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.

 insaniak wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Dr Gallagher is not selling anything that we are aware of, and an exorcism is never prescribed, but only available on patients request.

Presumably he's being paid.

An exorcism being requested by the patient doesn't make it an appropriate treatment for a medical professional to be involved in. Acceding to that request in lieu of providing actual medical care would seem like the textbook definition of malpractice, frankly.

Exorcists and people performing deliverence ministry should not ask for monies. The Roman Catholics would pay their priests a stipend (salary) and hat is independent on number of exorcisms done.
I cant speak for other denominations as it is less structured, but it is unethical for anyone practicing the charismata to ask for money in doing so. Of course some crooked people do.

I agree that Dr Gallagher is getting paid somewhere, but as he is a researcher that is likely by his place of learning, which look to be New York Medical College. It is very unlikely that that university pays him by the exorcism, they might pay him to follow exorcists about and observe them.

Richard E. Gallagher, M.D., is a board-certified psychiatrist in private practice in Hawthorne, New York, and Associate Professor of Clinical Psychiatry at New York Medical College. He is also on the faculties of the Columbia University Psychoanalytic Institute and a Roman Catholic seminary. He is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Princeton University, magna cum laude in Classics, and trained in Psychiatry at the Yale University School of Medicine. Dr. Gallagher is the only American psychiatrist to have been a consistent U.S. delegate to the International Association of Exorcists, and has addressed its plenary session.

 insaniak wrote:

An exorcism being requested by the patient doesn't make it an appropriate treatment for a medical professional to be involved in. Acceding to that request in lieu of providing actual medical care would seem like the textbook definition of malpractice, frankly.

So you haven't read the article either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

You false flagging this. Mistaking atheism as a factual point rather than an opinion. 1+1=2 is a flat fact, atheist belief is faith choice.

Yes, 1 + 1 = 2. I'm not sure why that has any relevance to the divine, though.

Typical of you dogma. Take a line completely out of context in order to try and generate a cheap shot.

Work it out.

Hint: Read the context.

Richard E. Gallagher, M.D., is a board-certified psychiatrist in private practice in Hawthorne, New York, and Associate Professor of Clinical Psychiatry at New York Medical College. He is also on the faculties of the Columbia University Psychoanalytic Institute and a Roman Catholic seminary. He is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Princeton University, magna cum laude in Classics, and trained in Psychiatry at the Yale University School of Medicine. Dr. Gallagher is the only American psychiatrist to have been a consistent U.S. delegate to the International Association of Exorcists, and has addressed its plenary session.

He is being paid, heavily.

"Atheist belief" ... "faith choice" ... really?

Atheism is a lack of belief. It describes a position taken when all (theistic) religious claims that have been presented have been dismissed as lacking evidence (and the onus isn't on me to go seeking evidence for somebody else's claims). It should be the default position on all such extraordinary claims.

But there has been a burgeoning drive in the last few years for religious debaters to try to frame atheists as 'believers' in just another dogmatic principle, as it makes it seem to a neutral observer that the issue is an argument between faith-based doctrines, rather than the larger issue of reason vs irrationality.

Frankly, whenever it comes up, it's a either a highly dishonest debating 'tactic' or it's coming from somebody who genuinely can't process a logical argument. Either way, when somebody insists that 'atheists are believers too', it's time to re-assess whether it's worth your time participating in such a topic.

 Riquende wrote:
"Atheist belief" ... "faith choice" ... really?

Indeed so.

 Riquende wrote:

Atheism is a lack of belief.

A lack of belief would be concluded by a non answer. Atheism is an active conclusion. A lack of belief cannot be applied with fervour, the to are mutually exclusive, and atheism is often very fervid.
Not all atheists share that religious fervour, and they will find no opposition from me, but many clearly do.

 Riquende wrote:

It describes a position taken when all (theistic) religious claims that have been presented have been dismissed as lacking evidence (and the onus isn't on me to go seeking evidence for somebody else's claims). It should be the default position on all such extraordinary claims.

You cannot honestly ethically dismiss a premise as lacking evidence without checking for the evidence.
Also the bar for accepting evidence is often set artificially high. Whole areas of secular study are based on human observation, yet human observation that supports religion is handwaved away as hearsay, no matter how many times it is corroborated.

Evidence is out there, I will take one example of a deep thinker who would have preferred the evidence to point elsewhere:

“You must picture me alone in that room in Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England. I did not then see what is now the most shining and obvious thing; the Divine humility which will accept a convert even on such terms. The Prodigal Son at least walked home on his own feet. But who can duly adore that Love which will open the high gates to a prodigal who is brought in kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance of escape?"

CS Lewis, Surprised by Joy.

 Riquende wrote:

But there has been a burgeoning drive in the last few years for religious debaters to try to frame atheists as 'believers' in just another dogmatic principle, as it makes it seem to a neutral observer that the issue is an argument between faith-based doctrines, rather than the larger issue of reason vs irrationality.

These debaters are correct. It isn't a choice between reason and irrationality. That is the myth. A dogma that the atheist state in places like China and North Korea will brutalise people for not agreeing with, and these abuses are happening now.
We know that is true because atheists are engaged in the same behaviour as any other religious group. This includes the presence of fanatic and fundamentalist elements.

After all I refer back to the reason this argument exists in this thread. Self appointed people of "reason", who have turned up one after another and wanted Dr Gallagher to have his career ended, because he expressed a belief in something they don't agree with. That is morally incompatible with rational free thought, but fully in agreement with dogmatic fanaticism.

 Riquende wrote:

Frankly, whenever it comes up, it's a either a highly dishonest debating 'tactic' or it's coming from somebody who genuinely can't process a logical argument.

Or neither. I am being both honest and logical.
But you have some consistency. Someone doesn't agree with your premise so therefore they are either lying or can't process logical argument.

It is entirely logical to draw conclusions on the nature of atheism by observing it's clear similarities to religious fanaticism. Especially when they are repeatedly confirmed, by atheists, in the thread. The main difference is the number of gods worshipped.

 Riquende wrote:

Either way, when somebody insists that 'atheists are believers too', it's time to re-assess whether it's worth your time participating in such a topic.

Leave or stay, you choose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

Richard E. Gallagher, M.D., is a board-certified psychiatrist in private practice in Hawthorne, New York, and Associate Professor of Clinical Psychiatry at New York Medical College. He is also on the faculties of the Columbia University Psychoanalytic Institute and a Roman Catholic seminary. He is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Princeton University, magna cum laude in Classics, and trained in Psychiatry at the Yale University School of Medicine. Dr. Gallagher is the only American psychiatrist to have been a consistent U.S. delegate to the International Association of Exorcists, and has addressed its plenary session.

He is being paid, heavily.

Context again, dogma.

Evidently he is paid by someone, but is he taking money to perform exorcisms. Likely not.

The sophistry displayed in this 'atheism is a faith position' argument is wearing. Lack of belief does not result in a 'non-answer'. We dismiss things routinely on a lack of evidence, non-belief on the basis of no evidence is not a faith position, unless you widen the term to be meaningless. There's no real evidence for mythical beasts, or any God(s) beyond the Christian. People don't believe in minotaurs due to a sheer lack of evidence, yet Orlanth would have us accept that to say you don't believe in minotaurs is a faith position.

If that's your approach then everything is a faith position, you place no value on the quality of evidence. Even when science tests specifically for things like the power of prayer, or psychic powers, and nothing is shown, that's evidence that nothing supernatural is occurring.

It begs the question what evidence disproving God needs to look like. Because evidence for existence of God is straight forward, statistically demonstrable, repeatable, testable cases of prayer power, faith healing, etc. Yet it fails on these counts. That is the basis on which I don't believe in God. The same reason I don't believe in unicorns and leprechauns. The question is asked, testing has been done, evidence just doesn't support God as a serious explanation for phenomena in the natural world.

I'm an atheist in God the same way I'm an atheist in unicorns. I'm not going to accept that's a faith based position simply because I can't find evidence for unicorns. I apparently have 'faith' in the lack of unicorns in the world because I won't settle for shrugging my shoulders and saying there's 'no answer' on the possibility of unicorns existing.

 Orlanth wrote:

Evidence is out there, I will take one example of a deep thinker who would have preferred the evidence to point elsewhere:

“You must picture me alone in that room in Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England. I did not then see what is now the most shining and obvious thing; the Divine humility which will accept a convert even on such terms. The Prodigal Son at least walked home on his own feet. But who can duly adore that Love which will open the high gates to a prodigal who is brought in kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance of escape?"

CS Lewis, Surprised by Joy.

Sorry, you might need to elaborate a little there... How is a quote from CS Lewis proof of the existence of God?

Self appointed people of "reason", who have turned up one after another and wanted Dr Gallagher to have his career ended, because he expressed a belief in something they don't agree with.

It seems you have misunderstood the arguments.

Nobody wants his career ended because he's a Christian. What people are taking exception to is a medical professional stepping outside the bounds of accepted medical practice.

Unless exorcisms are a treatment approved by the relevant regulatory bodies, they're not something that a medical practitioner should be involved in, and diagnosing someone with a condition that is not medically accepted as an actual, real condition and has no basis in actual documented medical research rather than taking that extra step to find out what is actually wrong with them is simply irresponsible.

That's why people are calling for his job. Not because he believes something they don't... but because he's not behaving like a medical professional, and that's dangerous.

 insaniak wrote:

Self appointed people of "reason", who have turned up one after another and wanted Dr Gallagher to have his career ended, because he expressed a belief in something they don't agree with.

It seems you have misunderstood the arguments.

Nobody wants his career ended because he's a Christian. What people are taking exception to is a medical professional stepping outside the bounds of accepted medical practice.

Unless exorcisms are a treatment approved by the relevant regulatory bodies, they're not something that a medical practitioner should be involved in, and diagnosing someone with a condition that is not medically accepted as an actual, real condition and has no basis in actual documented medical research rather than taking that extra step to find out what is actually wrong with them is simply irresponsible.

That's why people are calling for his job. Not because he believes something they don't... but because he's not behaving like a medical professional, and that's dangerous.

This. I couldn't have said it better myself.

In addtion, IIRC: We started talking about proof, evidence, and the existence of the Christian God in an effort to see if we could justify his actions.

Now, you (Orlanth) have failed to convince a relatively small group of strangers on the Internet as to the existence of the Christian God and thus Daemonic Possession. I feel that this is more than enough evidence to demonstrate that somebody who is supposed to be a medical professional most certainly can't use it as a basis for professional diagnoses.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:

That sort of unquestioning faith is downright terrifying to me. It is the stuff that is so rampant in the middle east, and can empower the worst aspects of humanity when used by any religion. Once it's there, whether the religion wants something to happen or not, the fanatically devout will do it.

This is aimed at me so.
Where has the faith comments ever been 'unquestioning'? I have answered every question set to me, and evidently think through what I say. That you disagree with me is not indicative of anything other than that we disagree.
You seem to have it in your head that religious belief must somehow be the consequence of not thinking the subject matter through. It is a commonly held dogma. Basically a false logic chain along the lines of: religion is not science, science is reason, therefore religion is not reason.

Frankly you are more dogmatic than I could possibly ever be. I don't label and include you as having common ground alongside the extremists who will murder and commit atrocity based on their belief. Especially as there has been no evidence to suggest we share any doctrinal common ground. Why fear faith? Ignorance. Ignorance and fear go hand in hand.

I don't fear faith- I fear fanaticism. Once you cross the line to saying that proof doesn't matter 'because God', and that there is a special insight to text that you can only see if you are inspired by God, it opens the door to radicalism and fanaticism. That's what I am concerned about.

To me, that is a stage of belief where you have stopped thinking about what you believe, and either accept yourself (guided by god, and I intend no sarcasm here) or the will of god as interpreted through others as unassailable truth. And most of the time that is quite harmless, and just leads to televangelists, or people leading good lives at someone else's behests.
But sometimes.... somebody who believes firmly in something that is otherwise good, gets it in their head that they're a special kind of right and takes matters into their own hands. Then you get witch trials, Jihads, inquisitions, crusades, and taking your son up a mountain as a sacrifice to a god who's testing you.

Believe what you want, and I am very, very grateful you don't share any doctrine with the folks in ISIS- but please keep questioning what you believe in. When you start believing you, or the guy at the pulpit always knows better than the rest of the world you become tremendously vulnerable to making enormous mistakes because you believe god wills it. Faith , like so many things, is wonderful in moderation.

Blessed be, Orlanth.

 Orlanth wrote:
You cannot honestly ethically dismiss a premise as lacking evidence without checking for the evidence.

Why do you keep saying this? Atheists have looked at the evidence. The problem is not that we're all ignorant of this amazing evidence you have, it's that your evidence is garbage. You have yet to offer anything more than the same old unconvincing "evidence" that religious people have been bringing up for as long as there have been arguments about religion. We've looked at the evidence for your god, and we've found it lacking.

Also the bar for accepting evidence is often set artificially high.

No, it's set in a pretty reasonable place. In fact, it's set in a place that you agree with pretty strongly when it comes to other religions. When other religions make claims with evidence like the kind you present for your religion you don't find it convincing, you continue to be a Christian.

Evidence is out there, I will take one example of a deep thinker who would have preferred the evidence to point elsewhere:

“You must picture me alone in that room in Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England. I did not then see what is now the most shining and obvious thing; the Divine humility which will accept a convert even on such terms. The Prodigal Son at least walked home on his own feet. But who can duly adore that Love which will open the high gates to a prodigal who is brought in kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance of escape?"

CS Lewis, Surprised by Joy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Self appointed people of "reason", who have turned up one after another and wanted Dr Gallagher to have his career ended, because he expressed a belief in something they don't agree with. That is morally incompatible with rational free thought, but fully in agreement with dogmatic fanaticism.

Only because you bizarrely define "rational free thought" as "never criticize anyone and never dare to suggest that there be consequences for a belief". If Dr. Gallagher had, instead, loudly proclaimed his support for the beliefs of the Nazis and endorsed their eugenics ideas would it still be "dogmatic fanaticism" to suggest that he be fired? Or is it only "dogmatic fanaticism" when people are criticizing something that you really want to be true?

 Orlanth wrote:

Evidently he is paid by someone, but is he taking money to perform exorcisms. Likely not.

Why is that likely?

Orlanth wrote:

 Riquende wrote:

Atheism is a lack of belief.

A lack of belief would be concluded by a non answer. Atheism is an active conclusion. A lack of belief cannot be applied with fervour, the to are mutually exclusive, and atheism is often very fervid.
Not all atheists share that religious fervour, and they will find no opposition from me, but many clearly do.

In its simplest form, here is the definition of Atheism:

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Most other sites I visited as a result of a Google Search on the definition of Atheism seemed to be rather varied but came down to an equivalent of the definition quoted above. The rest of the sites I visited seemed agree with you that Atheism is a belief system, but given the relatively small proportion of sites that said this as well as many Atheists on this site agreeing with the above definition, I'm fairly confident in saying that the above definition is the more accurate of the two.

Orlanth wrote:

 Riquende wrote:

Frankly, whenever it comes up, it's a either a highly dishonest debating 'tactic' or it's coming from somebody who genuinely can't process a logical argument.

Or neither. I am being both honest and logical.

No disrespect, but I think the more accurate statement for you to be making is:

I am being both honest and logical with a generous seasoning of religious faith.

I feel it's important to make the distinction between "I am being both honest and logical." and the above statement since your faith seems to bias you heavily towards accepting and believing a religious point of view. The original statement of "I am being both honest and logical." can only really be applied to Agnostics and Atheists since there is no religious faith factor.

Orlanth wrote:

 Riquende wrote:

Either way, when somebody insists that 'atheists are believers too', it's time to re-assess whether it's worth your time participating in such a topic.

Leave or stay, you choose.

We could say the same to you, and Riquende has a point: You are insisting that 'Atheists are believers, too.', which is a pretty big misconception (especially when you consider what I said previously in this post).

Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

There's also been no evidence provided it's real and not him simply being unable to diagnose them.

How do you know. Did you follow the exorcists in their ministry for twenty years? Dr Gallagher has.

So what? Just because he has followed exorcists around for 20 years doesn't mean that the claim is any more or less correct. All that means is that he spent a lot of time with exorcists.

Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
Effectively, he's enabling superstitions in cases that he can't solve by himself. He can't provide any either (I'm not counting anecdotal evidence for obvious reasons)

Consistent observation is not anecdotal evidence. If it was you could kiss goodbye to most fields of behavioural sciences. You need to be fair.

And there is a place for observation in psychiatric science, which includes (but is not limited to) understanding the behaviours associated with any given condition. All his observations tell us is that he observed a condition that he could not diagnose, failed in his duty of care by standing back and letting a exorcist say "Yep, it's a Daemon" followed shortly by and exorcism, and then sat back and watched.

That's not observational evidence of Daemonic Possession, it's negligence on his part.

Orlanth wrote:...that explanation has little standing in mainstream psychiatry.

There's a good set of reasons for that, predominantly based on the following: Daemons and their ability to possess people has not been scientifically proven to exist and thus not accepted as a medical condition. I'm not buying this anecdotal evidence nor observations from this Dr. Gallagher as evidence of Daemonic existence. It is a lot more plausible to say (when looking at this situation) that ignorance led to a conclusion swayed by a belief in Christianity combined with the exposure to 20 years of religious exorcisms.

Orlanth wrote:Dr Gallagher sat and observed a long time before he started presenting exorcisms as case studies. He didnt rush into this.

He can spend as many case studies as he wants and can spend all of his natural life studying this. It doesn't make his work any more true. That's equivalent to saying things like "Harry Potter and Hogwarts are real because J.K.R. spent her life writing about it and providing case studies of similarities between her books and real life." I don't buy it.

Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
Actually, outside of anecdotal evidence and events twisted to support various religions, there is none. There is no scientifically accepted proof that there is a god, deity, or anything after death. That's why you fall back on faith, not evidence to support your claim that your religion is the true one..

And this is not true. For a start Biblical testimony most be double sourced and is therefore not anecdotal by definition. This is in order to conform to scriptural standards on testimony.

Just because something holds up to the Scriptural Standards for testimony does not mean that it holds up to that standards associated with scientific and/or historic fact. It's a distinction you are yet to properly acknowledge (if you had by now, I suspect you would be peddling the merits of Biblical Testimony).

Orlanth wrote:As for falling back on faith, you have that backwards. "Seek and you will find" as Jesus said. Those who are willing to find God honestly will find Him, those whose hearts are against him will not. But the dataset for each is not the same. If you heard God, you would not think as you do now. I don't rely on faith. Yes I did, but once I knew the Holy Spirit faith doesn't really come into it, because the reality has changed.

Spoken like someone truly embedded within a system of faith and belief. Regardless, that doesn't prove the existence of anything, and I very much suspect that this will mean very little (if anything) to anyone who isn't already under the influence of your "Christian Truth" (I put this in quotations because it is a subjective truth rather than an objective truth).

Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
nothing to say he simply isn't a good enough doctor. He's relying on his position of authority/knowledge to convince people he's not a hack. If I made these same claims, I'd be dismissed as a nut job, and rightly so.

Maybe, but then are you a psychiatrist with twenty years experience in this field? Likely not.

It doesn't matter how much experience he has in the field on this subject: His experience in the field is not equivalent to his claims being true, and his current position as a medical professional should not save him from the consequences of making unproven (and quite frankly ridiculous) claims of Daemonic Possession).

Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
The exact same could be said of you then, it's UNTHINKABLE that you could be wrong and there is nothing supernatural in the world whatsoever.

I do have an advantage there. I know God.

...

I am unlikely to ever disbelieve in God, not because it goes against what I prefer to believe, but because it goes against what I know from experience.

Correction: You know what your religion tells you is God. There's a difference. If you actually knew God as you claim, that implies that Christianity is a universal truth, and we all know that Christianity is not a universal truth (otherwise everyone would know this to be fact and be Christian). As for your experience, you have interpreted your experiences as supportive of your belief, which is another important distinction to make. These two distinctions bring me back to this quote:

Ketara wrote:I have a question for you, Orlanth.

What proof would you accept that would cause you to believe that God (of classical theism) does not exist?

It also (to my mind) raises a converse question:

If you were a non-Christian, would you honestly accept the evidence you're presenting to us?

I admire Peregrine's attempts to make Orlanth make a logical conclusion, but those who believe strongly don't need to see reason,
Faith is all they need. It is an act of futility.

On the other side, i consider myself a skeptical agnostic/Atheist , who strives to live on the Buddhists principals.

Atheism is supposed to be about logic, but these days it is all about "My truth is stronger than your truth".

On an Anecdote one of my mates in Holland was an Ex-priest turned writer, he also told that he had an experience with seeing a demon.
When he was deeply religious, If you really believe in certain things they will appear to you.

Logic doesn't work on fanatics or this is empirical proof that trolls are among us

Orlanth wrote:
A lack of belief would be concluded by a non answer. Atheism is an active conclusion. A lack of belief cannot be applied with fervour, the to are mutually exclusive, and atheism is often very fervid.

And yet not always, hence your use of the word "often".

 insaniak wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Evidence is out there, I will take one example of a deep thinker who would have preferred the evidence to point elsewhere:

<snip>

CS Lewis, Surprised by Joy.

Sorry, you might need to elaborate a little there... How is a quote from CS Lewis proof of the existence of God?

It is evidence that religious belief is not unthinking blind faith, which is what some atheist apologists insist is the case.

 insaniak wrote:

Nobody wants his career ended because he's a Christian. What people are taking exception to is a medical professional stepping outside the bounds of accepted medical practice.

But you are not providing anything to claim that he is. The only thing you have against him is that he believes the exorcisms can be real. You have not a jot to go on beyond that. Yet from that statement of belief some fanatics extrapolate that he should lose his career.

 insaniak wrote:

That's why people are calling for his job. Not because he believes something they don't... but because he's not behaving like a medical professional, and that's dangerous.

Evidence please.
Did you even read the article? All you have against him is his statement of belief.

If you think that is enough to condemn - then you are a fanatic.
If you cant even be bothered to check there is a case against him - then you are a fanatic.
If you insist on defending calls for persecution of Dr Gallagher without any honest justifiable reason - then your atheist fanaticism is at best ignorant.

Insaniak, I dont assume you are a hate filled fanatic, I just dont think you have thought this through. there is nothing 'dangerous' n what Dr Gallagher is doing, and in the future there is it will be up to his academic peers at the New York Medical College to assess due to th information they have. Not Dakka based on not reading one article properly.

Arent you supposed to be an open minded free thinker? Show some open minded free thought, find some reason to condemn a man before you do.

 IllumiNini wrote:

In addtion, IIRC: We started talking about proof, evidence, and the existence of the Christian God in an effort to see if we could justify his actions.

Now, you (Orlanth) have failed to convince a relatively small group of strangers on the Internet as to the existence of the Christian God and thus Daemonic Possession.
Of course I will fail to convince you, your chosen religious beliefs are opposed.
A prophesy coming true two and a half millenia after the events is unique in history, as secular predictions are ineffective beyond a few days due to chaos, and the logic is shown with related passages to back them up..
The result, shifting goalposts. Primary excuse, "you could apply any numbers'. Really, how? and what scripture would you back them up with.
I could try other events, but the result will be the same.

I could repeat evidence of people raised from the dead, in one case a man who had enough toxins in him to ensure his death, he was stung over eighty times by box jellyfish. He came back in the hospital morgue, and he had been brain dead long enough to guarantee by medical science that he would be a complete cabbage.
I met this man, Ian McCormick back in '96. He died, met God and was sent back, Whole.
Of course, what do I get. Excuses, perhaps maybe ish he could be brain dead for an extended time and not have his brain cells die on him. Science doesn't know how, and does know that oxygen starvation to the brain causes this unless the temperature is very low, and this event happened in the tropics.

 IllumiNini wrote:

I feel that this is more than enough evidence to demonstrate that somebody who is supposed to be a medical professional most certainly can't use it as a basis for professional diagnoses.

It is not necessary for me to convince you of what you will not accept, in order for it to be morally reprehensible to persecute a man for having a different opinion to your own. You don't even have the basic moral integrity to check if indeed Dr Gallagher does actually does diagnose demonic possession. The actual article says what he does, and it is considerably different. He disagnoses known mental health cases, to weed them out, and he observes exorcisms. Read the article. He has done nothing wrong by the standards of secular medicine that can be found, and is bound by the ethical standards of phis university, who would monitor his work far more closely and accurately than an internet mob, and they have allowed him to continue this work for twenty years.

Despite this being pointed out to you you still defend calling for his head. Shame on you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
A lack of belief would be concluded by a non answer. Atheism is an active conclusion. A lack of belief cannot be applied with fervour, the to are mutually exclusive, and atheism is often very fervid.

And yet not always, hence your use of the word "often".

Of course fervou is not always present, There are plenty of people who decide for one reason or another that there is no God, leave it as their personal opinion and they will have no problems from me.
This doesn't change even if they turn up and say they don't believe in God.

 LordofHats wrote:

The reason that we end up with "future prediction" as a definition isn't about the Bible, but rather brings us back to good ol Greek. The Greek translation of the Old Testament used the word προφημι (prophemi, from which the word "Prophet" derives). In Greek this word means "say beforehand/to foretell." Many early Christians had a stronger understanding of the original sense of the Bible's use of these term, but it seems to have generally fallen off in favor of the Greek definition around the 13th century (at least in English this is when the word "Prophecy" ceased to mean "the function of a prophet" and became "prediction of future events"

But that isn't how we use the word today.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

The sophistry displayed in this 'atheism is a faith position' argument is wearing. Lack of belief does not result in a 'non-answer'. We dismiss things routinely on a lack of evidence, non-belief on the basis of no evidence is not a faith position, unless you widen the term to be meaningless. There's no real evidence for mythical beasts, or any God(s) beyond the Christian. People don't believe in minotaurs due to a sheer lack of evidence, yet Orlanth would have us accept that to say you don't believe in minotaurs is a faith position.

Actually, a lot of philosophers would agree with that. The lack of evidence for the existance of minotaurs makes their existance unlikely, yet we can not be certain, for as we all know; absence of evidence is not neccesarily evidence of absence. To claim 100% certainty in anything is absolute foolishness. It would be an argument from incredulity.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
If that's your approach then everything is a faith position, you place no value on the quality of evidence. Even when science tests specifically for things like the power of prayer, or psychic powers, and nothing is shown, that's evidence that nothing supernatural is occurring.

That is not true. Acknowledging that nothing ever is certain (and thus that everything is ultimately based on faith) does not mean that you do not place value on evidence. The fact that nothing is certain does not mean that some things aren't more likely than others. It is common sense to know that dogs are more likely to exist than minotaurs, based on observational evidence and subsequently act on that assumption. Yet we will never be able to claim the one or the other with 100% certainty, for our senses may be deceiving us, and we would never know.
And again, just because "science" can't find anything, doesn't mean that there isn't anything. Maybe they were just using the wrong kind of measuring equipment?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I apparently have 'faith' in the lack of unicorns in the world because I won't settle for shrugging my shoulders and saying there's 'no answer' on the possibility of unicorns existing.

Yes, any statement that makes a claim inevitably requires faith in something, be it supernatural, a claim once made by someone else or simply faith in the reliability of your own senses. So yeah, welcome to the faith club, here is your exclusive official invisible membership card.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

The sophistry displayed in this 'atheism is a faith position' argument is wearing. Lack of belief does not result in a 'non-answer'. We dismiss things routinely on a lack of evidence, non-belief on the basis of no evidence is not a faith position, unless you widen the term to be meaningless. There's no real evidence for mythical beasts, or any God(s) beyond the Christian. People don't believe in minotaurs due to a sheer lack of evidence, yet Orlanth would have us accept that to say you don't believe in minotaurs is a faith position.

Actually, a lot of philosophers would agree with that. The lack of evidence for the existance of minotaurs makes their existance unlikely, yet we can not be certain, for as we all know; absence of evidence is not neccesarily evidence of absence. To claim 100% certainty in anything is absolute foolishness. It would be an argument from incredulity.

Sorry, but I disagree. James Randi actually touched on this, saying

"you can't prove a negative". He claims that he cannot prove a negative (such as that telepathy does not exist), but he argues that an individual who claims telepathy exists must prove it. He contends that induction is often used as a mode of proving a thesis, but if an individual assumes that something is or is not, then the person must prove so. Further, he says, he does not take an advocacy position, as a lawyer would. He says that he cannot prove that a negative is true, but he could attempt to use evidence and induction to support a claim that he is biased toward, such as a claim that something does not exist.

So it's not about "having faith in something not existing", it's "based on the evidence, I logically conclude X doesn't exist", not "I believe X doesn't exist, therefore they don't exist". Science and facts and logic are not faith-based, they're evidence based. Know why? Because if you proved minotaurs existed, all those "non-believers" would suddenly become "believers" in minotaurs. Since that's not how faith works, science and logic cannot be faith-based.

 Orlanth wrote:

Of course fervou is not always present...

Fervor is the proper spelling.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Of course fervou is not always present...

Fervor is the proper spelling.

Orlanth speaks the Queen's English, so it's "Fervour" over here wot wot tally ho

 Orlanth wrote:
There are plenty of people who decide for one reason or another that there is no God, leave it as their personal opinion and they will have no problems from me.
This doesn't change even if they turn up and say they don't believe in God.

Plenty of people? So, less than 0?

 dogma wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

The reason that we end up with "future prediction" as a definition isn't about the Bible, but rather brings us back to good ol Greek. The Greek translation of the Old Testament used the word προφημι (prophemi, from which the word "Prophet" derives). In Greek this word means "say beforehand/to foretell." Many early Christians had a stronger understanding of the original sense of the Bible's use of these term, but it seems to have generally fallen off in favor of the Greek definition around the 13th century (at least in English this is when the word "Prophecy" ceased to mean "the function of a prophet" and became "prediction of future events"

But that isn't how we use the word today.

Words do change in meaning over time, but in most cases it adds additional meaning, it doesn't take away the original meaning. It was OK in the New Testament times to refer to prophecy as with all the use of the gift, not just future prediction. This hasn't changed.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Of course fervou is not always present...

Fervor is the proper spelling.

Speed typing, I miss letters a lot.
Also what Bargash said.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
There are plenty of people who decide for one reason or another that there is no God, leave it as their personal opinion and they will have no problems from me.
This doesn't change even if they turn up and say they don't believe in God.

Plenty of people? So, less than 0?

You on the beer today dogma?

 Orlanth wrote:

But that isn't how we use the word today.

Words do change in meaning over time, but in most cases it adds additional meaning,

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

The sophistry displayed in this 'atheism is a faith position' argument is wearing. Lack of belief does not result in a 'non-answer'. We dismiss things routinely on a lack of evidence, non-belief on the basis of no evidence is not a faith position, unless you widen the term to be meaningless. There's no real evidence for mythical beasts, or any God(s) beyond the Christian. People don't believe in minotaurs due to a sheer lack of evidence, yet Orlanth would have us accept that to say you don't believe in minotaurs is a faith position.

Actually, a lot of philosophers would agree with that. The lack of evidence for the existance of minotaurs makes their existance unlikely, yet we can not be certain, for as we all know; absence of evidence is not neccesarily evidence of absence. To claim 100% certainty in anything is absolute foolishness. It would be an argument from incredulity.

Sorry, but I disagree. James Randi actually touched on this, saying

"you can't prove a negative". He claims that he cannot prove a negative (such as that telepathy does not exist), but he argues that an individual who claims telepathy exists must prove it. He contends that induction is often used as a mode of proving a thesis, but if an individual assumes that something is or is not, then the person must prove so. Further, he says, he does not take an advocacy position, as a lawyer would. He says that he cannot prove that a negative is true, but he could attempt to use evidence and induction to support a claim that he is biased toward, such as a claim that something does not exist.

So it's not about "having faith in something not existing", it's "based on the evidence, I logically conclude X doesn't exist", not "I believe X doesn't exist, therefore they don't exist". Science and facts and logic are not faith-based, they're evidence based. Know why? Because if you proved minotaurs existed, all those "non-believers" would suddenly become "believers" in minotaurs. Since that's not how faith works, science and logic cannot be faith-based.

Science is faith-based. Among others, it is based on faith in the accuracy of the scientific method, faith in the reliability of the human senses, faith in the accuracy of methods and equipment for measuring data and faith in the integrity of the scientific community as whole. In short, it is based in the faith that evidence obtained using the scientific method is correct.
What is, I ask you, the difference between statement 1: "I logically conclude X" and statement 2: "I believe X"? Does not statement 1 neccesarily imply statement 2? How is belief not also a logical conclusion resulting from evidence?

Iron_captain, what is the difference between "I believe in an invisible, immaterial teacup orbiting Jupiter", and "I believe in the theory of gravity,"? Think about that for a second.

 Wolfblade wrote:
Iron_captain, what is the difference between "I believe in an invisible, immaterial teacup orbiting Jupiter", and "I believe in the theory of gravity,"? Think about that for a second.

Spoiler:

we can scientifically prove the theory of gravity is correct, along with reliably replicate any experiments needed to prove it is correct. Meanwhile, there is no evidence to prove the teacup does or does not exist, so you have to have faith that it exists.

If you still can't see the difference, science provides evidence, to the best of our current knowledge, that something is or is not correct/ does or does not exist, while faith is basically the notion that if they REALLY believe in something, it must be true.

You already noted the difference yourself. The belief in the first statement can not be tested or proven using the scientific method, the belief in the second statement can.
That does however say nothing about the truth of the belief in both statements. Saying otherwise would be elevating the scientific method and current human knowledge and logic to be the ultimate truth of the universe and beyond, which is utter foolishness.
So what both statements share in common, is that they profess faith. The first professes a belief in the existance of an immaterial teacup in orbit around Jupiter. On what this belief would be based, I can not say, for you did not provide the neccessary details, but let us just say that the person making this statement heard it from other people, and has faith in the truthfullness of the statements made by those people. The second professes a faith in a specific theory of gravity, based on faith in the truthfullness of statements made by other people.
In other words, people believe the theory of gravity is true, not because they know it to be true, but rather because they have faith in that what scientists told them is true, is in fact true.

No, in the 2nd it's based on repeatable experiments and other evidence. No faith required unless you want to get deep into philosophy and if our perception of the world can be trusted/is real/etc.There is no faith required to believe in the theory of gravity, you can perform experiments yourself to verify it, and thus don't need to rely on other people's truthfulness. Will everyone do it to verify it themselves? No, in which case, yes they rely on the scientific process to ensure the info they're given is true. But yes, THAT could be all be false if you want to believe in a mass conspiracy to delude the world about the scientific process.

 Wolfblade wrote:
No, in the 2nd it's based on repeatable experiments and other evidence. No faith required unless you want to get deep into psychology and if our perception of the world can be trusted/is real/etc.

Oh, but that is exactly where I do want to get.

You see, the statement that nothing is 100% certain and that every single statement requires faith in something and is therefore a belief, is based in the belief that the human perception of the world is not neccesarily reliable and that the reliability of the human perception is not testable. It is a position of epistemological relativism that argues that everything in the end is subjective and that there is no such thing as absolute truth.

 Wolfblade wrote:
There is no faith required to believe in the theory of gravity, you can perform experiments yourself to verify it, and thus don't need to rely on other people's truthfulness. Will everyone do it to verify it themselves? No, in which case, yes they rely on the scientific process to ensure the info they're given is true. But yes, THAT could be all be false if you want to believe in a mass conspiracy to delude the world about the scientific process.

So, how would you prove the theory of gravity to yourself?

 dogma wrote:


But that isn't how we use the word today.

Lots of people use the word that way today. You just won't generally find it being used that way outside of some very specific discussion on the Old Testament/Jewish Prophets/Islam. EDIT: And technically the word hasn't really changed at all in the original language. The Modern word for Prophet in Hebrew is Navi, which means "Speaker." Especially when talking about something that's 2000 years old, you can't really transplant a modern lexicon onto it (people will do it, because I doubt most people ever bother to look up what words in the Bible mean in old timey languages). That's bad research, and bad reading.

Come on Dogma. You know that words will have different contextual meanings depending on who is using them and what they're talking about.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

The sophistry displayed in this 'atheism is a faith position' argument is wearing. Lack of belief does not result in a 'non-answer'. We dismiss things routinely on a lack of evidence, non-belief on the basis of no evidence is not a faith position, unless you widen the term to be meaningless. There's no real evidence for mythical beasts, or any God(s) beyond the Christian. People don't believe in minotaurs due to a sheer lack of evidence, yet Orlanth would have us accept that to say you don't believe in minotaurs is a faith position.

Actually, a lot of philosophers would agree with that. The lack of evidence for the existance of minotaurs makes their existance unlikely, yet we can not be certain, for as we all know; absence of evidence is not neccesarily evidence of absence. To claim 100% certainty in anything is absolute foolishness. It would be an argument from incredulity.

Sorry, but I disagree. James Randi actually touched on this, saying

"you can't prove a negative". He claims that he cannot prove a negative (such as that telepathy does not exist), but he argues that an individual who claims telepathy exists must prove it. He contends that induction is often used as a mode of proving a thesis, but if an individual assumes that something is or is not, then the person must prove so. Further, he says, he does not take an advocacy position, as a lawyer would. He says that he cannot prove that a negative is true, but he could attempt to use evidence and induction to support a claim that he is biased toward, such as a claim that something does not exist.

So it's not about "having faith in something not existing", it's "based on the evidence, I logically conclude X doesn't exist", not "I believe X doesn't exist, therefore they don't exist". Science and facts and logic are not faith-based, they're evidence based. Know why? Because if you proved minotaurs existed, all those "non-believers" would suddenly become "believers" in minotaurs. Since that's not how faith works, science and logic cannot be faith-based.

Science is faith-based. Among others, it is based on faith in the accuracy of the scientific method, faith in the reliability of the human senses, faith in the accuracy of methods and equipment for measuring data and faith in the integrity of the scientific community as whole. In short, it is based in the faith that evidence obtained using the scientific method is correct.
What is, I ask you, the difference between statement 1: "I logically conclude X" and statement 2: "I believe X"? Does not statement 1 neccesarily imply statement 2? How is belief not also a logical conclusion resulting from evidence?

Nope, I'm out, I see exactly where you're heading, with the whole "Does the world really exist? Are we all some sort of sentient hive mind or hallucination?" gak. This is exactly why I love and hate philosophy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
No, in the 2nd it's based on repeatable experiments and other evidence. No faith required unless you want to get deep into psychology and if our perception of the world can be trusted/is real/etc.

Oh, but that is exactly where I do want to get.

You see, the statement that nothing is 100% certain and that every single statement requires faith in something and is therefore a belief, is based in the belief that the human perception of the world is not neccesarily reliable and that the reliability of the human perception is not testable. It is a position of epistemological relativism that argues that everything in the end is subjective and that there is no such thing as absolute truth.

Which is absolutely bananas and leads to philosophy majors sitting around dorms smoking pot and pondering "the true nature of human existence".

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
No, in the 2nd it's based on repeatable experiments and other evidence. No faith required unless you want to get deep into psychology and if our perception of the world can be trusted/is real/etc.

Oh, but that is exactly where I do want to get.

You see, the statement that nothing is 100% certain and that every single statement requires faith in something and is therefore a belief, is based in the belief that the human perception of the world is not neccesarily reliable and that the reliability of the human perception is not testable. It is a position of epistemological relativism that argues that everything in the end is subjective and that there is no such thing as absolute truth.

Ah, the inane and idiotic philosophy argument (for this situation and topic). Right, moving on.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
There is no faith required to believe in the theory of gravity, you can perform experiments yourself to verify it, and thus don't need to rely on other people's truthfulness. Will everyone do it to verify it themselves? No, in which case, yes they rely on the scientific process to ensure the info they're given is true. But yes, THAT could be all be false if you want to believe in a mass conspiracy to delude the world about the scientific process.

So, how would you prove the theory of gravity to yourself?

Steps:
1. Pick up an object that won't break or damage anything if dropped by wrapping fingers around it.
2. Carefully hold it at shoulder height.
3. Extend fingers to allow said object to drop.

Voila! (I'm sure there's a far more scientific test that can be done, such as finding out how fast the object falls, and if it's the same for all objects, etc but you're trying to push this down the path of "but do we really know for sure that anything is real?", which is not relevant here)