[Mademoiselle de Lioncourt]

Paul Noise, on 20 November 2009 - 02:40 PM, said:

See, that's what I'm talking about. Logic has nothing to do with belief. Being skeptical refers to one who questions the validity of specific claims of knowledge by employing or calling for statements of fact to prove or disprove claims, as a tool for understanding causality. But beyond that, a good skeptic, or more importanly a good scientist, should suggest a better reason that the supposed events took place. In the case of demon possession, we have mental disorder. Psychopathy and schizophrenia are reasonable alternative explanations for the behaviors displayed by supposedly possessed individuals. The reason these are reasonable alternatives is because we have proof of their existance and have effectively treated these conditions with therapy and medication. Hundreds of thousands of people have been succesfully treated for these conditions. People who have been successfully treated for demon possession, that has been verified by any type of medical institution? Nil. And in the world that we live in, scince is the best way that we as humans have for explaining causality. The authority of the church in these matters no longer holds any sway. We have to evolve beyond superstition and fairy tales if we want to progress as a species. Maybe demons are very real and do constantly take hold of young, weak impressionable girls with fundamentally religious backgrounds. I don't know. But until someone can provide more than a tape recorded voice, or a journal of an unreliable source, then yes, I have no choice but to rely on the proven methods for treating psychosis that we have been fortunate enough to have gained by people who had the nerve to go against excepted tradition, and ask, "What else could it be?".

Why must you turn to science?
Science is just as illogical as The Church.
I don't even want to go off-topic explaining how illogical some things are that scientist say are true.
As I was saying in the beginning...Some things do not require evidence to be true.
"People who have been successfully treated for demon possession, that has been verified by any type of medical institution?" How the hell is this a question? lmao...I'm sorry. If you're going to argue about this subject; with me, you have to use correct sentence structure and end it with correct punctuation. That was a simple sentence with a fragment without correct grammatically coordination. Otherwise, I'll view you as incompetent and just a waste of my time. I can't even read past that "sentence" without laughing.
Ah. You're you, and I'm not trying to change your opinion. I'm growing bore of this anyway. It's not like you're stating something interesting that I haven't heard before. I thought you were going to enlighten me with something new, but as always people have the same old argument, and will continue to have the same old argument. *sigh* On both sides. Haha.

[Paranormalcy]

Please address the point of the topic, not other posters or their perceived "shortcomings", and do not be uncivil stating to someone you're going to consider them incompetent, if they have different ideas - that is not discourse, it is unkind behavior. Lastly, UM policy prohibits trying to correct other posters' grammar or spelling - a diatribe because of one awkwardly stated question (which I can understand just looking at it) is not a valid reason for this policy to be relaxed.


Science is not "illogical", by definition, as its purpose is to examine the world around us, understand and describe and explain it using observation, hypothesizing, testing for repeatability and consistency and so on, on a practical, real-life level that applies to everyone and everything, and is therefore universally relevant to understanding how things work and what they are. The Church and religion is not anywhere close to possessing this kind of rigorous criteria and critical thinking and questioning - it is about faith and spiritual growth - it is nonsensical to compare the two in any way.

The point is that your average person went through with the usual schooling and had practical experiences and jobs, develops a pragmatic and rationalist, even logical, approach to life as he or she experiences it, and considers what mundane explanations there are for something anomalous, not giving automatic equal validity to what is seen as "left field" or "fringe" ideas, which might interpret something as psychic powers, psi balls, orbs, shadow people, ghosts, UFOs, poltergeists, demon possession, etc.

Those unorthodox ideas may even be somewhere in that person's list of possible interpretations for an event, but they are not at the forefront, and more mundane, practical and critical options are considered first, and not surprisingly, these are almost always the ones that fit, as long as the person has access to the proper information.

[Mademoiselle de Lioncourt]

Paranormalcy, on 21 November 2009 - 04:07 AM, said:

Please address the point of the topic, not other posters or their perceived "shortcomings", and do not be uncivil stating to someone you're going to consider them incompetent, if they have different ideas - that is not discourse, it is unkind behavior. Lastly, UM policy prohibits trying to correct other posters' grammar or spelling - a diatribe because of one awkwardly stated question (which I can understand just looking at it) is not a valid reason for this policy to be relaxed.


Science is not "illogical", by definition, as its purpose is to examine the world around us, understand and describe and explain it using observation, hypothesizing, testing for repeatability and consistency and so on, on a practical, real-life level that applies to everyone and everything, and is therefore universally relevant to understanding how things work and what they are. The Church and religion is not anywhere close to possessing this kind of rigorous criteria and critical thinking and questioning - it is about faith and spiritual growth - it is nonsensical to compare the two in any way.

The point is that your average person went through with the usual schooling and had practical experiences and jobs, develops a pragmatic and rationalist, even logical, approach to life as he or she experiences it, and considers what mundane explanations there are for something anomalous, not giving automatic equal validity to what is seen as "left field" or "fringe" ideas, which might interpret something as psychic powers, psi balls, orbs, shadow people, ghosts, UFOs, poltergeists, demon possession, etc.

Those unorthodox ideas may even be somewhere in that person's list of possible interpretations for an event, but they are not at the forefront, and more mundane, practical and critical options are considered first, and not surprisingly, these are almost always the ones that fit, as long as the person has access to the proper information.

Observation...You can observe something for a long period of time and see a repeating cycle. Then you make a hypothesis about your observation. A hypothesis is "An assumption taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation." So a hypothesis is assumed true by observation. That's not really proving anything, in my opinion, it's just a postulate; something you're accepting to be true. What if that one time the thing you're observing that you made the hypothesis about changes? Then the cycle is not repeating itself. Then that means that your conjecture is illogical and can easily be proved wrong with a counterexample. :/

[yamamato]

I met a hooded white figure in my sleep, and I'm not sure if was a demon or not. It asked "are you alright?", and I'm not sure what this dream means or signifies. Any ideas guys? At first I thought I was awake, as the dream was set in my room and I was exactly where I was (in bed), and to this day I am confused whether it really was a dream or not.

[Jerry Only]

yamamato, on 22 November 2009 - 03:21 AM, said:

I met a hooded white figure in my sleep, and I'm not sure if was a demon or not. It asked "are you alright?", and I'm not sure what this dream means or signifies. Any ideas guys? At first I thought I was awake, as the dream was set in my room and I was exactly where I was (in bed), and to this day I am confused whether it really was a dream or not.

Sounds like you met a thing. Lol. Other people have seen or met things, but we don't know what to call them. So, due to religion, we call "things" that are negative or dark demons, and "things" that are positive or light angels. Most people would call that an angel you met, others something about spirit guide or whatever. I just say you met a thing that cared enough to ask you if you were alright.

[Agent. Mulder]

Mademoiselle de Lioncourt, on 21 November 2009 - 02:53 AM, said:

"Sometimes even, the proof is in plain site, but you're too blind into seeking evidence that you pass right over it."

I spoke for myself when I said that.
I'm blind as a bat actually.

hmmmm.
so, nothing?

[Mademoiselle de Lioncourt]

Agent. Mulder, on 22 November 2009 - 05:43 PM, said:

hmmmm.
so, nothing?

Yes, if I'm blind I see nothing.