Demons, is there any evidence they even exist?

[DNB]

For the flippin' upteent time: this is a just a claim. A claim that you ONLY make because you already believe such religiously.
There is NOTHING objective and / or independently verifiable that leads to this conclusion. NOTHING.

Why do men smoke cigarettes - one of the most pointless and harmful activities known to man, that is engaged in on such a prevalent level.
Answer: Pretense and selective oblivion. And, yet, 90% of the smokers in the world can tie their own shoes and count to 100. Why do they act so absurd, then?
There's your flippin' evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I believe tangible is not possible. My thoughts are experiential and they are not tangible either.

There is evidence for the existence of a person's thoughts. This sentence I am writing is evidence of my thoughts. This evidence can and has been independently tested to verify the existence of thought.

I haven't seen evidence of that sort and quality offered to support the claims regarding demons. At least there has been none coming from the people that claim to know so much about demons that they can tell us who has demons and who is mentally ill and...

 

[Audie]

There is evidence for the existence of a person's thoughts. This sentence I am writing is evidence of my thoughts. This evidence can and has been independently tested to verify the existence of thought.

I haven't seen evidence of that sort and quality offered to support the claims regarding demons. At least there has been none coming from the people that claim to know so much about demons that they can tell us who has demons and who is mentally ill and...

Why people waste their time and limited brain power on
moldy superstitions is something I can't figure

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again... you aren't offering supportive facts, what you are offering is your viewpoint (which I support in you having). We see the letters as a legal deposition supportive by previous TaNaKh statements as well as multiple views of other eye-witnesses. Then we have Luke who then also took their depositions and wrote a compilation of the evidence.

None of this changes anything about the points made.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You're not appreciating the amount and depth of evidence that, all men all over the world, have drawn their conclusions from.

What you have are claims, not evidence.
Claims require evidence.
You don't have evidence. You only have people making claims / expressing beliefs.

Your experimental specimen sounds like a 10 year old child, rather than a mature man or woman

You'ld think so ha....
Not so at all.

- by a certain age, all are aware that many things are not what they seem

And yet, cognition errors like the false positive, assuming causality where there is only random correlation, seeing patterns where there aren't any, etc.... are the natural order of the day in most of our lives.

This is why we have words for such phenomenon: "pareidolia", "cognition error", "magical thinking", "confirmation bias"...
These are all terms that deal with the very real, very common, phenomenon of humans (and other animals) coming to false conclusions.

In fact, science is so good at yielding accurate answers to questions because the very core of the methodology is literally designed to avoid such psychological pitfalls.

, and therefore only the impetuous and foolish jump to unsubstantiated conclusions. Again, your are describing the naive and immature, not the majority of people over 18 years old.

No. I'm describing the natural psych condition of pretty much everything alive with a brain.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why do men smoke cigarettes - one of the most pointless and harmful activities known to man, that is engaged in on such a prevalent level.
Answer: Pretense and selective oblivion. And, yet, 90% of the smokers in the world can tie their own shoes and count to 100. Why do they act so absurd, then?
There's your flippin' evidence.

How in the world is that evidence for undetectable, undemonstrable, undefendable entities that are indistinguishable from imagination and / or non-existent things?

 

[Audie]

How in the world is that evidence for undetectable, undemonstrable, undefendable entities that are indistinguishable from imagination and / or non-existent things?

People with nothing to say just say things.

Farmers farm, believers believe.

Anything will serve as evidence for a Believer.

If they did science, we wouldn't even have fire yet.

 

[Audie]

Still flippin' not getting the point!

The point is that you just say things.

 

[Kenny]

None of this changes anything about the points made.

Again, you made points that were opinions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again, you made points that were opinions.

Nope.

 

[DNB]

What you have are claims, not evidence.
Claims require evidence.
You don't have evidence. You only have people making claims / expressing beliefs.



You'ld think so ha....
Not so at all.



And yet, cognition errors like the false positive, assuming causality where there is only random correlation, seeing patterns where there aren't any, etc.... are the natural order of the day in most of our lives.

This is why we have words for such phenomenon: "pareidolia", "cognition error", "magical thinking", "confirmation bias"...
These are all terms that deal with the very real, very common, phenomenon of humans (and other animals) coming to false conclusions.

In fact, science is so good at yielding accurate answers to questions because the very core of the methodology is literally designed to avoid such psychological pitfalls.




No. I'm describing the natural psych condition of pretty much everything alive with a brain.

You are describing an impetuous act, one where no time to analyze or rationalize, for various reasons, are available - the perceived threat may be imminent.
But, when man is in an environment where he is able to think clearly, assess the evidence, and calculate his thoughts, it is under these conditions where he draws his conclusions about life and its source, man and his nature, good and evil, etc...

 

[DNB]

How in the world is that evidence for undetectable, undemonstrable, undefendable entities that are indistinguishable from imagination and / or non-existent things?

Since man's ego, vanity, selfishness, hatreds, bigotries, even selflessness and altruisms, dictate the majority of his actions, his rationality gets superseded by these influences - like, smoking cigarettes against all logical persuasions to not smoke.

What is the source of these evident and counter-intuitive influences, that do not exist in any other creature?

 

[Audie]

You are describing an impetuous act, one where no time to analyze or rationalize, for various reasons, are available - the perceived threat may be imminent.
But, when man is in an environment where he is able to think clearly, assess the evidence, and calculate his thoughts, it is under these conditions where he draws his conclusions about life and its source, man and his nature, good and evil, etc...

Do you actually believe you think clearly?

 

[Hamilton]

No evidence. Only more testimony.

Testimony *is* evidence,
and admittedly as subject to forensic analysis as other evidence, and as respectable as other evidence.

 

[Ella S.]

Since man's ego, vanity, selfishness, hatreds, bigotries, even selflessness and altruisms, dictate the majority of his actions, his rationality gets superseded by these influences - like, smoking cigarettes against all logical persuasions to not smoke.

What is the source of these evident and counter-intuitive influences, that do not exist in any other creature?

The frontal lobe of the neocortex

 

[Audie]

Testimony *is* evidence,
and admittedly as subject to forensic analysis as other evidence, and as respectable as other evidence.

Testimony *is* evidence,
and admittedly as subject to forensic analysis as other evidence, and as respectable as other evidence.

Here you go, testimony re the gold books of Mormon
found by Joseph Smith

Testimony of Eight Witnesses

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated...

www.churchofjesuschrist.org

 

[We Never Know]

Once you have experienced attacks from them, you don't doubt they exist.

How would one detect a demon?

 

[DNB]

Do you actually believe you think clearly?

After discussing anything with you - yes!

 

[DNB]

The frontal lobe of the neocortex

What's a vampiress, just a female vampire?
Then what's a vampire, or even a stoic one?
Does this condition have anything to do with the frontal lobe of the neocortex?

 

[Hamilton]

Here you go, testimony re the gold books of Mormon
found by Joseph Smith

Testimony of Eight Witnesses

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated...

www.churchofjesuschrist.org

Yep, that is an example. After reading the testimony of those witnesses, a judicious person would examine the details of the testimony, read statements by other witmesses - including even character witnesses, examine material evidence such as the translation itself, and whatever else, perhaps the hat Joseph Smith peered into. Then judgment would come. Truth would be identified, e.g. "the appearance of gold", "plates" of some sort, possibly also bowls, the responsibility of Joseph Smith - "translator" or in the first edition "author", and so on.

A bloody knife lying on the chest of a man who bled to death is evidence, even if it turns out that it was not his blood on the knife and he had not been stabbed. On the other hand, if he was stabbed and it is his blood, that piece of evidence is more pertinent. But pertinent or not, it is evidence. The testimony of a witness is evidence, its pertinence to be determined.

Myself, I would be unhappy to hear that criminal trials no longer allow the testimony of witnesses to determine whether a crime has been committed, what the crime was, and who committed the crime.

Without that single young witness that escaped his efforts, Ted Bundy would still be killing.

If the judicial system adopted your mistaken belief that a testimony is not evidence, what a catastrophe that would be for victims of crime and of social order.