_Only, on 12 November 2012 - 07:00 AM, said:
The problem here is a common one in arguments here: explain how your view is right, but you have to use my view's rules to do it.
In this case, a certain group of people are determined that the only things that are 'real' in the span of our consciousness are things that can be tested physically. All else unexplained physically is some kind of mistake or trick of a physical thing in their eyes, and gets chalked up to the mysterious brain.
While another group of people are determined that there is something more than the simply physical aspect of our consciousness. This group spans so many branching offshoots that it's hard to concisely label them any more than that, but in this case, we'll call them people who believe that physical byproducts we see in the mind can be caused by something beyond the physical. Why do they feel this way? We, as humans, have felt and thought these type of things all through our living history. It's just a part of who we are.
The problem lies in one side (in this case, the physical side) attempting to make the other validate their feelings on the subject, but must use physical 'rules' (aka scientific/empirical evidence) to validate their non-physical things. This type of back and forth can never possibly go anywhere. Yet I still see "can't be scientifically proven" as an opposing argument every single time. It just doesn't make sense. It is "I am right, and you can't prove otherwise, using my rules".
I think your mistake here is that you're assuming this discussion is about 'everything' which is touted as 'spiritual.' There is a big difference between 'spirituality' and the claims that there are evil entities which can haunt, hurt, damage, and possess people, places, and things. As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is solely about the latter. I am not questioning 'spirituality' by the way, which in my personal opinion is very real, but entails only light and love; not darkness and evil. Please notice that I'm expressing that last bit as a personal belief, and one which I don't think can be proven to anyone else's satisfaction; but you won't find me arguing or debating about this on a forum or anywhere else either.
People, places, and things are physical. They are measurable, testable, and verifiable. If a claim is made that some kind of evil entity can have a direct physical impact on these physical things, that impact should be measurable, testable, and verifiable. We have the scientific method at our disposal for this kind of thing, and it is by far the single most beneficial tool for the advancement of physical human understanding. If there is a better tool, or more a appropriate set of rules that can be used for this, what is it?
_Only, on 12 November 2012 - 07:00 AM, said:
Another problem is when the opposing side is forced to give in and attempt to explain their abstract view of things, using your rules. It gets labelled malarkey, mysticism, and.. "foggy woo-woo". There is no way to get through the wall. Now you can start to see why some of the people here who are attempting to defend their views (as you and no one else here will deny are attacked) get so defensive in the discussion.
These are things I have noticed after seeing a ton of these threads go the way they do, and after awhile the side I used to see as the strong side in the debate is slowly starting to drop down in their righteosness. The other side isn't necessarily gaining any ground, but I can start to sympathize with their stance more.
I believe that what you and others may perceive as
attacks against the person are actually
attacks against the idea that has been placed on the table. Once someone puts their thoughts on the table, especially if they represent those thoughts as being authoritative and genuine
honest-to-God factsTM, they will be examined and intensely scrutinized. Please try to understand though that it is the idea on the table which is being attacked, not the person who put it there. That is
my intention when I'm involved in these kinds of discussions anyway, though I can see how people who are overly attached to their ideas can take that kind of thing personally and become defensive.
_Only, on 12 November 2012 - 07:00 AM, said:
I'll just finish with the final note that we all have our demons inside. Whether you will attribute them to a physical organ going haywire, random physical events happening in lives, forces in the mind from some other state of being, or evil monsters in the clouds, you can't deny that we all have our evil spirits, and they are inside. Sakari has his share, some maybe his, some perhaps others in his group of family and friends that affect him negatively. There is no doubt that these demons exist, despite anyone's willingness to admit it. What they are, in reality, is the only question.
But in the end, he is asking for proof of something which he simply already knows exists. He is just taking an adolescent stab at other peoples interpretation of stories, thinking these physical representations can happen to him by someone waving their magic wand. Meanwhile he sits with his demons every day, and rests with them every night. Yet no one has been successful yet, in his eyes.
We;;, it hasn't been 'scientifically proven', at least.
I don't disagree with the core principle of what I think you are communicating here. People are prone to feeling and experiencing things which can be described as darkness, depression, sadness, foreboding, and helplessness. We can call them demons, but it could just as easily be the same kind of label or name that could be termed sorrow, regret, shame, anger, and other emotional and/or psychological difficulties. We all experience such things to varying degrees, but that doesn't make it a physical
entity or an evil 'spiritual'
entity with the power and ability to affect the physical.
So when someone puts forth the claim that this is what they are, the claim should be open for discussion, testing, and scrutiny.
_Only, on 12 November 2012 - 07:00 AM, said:
Footnote, that shouldn't be necessary for those who somewhat know me around here, before I get attacked: I don't believe spooks will throw a brick at me or a demon will toss me against the wall when I use a Ouija board. But I believe there are dark forces in the mind. Where they originate I can't pretend to know. But physical just doesn't cut it for me. I am man; I will always wonder of more beyond the physical.
I think that I see where you're coming from Matt, and I personally believe that there is more to it than just the physical. Where I get hung up is when people say that there are evil entities roaming around wreaking havoc on a select few of us. I don't give that idea any weight at all because I simply don't believe that evil itself is even real, and let me explain why.
When you really boil this down to the basic extremes, you have something of substance being measured
against itself with varying degrees.
Consider ignorance versus knowledge. Is ignorance an actual thing with substance? Or is it merely the absence of knowledge?
Consider darkness versus light. Is darkness a tangible thing? Or is it merely the absence of light?
I view good and evil in the same way, where evil is merely a measurement of the intensity or lack of good. Evil has no substance in and of itself. Even actions and behavior that people typically associate with evil can be defined as twisted and misguided attempts to obtain or achieve qualities or attributes which are potentially positive and beneficial when found through otherwise legitimate means.
This is my opinion and I share it as such. It is not an effort to convince or debate, but to simply provide a better understanding of where I'm coming from as an individual.
_Only, on 12 November 2012 - 07:00 AM, said:
Now let's dig up the statistics on harm and deaths caused by doctor prescribed psychiatric medication side effects and complications, and see which side's tally towers over the other. 'Exorcisms vs. pills'. A priest may have given Analeise a death sentence through medical abandonment, but my doctor gave me diabetes.
. This is a logical fallacy, and it bears no direct relevance to the claims that there are evil entities possessing people, places, and things. I sympathize with your personal experience with your doctor, don't get me wrong, but hopefully you can see that it isn't applicable in this debate. The medical field opens itself to scrutiny in order to be validated and advanced through the scientific method. Where are the standards by which exorcists and exorcisms should be measured?
_Only, on 12 November 2012 - 07:00 AM, said:
It's be such a cool thing at this point then, that both sides would drop a holier than thou mentality, as it is not cohesive to getting to the root of things.
I agree.
22
