the child is suffering from some psychiatric or physical condition, but instead of qualified individuals dictating treatment, the accepted solution is to have several adults hold that child down and carry out an 'exorcism' - and this doesn't amount to some form of abuse?

I'm sure this occurs in very few cases, but even one is too many. Possession isn't real, the treatment at best is a trick in the mind, so any attempt to force treatment upon someone is wrong.

I get the impression that in most cases the exorcism is used as a last resort, after working with a variety of mental health professionals has been tried and failed. I'm pretty sure most exorcists won't do any sort of ritual if the other options haven't already been exhausted. I don't think it's a situation where at the first sign of any trouble, an exorcist is called.

 Tyr13 wrote:

 sebster wrote:

It's ok to say whatever you like about minority religious groups that are "weird enough" to be considered acceptable targets, but you'd better not be rude to the majority.

No, it's never okay to bash someone's religion.

I think hes talking about cults, not actual religions. Ie, scientology, stuff like that. Which generally *are* at least somewhat acceptable targets.

Actually he's making the point that those distinctions are meaningless and primarily exist because there's still substantial social pressure to accept mainstream religions as legitimate and rational positions to hold while "cults" can be ridiculed freely only because not enough people believe in them to bring about that social pressure. Fundamentally there's nothing more rational or evidence-based about the mythology of the Bible than there is about the bargain-bin sci-fi novel Scientologists put stock in, so there's no actual reason to treat them any differently.

 sebster wrote:

It's ok to say whatever you like about minority religious groups that are "weird enough" to be considered acceptable targets, but you'd better not be rude to the majority.

No, it's never okay to bash someone's religion.

Why? People are not born religious, it's not a state of being beyond their control, it's a collection of ideas and beliefs they choose to adopt of their own free will(insofar as such a thing can be said to exist) & can choose to discard at any time, and deserves no more or less protection or respect than any other set of ideas and/or beliefs.

It can be impolite to "bash" someone's beliefs, but if you're willing to accept the social consequences of that impoliteness then it's perfectly "okay" to express your opinion on the matter just as it would be on any other subject.

And frankly, some people deserve to have their beliefs "bashed" regardless of if they're religious or not, to be reminded that not everyone agrees with them and indeed many think they're a bit on the mental side, because some beliefs are not harmless when put into practice. Everyone's entitled to hold any opinion or belief they like; they're not entitled to be immune from criticism for that choice.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Why? People are not born religious, it's not a state of being beyond their control, it's a collection of ideas and beliefs they choose to adopt of their own free will(insofar as such a thing can be said to exist) & can choose to discard at any time, and deserves no more or less protection or respect than any other set of ideas and/or beliefs.

Because manners, respect and humility are things that exist and are important.

It can be impolite to "bash" someone's beliefs, but if you're willing to accept the social consequences of that impoliteness then it's perfectly "okay" to express your opinion on the matter just as it would be on any other subject.

Of course you can express your opinion. No-one is arguing for the return of blasphemy laws. The question is whether you 'should'. As you say there are social consequences to impoliteness, and on top of that there's the chance that you might actually cause someone some distress, or even harm a friendship. This doesn't mean you never do this, it just means you should only do it when you have a good reason why. And just having an opinion and wanting to share it is not a good reason.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
'Exorcism' might 'cure' someone on the basis that a religious delusion can be treated by something the patient believes in. But let's not kid ourselves that any priest is literally removing evil spirits and demons from people, it's utterly preposterous.

Why? Its mainstream religious belief. Billions believe in God without (too much) condemnaton in the West. Extend that belief to include the Satanic and the excuse to laugh is unlocked.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

On another forum I recall someone describing how possession by spirits was a real phenomenon and children had been cured by exorcism despite being violent and in some cases needing to be held down. Apparently they had the strength greater than that of an adult. Anyone with experience of a child who is mentally disturbed and really going berserk could get this impression but really possession isn't at all credible but handling physically violent children is something professionals have much training in, it's not a nice thing to deal with.

And you will find that many of the deliverance ministry stories end with successful conclusions eve in extreme cases, whereas secular approaches to extreme mental illness i to constrain, incarcerate or heavily medicate, which sweeps away the patient under the carpet but doesn't actually provide a cure. When it does it take decades of therapy after constraint and heavy medication.
Perhaps the deliverance ministries are onto something.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Now let's get this straight, possession by demons isn't real so......

Says you. Others say otherwise. The best you could say is that you don't believe in it and have seen no evidence for it.
Instead you are flat out declaring it is de facto unreal. Furthermore you seem to be demanding that others don't believe in it either by your calls for the ministry to be abolished.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

so that means the child is suffering from some psychiatric or physical condition,

Perhaps this is what some psychiatric conditions are. After all deliverance ministry has a marked success rate at curing some conditions, notably addictive based disorders such ass drug dependency and alcoholism..
This indicates which conditions might be triggered by spiritual causes.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

so but instead of qualified individuals dictating treatment, the accepted solution is to have several adults hold that child down and carry out an 'exorcism' - and this doesn't amount to some form of abuse?

Abuse is impossible to avoid in extreme cases no matter who attempts treatment. If you were sectioned today, you could be incarcerated without any recourse to appeal, medicated with pretty much anything without opportunity to refuse medication and have every part of your life controlled. Most psychiatric medicines have unpleasant side effects, and the mental health system has many many flaws.
Frankly an exorcism would be the least of your problems. Spinning necks are movie stuff.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

I'm sure this occurs in very few cases, but even one is too many. Possession isn't real, the treatment at best is a trick in the mind, so any attempt to force treatment upon someone is wrong.

If this is rue and is just a placebo, the placebo is still a fair use of medicine. Let hem try it,
Besides probably the vast majority of exorcisms only involve prayer anyway, so you have to come to a desperate stretch to claim its abuse. Catholics might want to sprinkle some holy water about, that isnt going to cause problems.

Until you show us evidence, not anecdotal, but full on studies with videos and credible witnesses, demonic possession is not real.

Just because you believe in something, does not make it real. Where is your evidence? You keep saying demonic possession is real but you have provided us with nothing other than "Well, it is my belief that it is real."

Evidence please.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Until you show us evidence, not anecdotal, but full on studies with videos and credible witnesses, demonic possession is not real.

It is a mainstay point of several religions including Christianity. Jesus talked about demons that is enough for me.
As for independent evidence, yes its there. I even posted some earlier in the thread, and you can do a websearch just as easily as I. I have stopped adding the evidence to the current threads because it will be handwaved away by people with a vested interest in not wanting to believe it.

However you cannot measure the spirit by any measuring tool or technique, so testimony is the only evidence available, yes it is anecdotal. But so is much of the evidence that is required in aw courts, by intelligence communities. Anecdotal evidence IS VALID, what is required to make it so i called multi sourcing, you cannot seperate religious testimony from any other type of testimony customarily considered valid. You might not want to accept its validity, but you are wrong to do so, as you would have to undo th justice procedures for just about every nation state to do so. If multiply sourced trestimony is enough to send a man to prison it is enough to show validity of a spiritual point.

Religious phenomena has more than a little multi sourcing. Even for deliverance ministry/exorcism working, often within different communities and even working with the unchurched.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Just because you believe in something, does not make it real. Where is your evidence? You keep saying demonic possession is real but you have provided us with nothing other than "Well, it is my belief that it is real."

Faith is not illegal, also evidence is there that many hold to. There is enough to go by for millions, maybe even billions of people to believe in the power of the supernatural, both positive and negative spiritual forces. There is room for you to choose to not believe in it. There is no room for you to dismiss its validity in the lives of others or to ridicule the practice.

Faith is not illegal, but it is certainly not science. If you plan on invading the realm of science with your faith, you need to bring something to back it up. This is how it works.

Evidence has been asked for, and not provided.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Faith is not illegal, but it is certainly not science. If you plan on invading the realm of science with your faith, you need to bring something to back it up. This is how it works.

Secular mental health is not hard science either, and far less in preactice than in theory. In fact its more guesswork there is a lot of leeway for pet thoeries and dogma, and personal opinion. Diagnosis is far more art than science also, as for the most part mental health workers have to interpret conversation with the sufferer and have fw tools to do so. It isn't mathematics or physics, don't pretend it is.

Actually there is often less guesswork and better results in deliverance, if its a spiritual cause to begin with, very often its not, as Dr Gallgher attests and the ministry will not be appropriate solution in those cases.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Evidence has been asked for, and not provided.

Actually you are quite correct. Linked exaples of testimony evidence was added to the other concurrent religion thread not this one

Here you go:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&q=deliverence+ministry&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest&gws_rd=cr&ei=3weuV86PEoObgAb45KDwDA#channel=suggest&q=deliverence+ministry+testimonies

https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&q=deliverence+ministry&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest&gws_rd=cr&ei=3weuV86PEoObgAb45KDwDA#channel=suggest&q=exorcism+testimonies

Tip of iceberg.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Faith is not illegal, but it is certainly not science. If you plan on invading the realm of science with your faith, you need to bring something to back it up. This is how it works.

Secular mental health is not hard science either, and far less in preactice than in theory. In fact its more guesswork there is a lot of leeway for pet thoeries and dogma, and personal opinion. Diagnosis is far more art than science also, as for the most part mental health workers have to interpret conversation with the sufferer and have fw tools to do so. It isn't mathematics or physics, don't pretend it is.

Actually there is often less guesswork and better results in deliverance, if its a spiritual cause to begin with, very often its not, as Dr Gallgher attests and the ministry will not be appropriate solution in those cases.

Cool, now show me where faith comes in to that. Mental health is not an exact science, it is an evolving science. A science where faith plays no role.

 Orlanth wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Evidence has been asked for, and not provided.

Actually you are quite correct. Linked exaples of testimony evidence was added to the other concurrent religion thread not this one

Here you go:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&q=deliverence+ministry&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest&gws_rd=cr&ei=3weuV86PEoObgAb45KDwDA#channel=suggest&q=deliverence+ministry+testimonies

https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&q=deliverence+ministry&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest&gws_rd=cr&ei=3weuV86PEoObgAb45KDwDA#channel=suggest&q=exorcism+testimonies

Tip of iceberg.

Did you just link me two google searches? I would like the point out that you did not spell deliverance correctly in the first one.

 Orlanth wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Evidence has been asked for, and not provided.

Actually you are quite correct. Linked exaples of testimony evidence was added to the other concurrent religion thread not this one

Here you go:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&q=deliverence+ministry&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest&gws_rd=cr&ei=3weuV86PEoObgAb45KDwDA#channel=suggest&q=deliverence+ministry+testimonies

https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&q=deliverence+ministry&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest&gws_rd=cr&ei=3weuV86PEoObgAb45KDwDA#channel=suggest&q=exorcism+testimonies

Tip of iceberg.

Anything... specific? Anything not more or less anecdotal? Like... Verified undoctored videos/photos, impartial 3rd parties, etc. A lot of what you linked in the google searches is basically "here's a story, I swear it happened!" (which, by the way seems like a quick cope out instead of finding sometihng that might be scientifically accepted)

 Dreadwinter wrote:


Cool, now show me where faith comes in to that. Mental health is not an exact science, it is an evolving science. A science where faith plays no role.

The churches are not asking for a role i the science per se, tough individual believers can also be workers in the field. What the churches are saying is that hey produce results, which they do.

Besides until you invent mind reading technology, it will always have a strong element of personal flair and opinion to work in the secular field. As diagnosis and interpretation of progress works by personal interction and opinion.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Did you just link me two google searches?

Yep. Why not. All I need indicate to you is that the evidence is out there.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

I would like the point out that you did not spell deliverance correctly in the first one.

Speed typing. It happens all the time.

"If google finds results when I type in words, you can bet yer bippy something there shows I'm right" is not a valid way to show evidence or support your view.

 Wolfblade wrote:

Anything... specific? Anything not more or less anecdotal? Like... Verified undoctored videos/photos, impartial 3rd parties, etc. A lot of what you linked in the google searches is basically "here's a story, I swear it happened!" (which, by the way seems like a quick cope out instead of finding something that might be scientifically accepted)

I explained earlier why anecdotal evidence is valid. Just apply multiple sourcing and look for credibility or lack thereof in the individual making the claim.
If you dont accept that, then you should shut down the courthouses in the world, as the law relies on the same burden of evidence.

 Wolfblade wrote:

which, by the way seems like a quick cope out instead of finding something that might be scientifically accepted)

Also I am not asking for scientific acceptance, I know better than to try as do most ministries.
It is not unheard of for a deliverence ministry to outperform secular medicine, notably with regards to delivery from addiction. This is verifiable to some extent via performance statistics.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

BossJakadakk wrote:
"If google finds results when I type in words, you can bet yer bippy something there shows I'm right" is not a valid way to show evidence or support your view.

Its actually a form of protest. Evidence is out there but people here demand proof from me, require none for themselves, and move the goalposts afterwards.

And when I do take the time to actually provide something more substantial the evidence is handwaved away. So why bother. People can find the evidence for themselves, I have full confidence it is out there, because I know it to be true from my own testimony and witness, and know that details are in the public domain.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

Anything... specific? Anything not more or less anecdotal? Like... Verified undoctored videos/photos, impartial 3rd parties, etc. A lot of what you linked in the google searches is basically "here's a story, I swear it happened!" (which, by the way seems like a quick cope out instead of finding something that might be scientifically accepted)

I explained earlier why anecdotal evidence is valid. Just apply multiple sourcing and look for credibility or lack thereof in the individual making the claim.
If you dont accept that, then you should shut down the courthouses in the world, as the law relies on the same burden of evidence.

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

which, by the way seems like a quick cope out instead of finding something that might be scientifically accepted)

Also I am not asking for scientific acceptance, I know better than to try as do most ministries.
It is not unheard of for a deliverence ministry to outperform secular medicine, notably with regards to delivery from addiction. This is verifiable to some extent via performance statistics.

Again, proof of your claim? I could see addiction as it gives them something else to be obsessed with, but what else? Most actual illnesses (i.e. cancer, the flu, whatever) is better treated with medicine than hopeful wishes.

 Orlanth wrote:

BossJakadakk wrote:
"If google finds results when I type in words, you can bet yer bippy something there shows I'm right" is not a valid way to show evidence or support your view.

Its actually a form of protest. Evidence is out there but people here demand proof from me, require none for themselves, and move the goalposts afterwards.

And when I do take the time to actually provide something more substantial the evidence is handwaved away. So why bother. People can find the evidence for themselves, I have full confidence it is out there, because I know it to be true from my own testimony and witness, and know that details are in the public domain.

 Wolfblade wrote:

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?

 Wolfblade wrote:

Again, proof of your claim?

Again I am not here to provide proof. Were anyone be able to do so there would be no room for atheism, or other faiths, or even faith.

As for the evidence. I am responding to those who on this thread react to the OP link and the very idea that there could be a demonic influence wth reidicule.
There are a lot of sweeping statements saying that its 'all bullgak', or 'cannot exist in the 21st century' etc etc.

However the demonic is an integral part of religion that is practiced today believed today and is not openly ridiculed in this way. Though some humanists want that to be the standard reaction to religion in general, which would be highly oppressive. Nobody has asked you and those others who try to definitively say the demonic cannot exist and that there is no room whatsoever fr exorcism. I know better because all you can come up with is the defence of ridicule.
This is important because a lot of the incredulity was weaponised. How can Dr Gallagher still perform his duties as a doctor, why does he still have a career? You don't stop to think, why not? What harm is he because he believes things you do not.

To my denegrators here its preposterous because you cant think beyond the possibility of it not being preposterous. Smacks of brainwashing frankly. They ask for evidence as if you had a scientific mind, but completely advocate a thinking system at total loggerheads to scientific process.
The concensus for the unthinking sceptics on this thread is that it is ridiculous to believe in exorcism, because it just is, and they don't know why.

The correct defence to his is to say that there are people who believe in it from personal experience. It is up to them to prove the sources are all lying because I am not the one making the sweeping statements. Neither is Dr Gallagher in the OP. So I do what I need to do, point the thread in the general direction of the evidence. Some of it wont stack up, but some will.

 Wolfblade wrote:

I could see addiction as it gives them something else to be obsessed with, but what else? Most actual illnesses (i.e. cancer, the flu, whatever) is better treated with medicine than hopeful wishes.

Again. The above point was explained earlier. Theologically - Would one be delivered from a spirit of cancer? No. Cancer is a physical illness. Now people can be healed of cancer but that is different.
Also outside some fringe cults faith is not a total substitute for medicine. It is not walking in unbelief or heretical in the Bible and similar texts to approach a doctor.

 Wolfblade wrote:

"A form of protest"? No, you don't have any solid/real evidence and can't provide anything other than anecdotal evidence/are getting tired of the question "got any proof"?

Sure I have. But only my own testimony. As ones own testimony is not valid, you need a third party testimony. Its out there look for yourself. I gave some examples on the other thread.

The link showed pages and pages of testimonies though. Enough that should have to say that you cannot definitively say there is no cause to ridicule exorcism, only to say you don't personally believe in it.

 Wolfblade wrote:

Or, the evidence isn't really evidence/falls apart when actually looked at.

Any reason to say this? Beyond that its your wishful thinking.

Meanwhile take the Olmos prison ministry. That didn't fall apart at all. There was/is a lot of deliverance work at Olmos, and it is well documented by secular sources. More on that in the general religion thread.

One of the nice things about faith is that it doesn't require proof. Which is convenient, because pretty much all supernatural phenomena falls under the "can't be measured by mere mortals" rubric. Works pretty well for various promises, too.

Any attempts to dissuade a true believer will likely be futile as faith is not evidence or logic based. Emotion and assumption is generally sufficient for human belief. Additionally, once something becomes tied to identity, it is almost impossible to shake.

Hence why you just nod and smile and wave goodbye.

Til if you question something that has no scientific proof of existing, you are not thinking with a scientific mind.

I also learned that the flying spaghetti monster is real, because two separate people believe in it and that is all the proof we need.

Facts.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

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".

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

Again, proof of your claim?

Again I am not here to provide proof. Were anyone be able to do so there would be no room for atheism, or other faiths, or even faith.

As for the evidence. I am responding to those who on this thread react to the OP link and the very idea that there could be a demonic influence wth reidicule.
There are a lot of sweeping statements saying that its 'all bullgak', or 'cannot exist in the 21st century' etc etc.

However the demonic is an integral part of religion that is practiced today believed today and is not openly ridiculed in this way. Though some humanists want that to be the standard reaction to religion in general, which would be highly oppressive. Nobody has asked you and those others who try to definitively say the demonic cannot exist and that there is no room whatsoever fr exorcism. I know better because all you can come up with is the defence of ridicule.
This is important because a lot of the incredulity was weaponised. How can Dr Gallagher still perform his duties as a doctor, why does he still have a career? You don't stop to think, why not? What harm is he because he believes things you do not.

To my denegrators here its preposterous because you cant think beyond the possibility of it not being preposterous. Smacks of brainwashing frankly. They ask for evidence as if you had a scientific mind, but completely advocate a thinking system at total loggerheads to scientific process.
The concensus for the unthinking sceptics on this thread is that it is ridiculous to believe in exorcism, because it just is, and they don't know why.

The correct defence to his is to say that there are people who believe in it from personal experience. It is up to them to prove the sources are all lying because I am not the one making the sweeping statements. Neither is Dr Gallagher in the OP. So I do what I need to do, point the thread in the general direction of the evidence. Some of it wont stack up, but some will.

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."

Sorry, burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, i.e. "demonic possession is real". 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." Replace "Unicorn lives in my sock drawer" with "demonic possession" and you get my point. 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.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

I could see addiction as it gives them something else to be obsessed with, but what else? Most actual illnesses (i.e. cancer, the flu, whatever) is better treated with medicine than hopeful wishes.

Again. The above point was explained earlier. Theologically - Would one be delivered from a spirit of cancer? No. Cancer is a physical illness. Now people can be healed of cancer but that is different.
Also outside some fringe cults faith is not a total substitute for medicine. It is not walking in unbelief or heretical in the Bible and similar texts to approach a doctor.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

I also learned that the flying spaghetti monster is real, because two separate people believe in it and that is all the proof we need.

Facts.

Fine where are the two witnesses, do you have links and are they credible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jmurph wrote:
One of the nice things about faith is that it doesn't require proof. Which is convenient, because pretty much all supernatural phenomena falls under the "can't be measured by mere mortals" rubric. Works pretty well for various promises, too.

Any attempts to dissuade a true believer will likely be futile as faith is not evidence or logic based. Emotion and assumption is generally sufficient for human belief. Additionally, once something becomes tied to identity, it is almost impossible to shake.

Hence why you just nod and smile and wave goodbye.

Can I assume you wont therefore be ridiculing the OP, or calling for him o be striped of his career because he believes what he believes. If so you will have no problems from me.

However you are not accurate if you say there is no logic or evidence to faith. There most clearly is, it is just evidence that some will accept and others will reject. Both under similar psychology. I do tend to be willing to believe testimonies, but I certainly dont believe all testimonies,and keep cautious. Sadly there are a lot of charlatans about, for various reasons, some to make money, others to fake testimony for fame or to 'try to help' but it doesn't come anywhere close to 100% of the testimonies given. The Bible even teaches us to be aware of false testimony in the church, God doesnt condone it warrant it, or for that matter need it.

I will accept that you reject the evidence because your belief system is different. We too can nod and smile and wave goodbye.

This isn't like the atheism thread, proof and lack of proof and belief. Circumstances are totally different, this has real consequences for people involved.

When dealing with people exhibiting serious psychoogical episodes and trauma, you need to have a solid evidence basis for treatment. People study years in the field upon a raft of scientific research. Demonic possession isn't real. Yes, says me. And unless there's a good evidence basis on which to base treatment of this nature, it should not be carried out, just like any other form treatment. It's akin to a medical procedure by people claiming to be treating real symptoms.

Stories of people having to be restrained to be 'exorcised' are extremely troubling given that it's total quackery to claim that they have a demon in them. Any treatment of a physical/psychological problem should be grounded in solid evidence and good medical practice before being administered. Anything else is recklessly dangerous and fraudulent.

Where's the evidence base? What's the procedure for diagnosis? Who is qualified? Has this identification of possession been demonstrated as reliable? I doubt it given that you can't even prove spirits exist. Where's the proof that it's beneficial or effective to carry out an exorcism? And this means proof, surveys, tested ei dence and not a handful of anecdotes. Where's the ongoing analysis of patients post procedure? Can it be demonstrated that there's no risk of harm, or what the risks actually are, for an exorcism?

When you start treating people for a condition, simply saying 'I believe' isn't good enough however heartfelt. It could be extremely harmful, it could be useless. Either way it's not appropriate to administer without evidence.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
This isn't like the atheism thread, proof and lack of proof and belief. Circumstances are totally different, this has real consequences for people involved.

When dealing with people exhibiting serious psychoogical episodes and trauma, you need to have a solid evidence basis for treatment. People study years in the field upon a raft of scientific research. Demonic possession isn't real. Yes, says me. And unless there's a good evidence basis on which to base treatment of this nature, it should not be carried out, just like any other form treatment. It's akin to a medical procedure by people claiming to be treating real symptoms.

Stories of people having to be restrained to be 'exorcised' are extremely troubling given that it's total quackery to claim that they have a demon in them. Any treatment of a physical/psychological problem should be grounded in solid evidence and good medical practice before being administered. Anything else is recklessly dangerous and fraudulent.

Where's the evidence base? What's the procedure for diagnosis? Who is qualified? Has this identification of possession been demonstrated as reliable? I doubt it given that you can't even prove spirits exist. Where's the proof that it's beneficial or effective to carry out an exorcism? And this means proof, surveys, tested ei dence and not a handful of anecdotes. Where's the ongoing analysis of patients post procedure? Can it be demonstrated that there's no risk of harm, or what the risks actually are, for an exorcism?

When you start treating people for a condition, simply saying 'I believe' isn't good enough however heartfelt. It could be extremely harmful, it could be useless. Either way it's not appropriate to administer without evidence.

Thank you. Bolding on my part. How do you excorcise demons/ THese could have real and dangerous consequences. Guess how they used to treat the mentally ill before modern psychology? Extreme shock treatment and basically torture. I'm sure this could be just as dangerous.