Demons, is there any evidence they even exist?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Science trys to interpret the cause of homosexuality through evolution which they call ‘evidence’ but it’s nonsense. Many ’scientists’ say it’s to do with being social, therefore it has potential to steadily increase. The ancient Greeks thought it was a scourge to their society, if they thought that back then what will happen if it increases as all signs predict in the future. Did you see the amount of people (homosexuals) literally queuing around blocks to get medicated in that recent monkey pox epidemic? Then there was aids. I’m not homophobic at all, just observing things.

"i'm not homophobic at all"


LOL!!!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes they are and you haven't given any proof it isn't.

You might want to read up how the burden of proof works.
A claim isn't considered accurate until "given any proof that it isn't"

Just because you say it is a story, don't make it a story.

It is by definition a story.

There is enough evidence

Claims aren't evidence.

and enough external support to validate it.

Please share this supposed "external support"

Now, I know you want it to be a story, but history has enough evidence that it is true unless you want to say that Mohammad never existed too.

That's hardly the same thing.
We know Mohammed existed.

But do we also know he flew to heaven on a winged horse and split the moon in 2?

We don't know if Jesus existed, but as previously said I'm willing to tentatively accept, even if only for the sake of argument, that a historical Jesus existed. I have no problem with that.

But does that mean he was a magical miracle worker who defied death?

Let's just say that Jesus was as real as Mohammed.
What can you produce as evidence of Jesus "the miracle worker" or "resurrection" that wouldn't also work for Mohammed "the winged horse rider" or Mohammed "the moon splitter"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Homeopathy is not confirmed bs.

It is. It requires water molecules to have certain properties and attributes that simply do not exist.

That just shows how much you don't know.

I believe that you believe that. You think you know, but you don't know, you only believe you know.
Knowledge is more than facts. People can know something by experience.

Definition of know

1a(1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of importance of knowing oneself(3): to recognize the nature of : discernb(1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known(2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of

2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain ofb: to have a practical understanding of knows how to write

Definition of KNOW

None of this changes the fact that homeopathy requires water molecules to have properties / attributes that simply do not exist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So that's why it is offered as part of the health care systems in many countries.

Since when are (bad) political decisions a substitute for scientific inquiry?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Open your eyes.

My eyes are very open, tnx.

And all I see are mere claims piling on and no objective evidence whatsoever

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What's the disorder of a sadist called?

And now you're just changing the subject.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

...I'd like to reply, but I don't believe that you understood anything that was said?
I'm not talking about inner species conduct.
I wasn't talking about practical behaviour also.
and so on....

Then I don't know what you were talking about.
And since other people didn't correct me, pointing out I understood it wrong, it seems to me that the fault is on your end and you just weren't clear enough.

You are most welcome to try again and explain it in a clearer way.

If you don't, then I can only assume that I did understand correctly and that this is just another attempt of you to try and dodge the points made.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

...even if true, that would also require in depth explanation from a secularists point of view.

And there is. And that explanation doesn't only go for humans, it goes for pretty much ALL animals that aren't at the top of the food chain, as ALL such animals have a tendency to be superstitious.

And that explanation is that all such animals have a tendency to engage in type 2 cognition errors: the false positive.
It's a survival mechanism.

The classic illustration of this is simple:

You hear a noise in the bushes. Is it just the wind? Or is it a dangerous predator sneaking up on you?
If you assume it is a predator, you run. If it turns out you were correct, you live.
If you assume it is just the wind, you stay put. If it turns out you were wrong, you are lunch and thus die.
If you stick around to gather more intel before drawing a conclusion, and it turns out to be a predator, you are also lunch and thus die.

If you run assuming there is a dangerous predator and there wasn't one, then you engaged in a type 2 cognition error and lost nothing. You instead just had a healthy run.
If you run assuming there is a dangerous predator and there is indeed one, then you just managed to escape.

Runners have the survival advantage here.

Natural selection throughout history has favored individuals with a tendency to engage in the false positive, because sometimes, their unfounded assumption turned out correct which made them live.

Another aspect of this behavior is also the tendency to infuse agency in otherwise random events.
You hear a noise and you don't just assume it is a dangerous predator (= an agent), but ALSO that that predator is sneaking up on YOU.
It could also just be a harmless rabbit looking for food in the bush with no intention to coming out of it into your sights.

However, that isn't the default assumption. The default assumption is that there is an agent out there and that it is all about YOU. That the agent is targeting YOU.

Such cognition errors form the very basis for the invention of entities where there aren't any.

You're not getting the point, nor do you understand humanity, ...or the animal kingdom.

Says the guy who seemingly has no clue that there are other social species out there with their own sense of morals, social conduct and social contracts.

 

[Kenny]

Your "history" and "documents", aka the bible = anecdotes

Your interpretation. If my children wrote about my history (biography) you would also say "anecdotes" but it would be true. And it isn't one document, aka, the bible, they are letters and historical documents.

No. All that alien believers have are claims by alien believers.
Just like in christianity... all that christians have are claims by christian believers.

apples and oranges. We have written documents that were supported by others.

Not at all.

Both only have claims by believers (anecdotes / testimony)
Neither has independently verifiable evidence.

If there was an accident with witnesses, their testimony would be accepted as independent evidence. The tomb was empty and it was verified as noted by the witnesses.

I didn't claim he did?

It is known that Plato wrote what Socrates said and we accept it. You have a double standard, I don't.

Ok, make your case. What's my double standard?

see above.

So?
That's only, at best, evidence of their resolve - not that their beliefs were accurate.

They had an irrefutable story

I don't care what you "believe".

I only care about what you can support and / or rationally justify.

LOL... And I don't care what you "believe"?

It is supported by the historical records. You still seem irritated because I believe. Maybe its your conscience?

 

[Kenny]

You might want to read up how the burden of proof works.
A claim isn't considered accurate until "given any proof that it isn't"




It is by definition a story.



Claims aren't evidence.



Please share this supposed "external support"



That's hardly the same thing.
We know Mohammed existed.

But do we also know he flew to heaven on a winged horse and split the moon in 2?

We don't know if Jesus existed, but as previously said I'm willing to tentatively accept, even if only for the sake of argument, that a historical Jesus existed. I have no problem with that.

But does that mean he was a magical miracle worker who defied death?

Let's just say that Jesus was as real as Mohammed.
What can you produce as evidence of Jesus "the miracle worker" or "resurrection" that wouldn't also work for Mohammed "the winged horse rider" or Mohammed "the moon splitter"?

Again, you have a double standard. People usually do when it's about Jesus.

My question of your real intent is that you ask for outside evidence without even looking it up. It shows the reality of your bias, closed mindedness and no desire to accept anything other that your mythical beliefs.

But for other curious posters:

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/

Of course, eye witnesses are still a great way to know too. You might want to read the NT. It has convinced many an atheist as well as doubters.

One of many:

But, to be fair, there are Christians who turned to atheism.

 

[Apostle John]

"i'm not homophobic at all"


LOL!!!

What is it I said that’s homophobic. Are you sensitive?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your interpretation.

Not an interpretation. It's a fact.
These claims are found only in the bible. Written down by believers.
These are just mere claims. Anecdotes.

You can call them "history" all you want. In reality, they are just beliefs / claims that were written down. That's it.

If my children wrote about my history (biography) you would also say "anecdotes" but it would be true.

I don't think I ever said that anecdotes are false by default.
Obviously they could be true. The question is: how would you know?

If Ivanka Trump wrote a biography about The Donald and she writes in it how the election was stolen from him in a giant conspiracy, does that then make it true?

There's a rule of thumb here: the more extra-ordinary the claim, the less you should be relying on the mere words of authors. Especially if those authors have a bias.

Suppose your children completely hate you for some reason.
Don't you think that would be reflected somehow in the biography they write about you?

Suppose your children have an uncanny adoration for you and consider you an impossible hero.
Don't you think that would be reflected somehow in the biography they write about you as well?

And it isn't one document, aka, the bible, they are letters and historical documents.

Which were carefully edited and hand picked to represent the story they wanted it to reflect. And the ones doing the handpicking did so with an agenda and a bias.
None of these are independent contemporary sources.
All of them are from the hands of biased believers.

All of which provides us with reasons to be extra sceptical.

apples and oranges. We have written documents that were supported by others.

No, you don't.

If there was an accident with witnesses, their testimony would be accepted as independent evidence.

What if there are conflicted testimonies?
What if the testimonies included extra ordinary claims of supernatural stuff?
Do you think it would be just accepted anyway?

In case of accidents, there is going to be forensics involved also. And the testimonies will be corroborated with it.

If a witness for example says that the car was doing at least 100 km/h and yet the forensics investigation tells us it was 50km/h max, do you think the witness will be believed and the forensic evidence rejected?

Lastly, the vast majority of cases where innocent people are convicted anyway, is when there is a lack of independently verifiable evidence and all they have to go on is "eyewitness testimony". That, in and of itself, already tells you everything you need to know about the reliability of "testimony".

The tomb was empty and it was verified as noted by the witnesses.

You are using the claims to validate the claims.
This is called circular reasoning.

It is known that Plato wrote what Socrates said and we accept it. You have a double standard, I don't.

I'm not seeing it. What is the supposed double standard?
Be specific.

see above.

You didn't make your case. You just repeated your claim.

They had an irrefutable story

I can give you an infinite amount of "irrefutable" stories.

For example: there's an undetectable dragon following you everywhere you go.

A story being "irrefutable", is not a proper standard for accepting said story as being accurate. You might want to read up on how the burden of proof actually works.

Having said that.... My point remains unaddressed: it is evidence only of their resolve, it is not evidence of their beliefs being accurate.
In the same way, the fact that islamists are willing to sacrifice their lives is only evidence of their resolve - not that their beliefs are accurate.

It is supported by the historical records.

You keep calling them "historical records".
What they are instead are just religious claims of extra-ordinary things, written down and passed on by believers.
Claims that are in need of corroborating evidence in order to merit the label "historical".
Got any such evidence?

You still seem irritated because I believe. Maybe its your conscience?

I'm irritated not because you believe. I'm "irritated" (quotes, because not really, but whatever) because you keep pretending that your beliefs are facts while they are just mere beliefs. Because you insist on pretending that mere claims are somehow facts. Because you insist on pretending that claims are evidence of themselves just because there are people that believe them.

In short: I'm "irritated" by the continued insistence on using circular reasoning.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again, you have a double standard. People usually do when it's about Jesus.

Once again you accuse me of this without making your case.
Please be specific and explain this supposed double standard.
And try to actually explain it this time instead of simply repeating the claim.

My question of your real intent is that you ask for outside evidence without even looking it up.

Don't expect me to do YOUR homework. You're the one with the claims here, not me.
Your claim, your burden of proof.
If you claim that you have "outside evidence", then expect me to ask you to present it.
Don't expect me to go hunt for it myself.

It shows the reality of your bias, closed mindedness and no desire to accept anything other that your mythical beliefs.

Projecting, much?

But for other curious posters:

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/

None of those are contemporary. Several of those are heavily disputed and demonstrated forgeries.
As for the rest, they are just reporting what they heard themselves from other christians.

It would be like me writing about Lord Xenu when referring to scientologists.

As I said: I have no problem accepting a historical Jesus. I'm not a so-called "mythicist" in that regard.
But these things do not count as extra-biblical evidence for the simple fact that they aren't independent (it's just reporting what christians believed) and they aren't contemporary either, since both tacitus and josephus wrote ~100 years after jesus supposedly lived. In those days, that's about 3 to 5 generations later. 2 -3 generations if you were lucky.

Of course, eye witnesses are still a great way to know too. You might want to read the NT. It has convinced many an atheist as well as doubters.

The bible is the claim. The bible isn't evidence of itself.
Circular reasoning again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is it I said that’s homophobic. Are you sensitive?

Well, you grab every opportunity you can to bash homosexuality...

 

[Apostle John]

Well, you grab every opportunity you can to bash homosexuality...

Nonsense. I like to know the science explanation where it comes from that’s all.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Only in the recesses of your imagination. maybe you should ask God for revelation understanding?

And more nothing. Your debate strategy appears to be to just shut your ears.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Every human doers, whether it be imminent danger, or attrition due to continuous careless behaviour.

For the sake of this argument, animals do appear to be more intellectually sound rather than humans - despite humans having a much greater intellectual capacity.
Spiritual forces influence and affect man's logical capabilities.

No, every human does not engage in reckless behaviour. I do not. Maybe you're speaking about yourself, I don't know.

You'll have to demonstrate that "spiritual forces" actually exist.

 

[nPeace]

This is not evidence of demons, though. There could be many explanations for this person's behavior. Mobsters have done far worse to people, and their motivations were different: "to send a message."

I once walked across a seven acre field with some friends. At several points during our trek we had impromptu wrestling matches, whereby one of us tackled the other spontaneously and began wrestling. (We were teenagers. And idiots.)

Anyway, when I got back to my car, I realized that my car keys were not in my pocket. I'd obviously lost them during one of the wrestling sessions. I was flipped out. Given how big the field was, there was no way we were ever going to find the keys. But we were out in the middle of nowhere (this was before cell phones) and it was close to midnight. The only option we had was to find the keys.

A couple stragglers in our group hadn't made it back to the car yet. We started yelling at them that we needed to find the keys. Long story short, by some stroke of luck, one of them kicked the keys hard enough to where one of us heard the keys jingle. It was lottery odds of that happening. The field was huge and the grass was almost knee-high.

Now, if someone were convinced of "leprechaun magic" (and perhaps a little obsessed with the idea) they might conclude that leprechauns were behind our unlikely discovery of the keys. Let's imagine a person who believed that our finding of the keys couldn't have been anything other than leprechaun magic.

Imagine trying to convince such a person otherwise. To them, there could be no other possible answer... because they convinced themselves beforehand that things like this don't happen without aid from leprechauns.

I know my example is a little off beat... but I'd really like you to imagine trying to convince such a person that it wasn't leprechauns. I feel like it would be a very similar conversation to to trying to convince you that this murder might have other explanations besides demons.

If there was a basis for believing in leprechauns, and the events surrounding the experience fit, I see no reason to say it can't be.

People are F-ed up. Even sane people. I think what we have here is a F-ed up, evil individual who may or may not have a fixation on Satanic imagery. To me, that explanation seems more plausible than demons. Now, if I saw this guy levitate and rotate his head 360 degrees before projectile vomiting... THAT would be an argument in favor of your case. As it stands now, with the information you gave, demons are eliminable from an explanation of the horrific events you described.

"F-ed up, evil individual?"
What's your explanation for a F-ed up, evil individual who has an obsession for murdering someone... stabbing them 114 times?

This Psychiatrist describes the obsession as "not normal", "unnatural"... even for someone who would murder another.

I'm not saying that this is evidence, for you, or anyone on here who is skeptical.
I posted this to one who is not unaware of what is demonic.
I already posted the evidence that is solid enough. If that is not accepted, I have no interest in presenting anything else to skeptics on this subject.

Would the drug Kingpin walk into a police station, and say, "Hey. You see that guy you found in the alley, smiling from his neck. I did it."
Why would the demons... more intelligent than humans, do that?
Those who have eyes to see... let them see. Ezekiel 12:2

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nonsense. I like to know the science explanation where it comes from that’s all.

Then why do you ignore the science explanation and go with falsehoods instead?

 

[Apostle John]

Then why do you ignore the science explanation and go with falsehoods instead?

There isn’t a satisfactory one, I have to do my own balanced research based on societal observation.