• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Demons, is there any evidence they even exist?


Veteran Member
That's not at all what I said or implied. You can't ask for meaningful evidence before you believe anything if you have no beliefs with which to critique that evidence. Which begs the question, what do atheists stand for if they believe nothing and make no claims?
This is a common mistake people make about atheists. Atheists just don't believe in god(s). That's it. Atheists can and do have beliefs about things and can and do make claims about all kinds of things in all kinds of areas. Just not in the area of god(s) existing.
You can't say theists are wrong because that would be a belief and you can't say there is no evidence because you'd be making a claim which you said atheists don't make. THATS logic.
I haven't said "theists are wrong." What I've said is, I don't believe theists claims because they are lacking in evidence that would convince me that their claims are true.
First off, one would have to believe they knew what veracity the claim was making. Second, based on the first, one would have to believe they knew how to formulate a counter argument to the veracity of that claim if one wanted to meaningfully engage at all with those that made that claim. Before you know it atheists are throwing beliefs all over the place concerning the claim. Make sense?
Not exactly. Christianity and its scriptures have probably been the most critiqued, argued over, and analyzed beliefs and writings on earth. Evidence is not lacking. Historical, philological, archeological, philosophical, testimonial, ethnological, etc.
Good evidence is lacking. Testimony (for which we don't even have any firsthand accounts) is notoriously unreliable. Never mind second and third hand accounts.

None of it is evidence for god(s). The Bible contains the god claims, not the evidence. And there are a ton of claims in the Bible - some mundane, some extraordinary. Demonstrating that one claim is true (e.g. Such-and-such a place exists) doesn't lend any credence to the more extraordinary claims contained within it (e.g. Jesus was god incarnate).

By this logic, we can claim that Islam is the "right" religion or that Apollo supernaturally helped the Greeks win the Trojan war because the books in which these stories were told, accurately named some real people and places.
The evidence is there, the interpretations may differ but in every case I've read about those differences can be intelligently and rationally debated. You think a minor Jewish cult lead by an unknown Jewish carpenter preaching love for thy enemy in a violently religious atmosphere became THE largest religion on planet earth because of faith founded on nothing tangible in the real world? That, it seems to me, would take a lot of faith itself to believe.
It's a story in an old book.

Christianity became the "largest religion on the planet" because it was spread by decree, by force and by missionaries. It doesn't take any faith to recognize that.

What do you mean by believe in? In their real sentient existence? In their existence as fictional characters? Or in their non-existence all together? How do you define them? As soon as we clarify, I can give you my considered response about what I believe. And if it apposes what you believe then it can be said that "I don't believe what you believe" because of what I do believe not because I have no belief.
What I mean is, are you convinced that leprechauns exist? The little Irish guys dressed in green that hang out with treasure at the end of rainbows.
Then atheists (you) can't debate God's existence and should remain mute on the matter. But I've yet to run into one that has. You say you don't make claims about "god" but as far as I know neither do rocks. So if atheists don't make claims then what do they do? Just sit there not claiming anything? How can they say anything about God or evidence referencing God if they make no claims referencing God?
Of course I can debate gods' existence with people who believe in gods.
Atheists respond to claims about god. Atheism itself is a response to god claims.
Take a look around this forum and you'll notice that atheists certainly can and do debate and discuss the existence/non-existence of gods.
So now your saying atheists do make claims? I'm not sure you understand what the term means. Your making a claim here for instance. Once you make a claim, that is a testament to what you believe. If you have no claims then as an atheist you can make no counter claims to the evidence presented. Your reinforcing my belief that atheists simply don't want to claim a belief or even claim they make claims because if they do they put themselves on an equal footing with theists in a debate.

Read what I said again:

This atheist doesn't make god claims. An atheist claiming "god doesn't exist" is making a claim, but the person who doesn't believe, isn't making a claim. I am rejecting the claims I've been given that god(s) exist because it doesn't convince me that god(s) exist. I'm also an aleprechanist, and an abigfootist.

Atheist: I don't believe its raining outside.
Theist: Oh, okay so I shouldn't bother to take my umbrella?
Atheist: Oh no, I didn't say that.
Theist: So you don't know if its raining outside?
Atheist: Oh no, I didn't say that either.
Theist: So what are you saying?
Atheist: I'm saying nothing about the weather outside, I'm claiming nothing.
Theist: So, "I don't believe its raining outside" means nothing about it raining?
Atheist: Correct.
Theist: Then what does it mean?
Atheist: Um...nothing.I don't buy it.
Atheist: I don't believe it's raining outside.
Atheist takes a look outside and sees it's raining.
Atheist: I believe it's raining outside.

But that's not the equivalent of the atheist/theist debates. That would go like this:
Theist: It's raining outside.
Atheist: I don't believe that. Let's look outside and take a look.
Theist: Oh no you can't look outside. You have to take my word for it. I had an experience with rain and I have a super old book that talks about rain.
Atheist: But if we looked outside, that would give us the evidence we need to determine whether or not it's raining out there.
Theist: Well no, it's raining, but if you look outside you wont' see it. You have to have faith that it's raining.
Atheist: Umm, I don't believe you.

So your claiming - Since claims are formulated from belief and rejection is founded in belief - that those claims are wrong or that you presently are too ignorant (haven't the knowledge - not an insult) to know whether they are right or wrong?
Rejection of a belief is not "founded in belief."
Seems like a cop out to me. After all your here aren't you? And discussing these interrelated topics? And you gave counter arguments which I subsequently answered.
Last edited:


Veteran Member
Hogwash, unless you're telling me that the efficacy of every medicine you've ever taken was directly verified by you in person before you took it? In the absence of personal verification we daily act on faith.
Not in the sense the religious people use the word.
I trust that the scientific method works, because I've studied it, I've used it and it has demonstrated itself to be a reliable pathway to discerning fact from fiction. So, my trust in the methodology is based on the evidence that indicates it works. And knowing that much about the scientific method also tells me that every medication doesn't work the same way in every person who takes it.

And yes, I do look up studies and information on drugs that are prescribed to me. I like to be fully informed.

Can a medicine's efficacy BE verified? Sure. Has someone verified its safety and efficacy before it got to you to take? I hope so. But until you personally verify its safety and efficacy it remains a "rumor" to you and you take it on faith.
Yes, a medicine's efficacy can be demonstrated and verified.
Scientists publish detailed studies and submit them for peer review and critique and replication, so that nobody has to rely on "rumours."
Someone tells you that there's a surprise birthday party for a coworker and they want you to be there. You take it on faith they are telling the truth if you decide to go.
After a disaster in which a chemical spill occurred near your house and you had to evacuate the local authorities tell you the air and water etc. has been tested and its safe to go home...faith again.

Need I go on?
See above.

If I asked you to demonstrate to me that say elephants exist, what sort of evidence would you show to me? Well, you could show me a photo of an elephant. You could show me an elephant's droppings or some footprints. You could provide scientific studies about elephant behaviours and habits. And you can take me to the zoo and show one to me. That would be convincing evidence for the existence of elephants.

This is not what we get with religious claims. Instead what we get are, "well there are stories about elephants in these 2000+ year old books I have here. You just have to believe, based on these testimonies that elephants exist and can carry out all kinds of supernatural actions that nobody can verify. You have to have faith that elephants exist."

This is what I mean when I point out that the evidence I require for the existence of god(s) is the same evidence I require for the existence of anything else anybody is positing. I have the same standard of evidence for both claims. But religious believers don't have that. They have one standard of evidence for everything else, and then a much lower standard of evidence when it comes to their god claims. And they seem to expect everyone else to lower their standards of evidence and "just have faith."
Simply because something cannot be independently verified at the present doesn't mean it wont ever be verifiable.
Then the time to believe it would be when it's verified, and not before.

Some of the predictions of Einstein's theories weren't verified until years later. Some of Hawking's solid scientific work are unverifiable do to a current lack of knowing how to verify them.
See above.
Why should we accept it? Sometimes I wonder why indeed. But we do. We all do, on a daily basis as I've shown above.
No. we don't. As I've just shown.
I think what we choose to accept on faith is more of an indicator of who we are as a person and is not solely based on what we think we know about how the universe works or should work.

I think I've shown that you cannot purposefully or efficiently act without faith in your life.
And I think you've committed an equivocation fallacy.
And yet we constantly choose what is "good enough evidence" to act on which is a reflection of the person not the veracity of the evidence.

Hate to break it to you but the world runs on faith. At its core, science is faith.
Nope. Science has no use for faith. It's the complete opposite of religion.
Sometimes faith is the only path to verifiable truth. Sometimes you never know the truth until you take the leap.
Faith is not a reliable pathway to truth because anything can be believed on faith. Faith is the excuse people give for believing a thing without good evidence, otherwise, they'd just give the evidence.
If everyone waited for absolute truth to come to them before they acted we would have become extinct as a species before our first sunset.
Who's talking about "absolute truth?" I don't think anything can be believed to be "absolutely true."
Your experience has told you that faith can lead one to disaster. And it can and has. But what can’t ever do that?

Faith has also lead armies to victory, survivors to salvation, and people to wonderful new discoveries. And mostly…at the root, all we are ever left with is faith.
If you say so. I have no use for religious faith.
Last edited:


Veteran Member
Which part did you miss?
Ask any human what motivates him, what they look for in a spouse, what excites them, and how willing they are to treat others as themselves. As a response you will receive nothing but selfish, depraved and superficial sentiments - not one of them being in the best interest of the person at hand.
There is clearly a spiritual warfare within the realm of heaven and earth.
You don't need a microscope or x-ray machine to detect that.
Huh? What kind of people do you hang out with?


Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
You think witches believe they are possessed by or communing exclusively with demons? Really?
Not necessarily. How might you think that I thought that? As a matter of fact, from the scriptures that does not seem to be the case. A person communicating with spirits does not necessarily think they are demons that are communicating with. But now let me ask you a question -- do you believe the spirits are persons who have died? just wondering what you believe or think...


Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Human nature has other explanations based on actual evidence. You might as well tell me ice cream is the evidence.

You are claiming something without showing how it reveals demons. How is it that this common idea of logic and reason is so misunderstood?
I do notice people can be easily influenced by (1) lack of knowledge, (2) selfishness, (3) theatrics.


Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Yes, but that does not mean our knowledge of that is binary. The answer may simply be, we don’t know if people communicate with the dead or not.
OK, my knowledge is based on several things. One is that I know I'm alive. Another is that I prefer not dying but I know I face death. Those are two very important things showing me that death and life are not the same. That's me. Maybe some people think they just pass on to another form of life. I do not. Life is life and death is not life. That's how I see it. If you see things different because you don't know -- again -- I base what I know on more than just myself. And so I am grateful for that, LC.

Left Coast

The Fabulous
Staff member
Premium Member
Not necessarily. How might you think that I thought that?

I explained that witches don't think they're communing with demons. You disagreed that they don't think that.

You tell me, what did you mean? Perhaps there was a miscommunication.

As a matter of fact, from the scriptures that does not seem to be the case. A person communicating with spirits does not necessarily think they are demons that are communicating with. But now let me ask you a question -- do you believe the spirits are persons who have died? just wondering what you believe or think...

I've answered this question already for you. I'm not convinced there are "spirits" of any kind.

Left Coast

The Fabulous
Staff member
Premium Member
OK, my knowledge is based on several things. One is that I know I'm alive. Another is that I prefer not dying but I know I face death. Those are two very important things showing me that death and life are not the same. That's me. Maybe some people think they just pass on to another form of life. I do not. Life is life and death is not life. That's how I see it. If you see things different because you don't know -- again -- I base what I know on more than just myself. And so I am grateful for that, LC.

I think most people fear death at some level, regardless of their views on the afterlife. So you're certainly not alone there. And of course, my view is based on "more than just myself" as well.


I didn't ascribe all of them to crossed wires, I also ascribed some of them to chemical imbalance as well, and although i didn't mention bigotries and hatred they are partly down to environmental influences/nurture.

And yet one can deform/lobotomise relevant areas of the brain, raise children with poor nurture etc and thereby create all of these problems in humans. Likewise people have had tumours in certain regions of the brain removed which has improved their mental condition, orphans have been nurtured in good homes etc and all of these problems which you ascribe to spirits have been prevented.

So it looks to me like we have a science which demonstrably works dealing with brain formation/chemical balance and nurture, versus claims of malevolent spirits which require bad actors and testimonials as so called evidence.

In my opinion.
The evil of which I speak is much less dramatic and much more prevalent than murder and uncompromised hate. Your average human, steals, cheats, lies, uses & abuses, bullies, imposes, etc, . All to different degrees, but invariably so.
Why is man typically such a hypocrite, in the way that he cannot treat others as he himself insist that they treat him?
This is a perverse evil, and the source of the majority of the problems in the world.

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Tangible demons - the influence is real, destructive and wicked.
If they are tangible, then why can no one provide tangible evidence? It doesn't make sense. Some people claim they can see them or their actions. You claim they are tangible. But nothing to support that or this mysterious ability to see what cannot be seen. Around but never found.

Ah well, as I said, I was rooting for you guys. I thought you were going to pull one out at the end. But no, shut out. That's too bad. I didn't see that coming.