Demons, is there any evidence they even exist?

[TagliatelliMonster]

It’s about Demons being expelled from people who want them out of their lives. I posted 15 types of evidence, personal testimony and eye witness testimony are considered evidence.

Testimony is the number 1 reason why innocent people get convicted for crimes they never committed.
Independently verifiable evidence is the number 1 reason on how they get freed afterwards.

Draw the obvious conclusion concerning how reliable "testimony" is.

Testimony are in fact just claims. Things the people that give the testimony merely believe.
People lie. People make mistakes. People misremember. People can be delusional.

Testimony is the worst kind of evidence.
This is why science demands independently verifiable evidence. Not just "because I say / believe so".

So the Biblical accounts as well as my own are evidence,

No. They are the claims.

people can choose to believe it or not that’s up to them.

Sure. You can believe whatever you want. I can give you "testimony" that an undetectable dragon lives in my garage. And you can "choose to believe it" if you want.
Personally, my standard for believing things are wee bit higher then that.

But to say it’s not evidence on the basis of whether you personally believe it or not is just faulty thinking.

That's so ironic. You're only calling it evidence because you already believe it.

Evidence that isn't independently verifiable is utterly worthless.
If you disagree, then I guess you should believe that an undetectable dragon lives in my garage.
I gave you "evidence" of it after all: my "personal testimony".

 

[Apostle John]

It's actually psychiatry that deals with that kind of hallucinations. And the voices tend to go away with anti-psychotic medication.

Both psychiatry and psychology collectively tell people those kind of hallucinations are all in the head. Do you have any scientific data to back up your claim about medication? I doubt it….probably you‘ll give something vague like ‘medication can help’. It didn’t get rid of mine but Jesus Christ did.

Black holes also are very real. We have literally directly observed them.

Science has taken pictures of them through a lens similar to the human eye. They are just an illusion. The concept of black holes was started by an English clergyman John Michell in 1784. This could only have been a work of God that went on to condition the minds of scientists to seek ‘evidence’. Pictures of an optical illusion will further convince other minds and get them set for the Tribulation, saying things like space is so massive alien life forms must be out there.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

If accepting Christ, as I believe it is, is the only real criteria for salvation, then interpreting parts of the Bible as allegory should have no basis in concluding if a person is a Christian or not. In fact, the only way that I have of determining if a person is Christian is that they say they are. Christians, being human, are not perfect beings free of sin and can commit sin as well as can the unsaved. Correct?

If it is by their fruits, then some of the fruits I have seen here displayed by those claiming to be "flaming" Christians are sometimes pretty rotten.

Can Christians be wrong about their understanding of things like science or nature? Can they be Christians with a poor interpretation? Where is the evidence for this or against it?

I accept the findings of science and I am sure that marks me in your eyes. But does it really? How is anyone to know that your eyes in this are not crossed or clouded and all we get are what you believe personally and not facts.

If God gave us senses to see His Creation and the intelligence to use those senses to understand His Creation are those that do wrong or not Christian? If we want to convey that information to people that don't believe as we do, isn't it best to do so on the facts and logic and not on claims that would cloud an understanding that might lead them to believe in the long run? For those that don't understand such things, should they be allowed to deny them for no good reason placing their interpretation as the ultimate one assuming authority reserved for God?

Just some questions that I do not think are unreasonable.

Dan, you appear to be a reasonable person.

We obviously don't share the same spiritual beliefs, but I respect the way you think things through and analyze what you believe.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have thought about it and in the Day of Judgement where everyone’s secrets will be shown then everyone will be in agreement with God’s righteous Judgement.
So you are welcome to your view of God and serve the one you like the best.

It looks to me like you're avoiding thinking about it and responding about it, at all costs.
Otherwise, you'd just answer the question.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Lol, I bet you believe all the scientific theories as fact. Like hearing voices is all in the head- the pseudoscience of psychology says that. The theory of relativity is being doubted now by physicists. Don’t you believe in black holes even though humans experience optical illusions? Be honest.

I'm a psychologist, so yes, I accept the facts I have spent lots and lots of time studying the evidence for.
What do I get when I ask you for evidence? Nothing. So I'm going with the evidence.

 

[ElishaElijah]

True or not, it is men that claim they are the one's that know and following them is the only way. Often these men are at odds with each other, yet each claiming to be giving the true interpretation. How do they even know they got it right? Of course, they tell us.

Every person has the opportunity to know God and the Truth. God has given me everything I need for life and godliness in Christ Jesus. I enjoy good teaching from men and women of God but I have the Holy Spirit to teach me and He confirms the Scriptures and teaching to me.

“Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.””
‭‭John‬ ‭8‬:‭31‬-‭32‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

None can claim ignorance only whether or not they want to know God or not, we find out all kinds of information, everything is available, some people just either don’t have the desire or are just too lazy to seek out the answers IMO

 

[SkepticThinker]

Come Out In Jesus Name is showing tonight in theatre’s across the US, if you aren’t in the US you’ll have to find some Deliverance Conferences or Churches that are setting people free. But to explain here on RF to someone who is asking for 1 type of proof and dismissing everything else that doesn’t fit their mind is futile and will just have to wait, time has a way of revealing the truth.

There is only one good kind of evidence - the demonstrable and independently verifiable kind.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Every person has the opportunity to know God and the Truth. God has given me everything I need for life and godliness in Christ Jesus. I enjoy good teaching from men and women of God but I have the Holy Spirit to teach me and He confirms the Scriptures and teaching to me.

“Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.””
‭‭John‬ ‭8‬:‭31‬-‭32‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

None can claim ignorance only whether or not they want to know God or not, we find out all kinds of information, everything is available, some people just either don’t have the desire or are just too lazy to seek out the answers IMO

I definitely think you do not understand what I am talking about. Thank you for your words. I appreciate it.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Testimony is the number 1 reason why innocent people get convicted for crimes they never committed.
Independently verifiable evidence is the number 1 reason on how they get freed afterwards.

Draw the obvious conclusion concerning how reliable "testimony" is.

Testimony are in fact just claims. Things the people that give the testimony merely believe.
People lie. People make mistakes. People misremember. People can be delusional.

Testimony is the worst kind of evidence.
This is why science demands independently verifiable evidence. Not just "because I say / believe so".



No. They are the claims.



Sure. You can believe whatever you want. I can give you "testimony" that an undetectable dragon lives in my garage. And you can "choose to believe it" if you want.
Personally, my standard for believing things are wee bit higher then that.




That's so ironic. You're only calling it evidence because you already believe it.

Evidence that isn't independently verifiable is utterly worthless.
If you disagree, then I guess you should believe that an undetectable dragon lives in my garage.
I gave you "evidence" of it after all: my "personal testimony".

Still evidence nonetheless so sorry you don’t like it, go visit some places yourself, all the time you’re spending doubting, you could’ve gone to see, you seem interested so maybe just take a risk and do something different for a change.

 

[ElishaElijah]

There is only one good kind of evidence - the demonstrable kind.

You would have to go investigate for yourself, as a psychologist have you been able to unlock the key to freedom for people or not? Being able to discern the spiritual aspect with what’s going on with some people would seem to be a game changer. It was for me in helping people out. Drugs are only temporary and bad for people physically, that seems to be the standard treatment, a bandaid.

 

[Apostle John]

I'm a psychologist, so yes, I accept the facts I have spent lots and lots of time studying the evidence for.
What do I get when I ask you for evidence? Nothing. So I'm going with the evidence.

You have no facts on creation or voice hearing. Psychologists blather about hearing voices trying to convince you they’re the experts. A pseudoscience alpha male tells them ‘it’s all in the head, it must be!’ and they all follow their leader. Ask them where atoms come from and precisely how those atoms acquire consciousness and, yes as you can imagine, they offer nothing.

 

[setarcos]

Then don't say things to which I have to reply negatively, I guess.

Since these responses have been delayed you may wish to refresh your memory with posts 169 and 179.
I don't know how new at open debate you are but opening your posts with definitive statements like "No." or "Nope." is not only unnecessary but when done previous to proving your case is foolish, and arrogant. Not to mention insulting and juvenile. A novice attempt at discomposing those you’re debating and their argument by inserting an emotional component. It’s usually a sign that when one finds it hard to defend their position rationally they attack their opponent’s position emotionally by being dismissive. It’s foolish since one may be proven wrong later.

Again, I didn't claim anywhere that if a "proposition cannot be proven true then it must be false."
In fact, I think I went out of my way to explain how that is not the case.

I got the impression you did…

No. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
That's if you care about believing in as many true things as possible and not believing in as many false things as possible.

You set the tone with this statement. This indicates that any burden of proof not met is a thing which is false and should not be believed. You've linked here, proof with truth and its lack thereof with falsity.

Otherwise, we'd be stuck believing in all kinds of things that aren't true, and I'm not interested in that.

And again here, you indicate that those things that don't meet the standard for proving claims true are untrue. How would you know what has been believed that is untrue? There would have to be a standard of proof as well, correct?
It seems to me you’re treading a fine line between equivocating and clearly allowing for the possibility of "demons" so called.
Do you allow for the possibility of the existence of demons until proven otherwise? If so then we are in agreement as concerns proof and the existence of demons and need no further discussion of this particular aspect of reality.

I don't need to be told what you think that atheists think. I just told you what atheism is.

That is an unfortunate attitude and one I run into often.
I disagreed with your statement about atheism so I felt compelled to make the case that atheists do make a claim. Should I just accept what you told me without question? If we are to avoid making the fallacy of equivocation in our terms we should come to an agreement on that term. Thus this warrants further discussion.
The word itself coming from the Greek a'the(os) literally means "godless" + -ism. That is "no God" versus theism "God".

I've never said "God doesn't exist" and I don't find a lot of atheists who do.

The clear rhetoric used by every atheist I've ever been in a discussion about God with is that it doesn't exist. Even entertaining the possibility that it might exist seems to be very uncomfortable with a professed atheist.
I see a lot of religious believers claiming that about us though. But you're not talking to other atheists. You're talking to me, and responding to the things I'm saying. And I haven't claimed anywhere that "no god exists."
Fair enough. But you must realize that those believers are reacting to how atheists present themselves rhetorically and semantically.
For instance:
Stephen Hawking in the Spanish publication El Mundo is quoted as stating "...What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn't. I'm an atheist."

And…Anne Nicol Gaylor, American Atheist and women’s rights activist “There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world.”

And…Daniel Dennet, “There’s simply no polite way to tell people they’ve dedicated their lives to an illusion.” Equating their belief with illusion, which is itself an unproven position.

And…Richard Dawkins, “Religious people are atheists about all other gods, atheists only take it one god further.” Indicating religious people believe all other Gods but theirs don’t exist and atheists extend that to believing no Gods exist.

And…Martin Rowson, atheist comic artist, “If God proved he existed, I still wouldn’t believe in him…I don’t believe in God, not because I can’t but because I don’t want to” Indicating an unsupported emotional belief. Similar to what Theists are accused of.

And…Philosopher Thomas Nagel, “I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.” Here again, an emotional faith based belief system.

And…Evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin, has an “a prior commitment to materialism. “Materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.” A prior commitment? Speaks for itself. Faith based again.

And…Michael Ruse, “if you want a concession, I’ve always said that naturalism is an act of faith”

And…George Klein, in his book The Atheist in the Holy City, “ I am an atheist. My attitude is not based on science, but rather on faith…The absence of a Creator, the non-existence of God is my childhood faith, my adult belief, unshakable and holy” Another Atheist with a belief system about God. See the pattern here?

And…Isaac Asimov, “I am an atheist, out and out. I’ve been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn’t have. …I finally decided that I’m a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally, I’m an atheist. I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect that he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time” A very respectable scientist and author in his time. I love his books. But again…an emotional component to his atheist beliefs.

And…Christopher Hitchens, In The Atlantic July 2007 issue “I think we can say with reasonable certainty that there is no God because all hypotheses for it have been exploded or abandoned.” Seems like a statement of belief here. And him being one of the preeminent spokesmen for atheistic belief in his time.

As Christopher puts it, I think we can safely say that the majority of atheists unavoidably formulate a belief in Gods non-existence. Not simply (no belief) on the subject for that would mean no intellectual engagement at all on the subject but engaging in debate and proving a “lack of proof” of God seems to become a proof of “lack of God” for many atheists, formulated into a belief.

So, again, you’ll have to forgive me for presuming that, realistically, atheists generally have a clear belief system in place and that belief is that God does not exist.
You are correct though, I am talking to you and not to other atheists and merely presupposing certain understanding when you use an apparently ill-defined word without clarification goes to show us just how easily the waters can get muddied.
Shall we agree then that you neither believe nor dis-believe in Gods existence but believe in Gods existence being a possibility the same as proposed for “demons” above?
Logically, that is neither A nor B until proven but A or B of necessity? If so, then we are in agreement and need go no further in this thread other than to say that personal proof of demons may exist whereas universal or general proof is lacking.

Continued in next post...

 

[SkepticThinker]

You would have to go investigate for yourself, as a psychologist have you been able to unlock the key to freedom for people or not? Being able to discern the spiritual aspect with what’s going on with some people would seem to be a game changer. It was for me in helping people out. Drugs are only temporary and bad for people physically, that seems to be the standard treatment, a bandaid.

I have investigated supposed exorcisms and I find them completely lacking in good evidence. Nobody has demonstrated the existence of demons in any demonstrable or independently verifiable way.

Psychologists don't deal in drugs, that would be psychiatrists. I deal in talk therapy. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy has helped many people, including myself. There are many other useful methods available as well.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You have no facts on creation or voice hearing. Psychologists blather about hearing voices trying to convince you they’re the experts. A pseudoscience alpha male tells them ‘it’s all in the head, it must be!’ and they all follow their leader. Ask them where atoms come from and precisely how those atoms acquire consciousness and, yes as you can imagine, they offer nothing.

You're right, there are no facts about "creation." Such a thing has never been demonstrated.

Psychologists don't blather about anything. We listen to people who tell us what is bothering them, and attempt to help them with the well vetted tools we have available to us, that have been shown to be useful in helping people deal with mental illness.

I'm a woman so I don't know what you're going on about alpha males for. I don't know what you're going on about atoms for either.

Your attempt to make psychology into some weird religion is noted and discarded as nonsense. I have no interest in religion.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Since these responses have been delayed you may wish to refresh your memory with posts 169 and 179.
I don't know how new at open debate you are but opening your posts with definitive statements like "No." or "Nope." is not only unnecessary but when done previous to proving your case is foolish, and arrogant. Not to mention insulting and juvenile. A novice attempt at discomposing those you’re debating and their argument by inserting an emotional component. It’s usually a sign that when one finds it hard to defend their position rationally they attack their opponent’s position emotionally by being dismissive. It’s foolish since one may be proven wrong later.



I got the impression you did…

You set the tone with this statement. This indicates that any burden of proof not met is a thing which is false and should not be believed. You've linked here, proof with truth and its lack thereof with falsity.

And again here, you indicate that those things that don't meet the standard for proving claims true are untrue. How would you know what has been believed that is untrue? There would have to be a standard of proof as well, correct?
It seems to me you’re treading a fine line between equivocating and clearly allowing for the possibility of "demons" so called.
Do you allow for the possibility of the existence of demons until proven otherwise? If so then we are in agreement as concerns proof and the existence of demons and need no further discussion of this particular aspect of reality.

That is an unfortunate attitude and one I run into often.
I disagreed with your statement about atheism so I felt compelled to make the case that atheists do make a claim. Should I just accept what you told me without question? If we are to avoid making the fallacy of equivocation in our terms we should come to an agreement on that term. Thus this warrants further discussion.
The word itself coming from the Greek a'the(os) literally means "godless" + -ism. That is "no God" versus theism "God".


The clear rhetoric used by every atheist I've ever been in a discussion about God with is that it doesn't exist. Even entertaining the possibility that it might exist seems to be very uncomfortable with a professed atheist.
I see a lot of religious believers claiming that about us though. But you're not talking to other atheists. You're talking to me, and responding to the things I'm saying. And I haven't claimed anywhere that "no god exists."
Fair enough. But you must realize that those believers are reacting to how atheists present themselves rhetorically and semantically.
For instance:
Stephen Hawking in the Spanish publication El Mundo is quoted as stating "...What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn't. I'm an atheist."

And…Anne Nicol Gaylor, American Atheist and women’s rights activist “There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world.”

And…Daniel Dennet, “There’s simply no polite way to tell people they’ve dedicated their lives to an illusion.” Equating their belief with illusion, which is itself an unproven position.

And…Richard Dawkins, “Religious people are atheists about all other gods, atheists only take it one god further.” Indicating religious people believe all other Gods but theirs don’t exist and atheists extend that to believing no Gods exist.

And…Martin Rowson, atheist comic artist, “If God proved he existed, I still wouldn’t believe in him…I don’t believe in God, not because I can’t but because I don’t want to” Indicating an unsupported emotional belief. Similar to what Theists are accused of.

And…Philosopher Thomas Nagel, “I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.” Here again, an emotional faith based belief system.

And…Evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin, has an “a prior commitment to materialism. “Materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.” A prior commitment? Speaks for itself. Faith based again.

And…Michael Ruse, “if you want a concession, I’ve always said that naturalism is an act of faith”

And…George Klein, in his book The Atheist in the Holy City, “ I am an atheist. My attitude is not based on science, but rather on faith…The absence of a Creator, the non-existence of God is my childhood faith, my adult belief, unshakable and holy” Another Atheist with a belief system about God. See the pattern here?

And…Isaac Asimov, “I am an atheist, out and out. I’ve been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn’t have. …I finally decided that I’m a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally, I’m an atheist. I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect that he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time” A very respectable scientist and author in his time. I love his books. But again…an emotional component to his atheist beliefs.

And…Christopher Hitchens, In The Atlantic July 2007 issue “I think we can say with reasonable certainty that there is no God because all hypotheses for it have been exploded or abandoned.” Seems like a statement of belief here. And him being one of the preeminent spokesmen for atheistic belief in his time.

As Christopher puts it, I think we can safely say that the majority of atheists unavoidably formulate a belief in Gods non-existence. Not simply (no belief) on the subject for that would mean no intellectual engagement at all on the subject but engaging in debate and proving a “lack of proof” of God seems to become a proof of “lack of God” for many atheists, formulated into a belief.

So, again, you’ll have to forgive me for presuming that, realistically, atheists generally have a clear belief system in place and that belief is that God does not exist.
You are correct though, I am talking to you and not to other atheists and merely presupposing certain understanding when you use an apparently ill-defined word without clarification goes to show us just how easily the waters can get muddied.
Shall we agree then that you neither believe nor dis-believe in Gods existence but believe in Gods existence being a possibility the same as proposed for “demons” above?
Logically, that is neither A nor B until proven but A or B of necessity? If so, then we are in agreement and need go no further in this thread other than to say that personal proof of demons may exist whereas universal or general proof is lacking.

Continued in next post...

Okay, I'm done with this conversation. I don't need someone telling me how I need to post or what I "really" believe.
And I don't believe your claims about other atheists, having spent a number of years on this board. Also I don't care, because you're talking to me, not them.
Have a nice day.

 

[setarcos]

No. Did I not make this clear with the gumball analogy?

And what about my logical analysis did you not understand? Or "not believe"? "I don't believe" is itself a belief. Look again at the experts in the field that I quoted above. This whole business with "Not having a belief" being equated with "Not believing" is a desperate semantic maneuver by atheists in order to avoid commitment to a belief founded on the same principles that religious peoples found theirs on. That is – faith and emotion. If "I don't believe" is not a declaration of what you believe about someone else's belief then you render the phrase meaningless since one has to believe something in order to engage in meaningful thought about something else.
In having "No belief" you can neither say anyone is right or wrong. Atheism becomes a belief in nothing - neither saying God exists or doesn't exist, theists are right or wrong. Once you make Atheism something without a belief it becomes an idea making no case, and having no intellectual use. It becomes nothing but a word describing nothing which is no belief.

I haven't made any anti-theist claims. So again, let's stick to the discussion at hand and not some made-up one.

I hadn't thought I accused you of anti-theist claims? The linguistic tense I get from "anti" is: against theists - an emotional issue. I used the term antithesis to indicate: opposite of theistic belief - a reason based position - not specifically against theists.
I do try not to simply make things up thank you.

It's not minutiae. It's something I really need you to understand.

And I'd love to get to that understanding...a mutual one. I noticed you didn't say whether or not you agreed.

Boy, oh, boy talk about semantic quibbles. You seem to have missed the entire point of the analogy by getting all bogged down with this minutiae.

I'm afraid in this instance it’s not quibbling. Analysis of the minutiae in order to see the fallacy is necessary here. I got the point you were trying to get across. My analysis was in answer and that is what your counter points should focus on.

Saying "NO" when I ask you if you think the number of gumballs is even, doesn't mean you believe that the amount of gum balls is an odd number. There aren't only two possibilities. Rather, there are three. Yes, no, and I don't know.

Very good. If you read your reply again here you'll get to my point. You’re trying to equate saying “no” with saying “I don't know”. That's incorrect. Yes - a definitive - there are an odd number is a commitment to oddity. Saying “no”, also a definitive, to an odd number is a commitment to its opposite, an even number. Saying “I don't know” is not a definitive but rather a deferment of commitment to a belief pending further knowledge. Saying "No", which you did in the analogy and saying "I don't know", which you meant, are not the same thing. If yes, affirms oddness and saying "I don't know" defers committing to either odd or even, what does saying no mean?

"I don't believe the number of gumballs is even" Is not a definitive statement.

My argument that it is can be found above. Of course if you simply want to believe that it isn't regardless of addressing my argument I can't prevent you.

"The number of gumballs is even" is a definitive statement.

Agreed. And "I don't believe..." is a definitive answer.

Belief and knowledge claims are different things.

I agree. But in the analogy I was showing that presumed knowledge was sufficient to formulate a belief. That is how all human beliefs normally establish themselves.

Of course we can. We just need evidence. All we have to do is count the gumballs.

That is self-evident. However, we are referring to the conditions of your analogy in which a decision was to be made prior to establishing supporting evidence.

Anything is possible, theoretically. I'm concerned with what is probable.

I disagree. Contradictions are realistically impossible.
Ah, there it is - Probability. So what is the probability that an unrepeatable, unprovable, individual experience concerning an unknown aspect of reality can happen? How do you quantify such things?

 

[setarcos]

Okay, I'm done with this conversation. I don't need someone telling me how I need to post or what I "really" believe.
Have a nice day.

??Explaining why is not telling you how. And how did I tell you what you "really" believe?? I thought we were debating what you "really" believed? We cannot have progress in discussions on these forums if we bring in too large of an emotional element to our reasoning.
I'm sorry you've felt insulted and consequently determined to end our conversation here. That was not my intentions.
You have a nice day as well.

 

[Apostle John]

You're right, there are no facts about "creation." Such a thing has never been demonstrated.

Psychologists don't blather about anything. We listen to people who tell us what is bothering them, and attempt to help them with the well vetted tools we have available to us, that have been shown to be useful in helping people deal with mental illness.

I'm a woman so I don't know what you're going on about alpha males for. I don't know what you're going on about atoms for either.

Your attempt to make psychology into some weird religion is noted and discarded as nonsense. I have no interest in religion.

When I was atheist and being bothered with voices I was given a female psychologist. I thought I was telepathic at the time and remember telling her that soldiers are taught not to look at the back of their enemies head when creeping up on them, as I’d heard of this elsewhere.

She said this was a result of evolution….. Lolly lol lol.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I have investigated supposed exorcisms and I find them completely lacking in good evidence. Nobody has demonstrated the existence of demons in any demonstrable or independently verifiable way.

Psychologists don't deal in drugs, that would be psychiatrists. I deal in talk therapy. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy has helped many people, including myself. There are many other useful methods available as well.

I said spiritual issues that keep people stuck, sure there are issues other than spiritual problems but no discipline could heal a broken heart, abuse victim, drug addict. Talk therapy all you want it was all nonsense to us and didn’t work, we exhausted all those avenues and everyone gave up on us except God was there and delivered us. Psalm 107 you can find our stories.
Demons cannot be expelled by discipline, fleshly lusts can but with me it was always trading one addiction for another, no healing or help no answers with why am I here and what’s my purpose. Only God could answer those questions.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And what about my logical analysis did you not understand? Or "not believe"? "I don't believe" is itself a belief. Look again at the experts in the field that I quoted above. This whole business with "Not having a belief" being equated with "Not believing" is a desperate semantic maneuver by atheists in order to avoid commitment to a belief founded on the same principles that religious peoples found theirs on. That is – faith and emotion. If "I don't believe" is not a declaration of what you believe about someone else's belief then you render the phrase meaningless since one has to believe something in order to engage in meaningful thought about something else.
In having "No belief" you can neither say anyone is right or wrong. Atheism becomes a belief in nothing - neither saying God exists or doesn't exist, theists are right or wrong. Once you make Atheism something without a belief it becomes an idea making no case, and having no intellectual use. It becomes nothing but a word describing nothing which is no belief.


I hadn't thought I accused you of anti-theist claims? The linguistic tense I get from "anti" is: against theists - an emotional issue. I used the term antithesis to indicate: opposite of theistic belief - a reason based position - not specifically against theists.
I do try not to simply make things up thank you.


And I'd love to get to that understanding...a mutual one. I noticed you didn't say whether or not you agreed.


I'm afraid in this instance it’s not quibbling. Analysis of the minutiae in order to see the fallacy is necessary here. I got the point you were trying to get across. My analysis was in answer and that is what your counter points should focus on.


Very good. If you read your reply again here you'll get to my point. You’re trying to equate saying “no” with saying “I don't know”. That's incorrect. Yes - a definitive - there are an odd number is a commitment to oddity. Saying “no”, also a definitive, to an odd number is a commitment to its opposite, an even number. Saying “I don't know” is not a definitive but rather a deferment of commitment to a belief pending further knowledge. Saying "No", which you did in the analogy and saying "I don't know", which you meant, are not the same thing. If yes, affirms oddness and saying "I don't know" defers committing to either odd or even, what does saying no mean?


My argument that it is can be found above. Of course if you simply want to believe that it isn't regardless of addressing my argument I can't prevent you.


Agreed. And "I don't believe..." is a definitive answer.


I agree. But in the analogy I was showing that presumed knowledge was sufficient to formulate a belief. That is how all human beliefs normally establish themselves.


That is self-evident. However, we are referring to the conditions of your analogy in which a decision was to be made prior to establishing supporting evidence.


I disagree. Contradictions are realistically impossible.
Ah, there it is - Probability. So what is the probability that an unrepeatable, unprovable, individual experience concerning an unknown aspect of reality can happen? How do you quantify such things?

I don't believe, or I'm not convinced is NOT a belief. It's a lack of belief.
Sorry you don't understand.