Just supposing............ (myth, church, baptize, faith)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We see no reason to believe in demons. Give us one or more reasons to justify such a belief.
If you don't believe in forces and powers on this earth then study the United states government .
Study your president .
And while your at it try running for president without involving yourself into a religion system.
If you don't believe in forces and powers on this earth then study the United states government .
Study your president .
And while your at it try running for president without involving yourself into a religion system.
I never said I don't believe in actual forces and powers on this earth. Our president is made of flesh and blood and makes frequent public appearances, as do the various legislators, etc. I'm talking about imaginary beings and powers, not real ones.
And another blame shifting tactic. Why does your side get to make baseless claims why always demanding proof from us? You claimed that demons are fairy tales as if it is factually true. That's YOUR claim. Back it up.
Jeff,
You could prove the existence of of anything with that way of thinking.
For example, have you ever seen the movie "The Matrix"? Nobody can prove that we are all NOT living in a giant computer simulation.
Nonetheless, you don't believe we are all living in the Matrix, simply because no skeptic can prove it doesn't exist.
I see that you are attempting to reflect our charges back on us. Except it doesn't work that way.
You are making the positive claim that there are invisible evil beings called demons and that they influence humans and human affairs. We are declining to believe it on insufficient evidence. It is your burden to evidence the existence of demons. Valid evidence does not include the assertions of holy books or personal experiences. Valid evidence would be to produce an actual demon or to show a measurable and repeatable intentional effect caused by one, or perhaps like in a recent horror movie I saw, produce a radiographic image of someone's body showing a demon harbored within.
No you are claiming as FACT that they do not exist. That's your claim. Back it up. It's obvious that no amount of evidence would satisfy you anyways. Producing a demon at will? Seriously?
No you are claiming as FACT that they do not exist. That's your claim. Back it up. It's obvious that no amount of evidence would satisfy you anyways. Producing a demon at will? Seriously?
The only place I am making such a claim is in your imagination.
I see no valid reason to think that demons exist. If demons influence humans then there is a mechanism for them to do so that can be demonstrated and proven. If you can't do that then there is no basis to assert that they exist.
You are claiming AS FACT that they DO exist. That's YOUR claim. So prove it.
You simply don't want to admit that the ONLY source of information about demons is the Holy Bible and various campfire stories told by those who believe what it says. Well okay, that and the Quran.
This is a serious question because for most of human history, everything from depression to autism has been credited to demons. You (I hope) don't make THOSE claims at least because to do so would be abusive and harmful to the mentally ill and handicapped. But if this were 1715 instead of 2015 I suspect you'd be making exactly THOSE confident assertions as well. And how would you have done that? Through the magic of ignorance. 300 years ago we were entirely ignorant about the mechanisms of such things, and now we have uncovered enough of it such that even most Christians would find demons an entirely discredited explanation for mental illness or a gimp leg or bent spine or whatever, and would not send their child to an exorcist rather than a doctor.
I don't know what unknown (or denied known) you are using demons for here in the 21st century but I can't see why when 95% of what demons have been blamed for throughout human history has been shown to be something other than demons and when what's left that's unknown or inconclusive doesn't require anything but a naturalistic explanation, why you would expect demons to eventually be shown to be a root cause for anything.
No you are claiming as FACT that they do not exist. That's your claim. Back it up. It's obvious that no amount of evidence would satisfy you anyways. Producing a demon at will? Seriously?
You are badly confused about the nature of positive assertions. If the the absence of certainty, Person A advances an explanation, then it is the obligation of Person A to provide everyone else with the reasons as to why this explanation is valid and no others are. It is not the obligation of the audience to have to disprove the explanation because they are not the ones making a positive assertion.
If we were walking along and came across something puzzling, say a pile of thirty dead cats in the middle of the sidewalk, and you said that you believed that they were deposited there by an alien race of giant grasshoppers, and I said merely that I do not know how they got there, then you have generated the obligation to persuade me as to why I should believe your grasshoppers from outer space story. I have no obligation to disprove it.
So..quit trying to weasel out of the tough questions by falsely insisting that anything you assert must be disproved while you have no obligation to prove it. It makes you look really lame when you do it. We all assume that you don't do it because you know that you cannot.
You are badly confused about the nature of positive assertions. If the the absence of certainty, Person A advances an explanation, then it is the obligation of Person A to provide everyone else with the reasons as to why this explanation is valid and no others are. It is not the obligation of the audience to have to disprove the explanation because they are not the ones making a positive assertion.
If we were walking along and came across something puzzling, say a pile of thirty dead cats in the middle of the sidewalk, and you said that you believed that they were deposited there by an alien race of giant grasshoppers, and I said merely that I do not know how they got there, then you have generated the obligation to persuade me as to why I should believe your grasshoppers from outer space story. I have no obligation to disprove it.
So..quit trying to weasel out of the tough questions by falsely insisting that anything you assert must be disproved while you have no obligation to prove it. It makes you look really lame when you do it. We all assume that you don't do it because you know that you cannot.
Then the fair response is I'm sorry but you have not convinced me due to lack of evidence. That's quite different from beating your chest and arrogantly proclaiming that there is no God or demons. You are making a factual claim in the positive. BACK IT UP!
With that silly logic, if a missionary from north went to an Amazonian tribe and told them that white stuff called snow falls from the sky, they would not be convinced. They would say snow does not exist so that is proof positive that snow can not exist.
I would gladly provide evidence for my beliefs as long as I know I have an audience that isn't extremely biased and can demonstrate a willingness to accept evidence. But skeptics like here only seek to immediately find ways to discredit any evidence. That shows a complete unwillingness to give anything I bring to the table a fair shake.
Then the fair response is I'm sorry but you have not convinced me due to lack of evidence. That's quite different from beating your chest and arrogantly proclaiming that there is no God or demons. You are making a factual claim in the positive. BACK IT UP!
Did you even read what people posted?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
With that silly logic, if a missionary from north went to an Amazonian tribe and told them that white stuff called snow falls from the sky, they would not be convinced. They would say snow does not exist so that is proof positive that snow can not exist.
They would be have every reason to not be convinced, without evidence. Especially if the person telling them about snow kept refusing to give evidence. Especially after he told them he had 100 proofs for snow, but never actually produced said 100 proofs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
I would gladly provide evidence for my beliefs as long as I know I have an audience that isn't extremely biased and can demonstrate a willingness to accept evidence. But skeptics like here only seek to immediately find ways to discredit any evidence. That shows a complete unwillingness to give anything I bring to the table a fair shake.
Jeff, I really do have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. But first you need to demonstrate a willingness to accept my evidence by providing me with a $1000 down payment. I don't want to sell my bridge to anyone who isn't serious. After you give me $1000 I will give you the evidence.
Then the fair response is I'm sorry but you have not convinced me due to lack of evidence. That's quite different from beating your chest and arrogantly proclaiming that there is no God or demons. You are making a factual claim in the positive. BACK IT UP!
With that silly logic, if a missionary from north went to an Amazonian tribe and told them that white stuff called snow falls from the sky, they would not be convinced. They would say snow does not exist so that is proof positive that snow can not exist.
I would gladly provide evidence for my beliefs as long as I know I have an audience that isn't extremely biased and can demonstrate a willingness to accept evidence. But skeptics like here only seek to immediately find ways to discredit any evidence. That shows a complete unwillingness to give anything I bring to the table a fair shake.
It is clear then that you have no evidence for your positive claims that god exists and that demons exist.
In fact this post demonstrates that you are being deliberately obtuse in order to avoid proving your claims or admitting that they are unsubstantiated.
And since you are clearly stating here that you have "evidence" to offer that we would reject, it is not evidence at all, because we WOULD consider ACTUAL evidence. You have nothing to substantiate your claims, you know you do not, and you are avoiding presenting it because, I suspect, you have already presented it and it has already been demonstrated to not prove anything.
You do not want us to be open to evidence but credulous to your claims. There is a difference, and I am now convinced beyond any shadow of doubt that you know the difference.
You are making a factual claim in the positive. BACK IT UP!
And yet while you demand others do this, you never do, and constantly cop out of doing so using lines like this to justify the cop out.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
I would gladly provide evidence for my beliefs as long as I know I have an audience that isn't extremely biased and can demonstrate a willingness to accept evidence
As usual it is one rule for you and one rule for everyone else.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
