Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
Vivica

Demons

333 posts in this topic

I'm not sure how strongly faith plays into one's ability to destroy demons, but I can with certainty say that a person's non-belief in demons will 100% prevent any encounters with them. :tu:

The evidence speaks otherwise. Because you have not experienced something does not make that thing impossible.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The evidence speaks otherwise. Because you have not experienced something does not make that thing impossible.

Which evidence? The dodgy videos or the erstwhile, yet unprovable (and yes undisprovable) eyewitness accounts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how strongly faith plays into one's ability to destroy demons, but I can with certainty say that a person's non-belief in demons will 100% prevent any encounters with them. :tu:

This is not true, I experienced demons before I had any sort of religion...

I became aware of them, after I experienced them, not before, is what I mean...

Edited by SpiritWriter
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not true, I experienced demons before I had any sort of religion...

I became aware of them, after I experienced them, not before, is what I mean...

I think we are talking about different things. When I say non-belief in demons, I'm talking about actively asserting and believing them to be fake and figments of the imagination. I'm not talking about not having found religion, or merely not being aware of demons. The reason for this being that when you practice non-belief in demons or ghosts or bigfoots or whatever...all the things that people see and jump to the conclusion that they must be paranormal just end up being easily explainable naturally occurring phenomenon.

Edited by orangepeaceful79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which evidence? The dodgy videos or the erstwhile, yet unprovable (and yes undisprovable) eyewitness accounts?

You don't understand what evidence is. Properly vetted and corroborated testimony can stand as very good evidence. If you were in a court of law and called as a juror you would accept testimony as evidence. If someone you loved was a victim of a crime you would expect the jurors to accept such evidence. It's only in the fake world of the Internet that people reject such evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason for this being that when you practice non-belief in demons or ghosts or bigfoots or whatever...all the things that people see and jump to the conclusion that they must be paranormal just end up being easily explainable naturally occurring phenomenon.

This is simply your unsubstantiated testimony you expect us to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't understand what evidence is. Properly vetted and corroborated testimony can stand as very good evidence. If you were in a court of law and called as a juror you would accept testimony as evidence. If someone you loved was a victim of a crime you would expect the jurors to accept such evidence. It's only in the fake world of the Internet that people reject such evidence.

Any good trial lawyer knows you should never convict on the basis of eyewitness testimony alone - you must have physical evidence also to build a solid case. Eyewitnesses are inherently unreliable as objective measurers. This is because our senses are subjective and everything we experience through them is subject to the filters in our minds. An eyewitness can believe 100% that he or she is telling the truth and still recall many things inaccurately. I'm not calling eyewitnesses of paranormal activity liars. Please don't misunderstand me.

Its not just my opinion...

http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=98096

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm

http://www.law.yale.edu/news/2727.htm

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any good trial lawyer knows you should never convict on the basis of eyewitness testimony alone - you must have physical evidence also to build a solid case. Eyewitnesses are inherently unreliable as objective measurers. This is because our senses are subjective and everything we experience through them is subject to the filters in our minds. An eyewitness can believe 100% that he or she is telling the truth and still recall many things inaccurately. I'm not calling eyewitnesses of paranormal activity liars. Please don't misunderstand me.

Its not just my opinion...

http://www.ncjrs.gov...t.aspx?ID=98096

http://agora.stanfor...her&tversky.htm

http://www.law.yale.edu/news/2727.htm

So your position has changed. Now you are are willing to accept testimony under some circumstances. This is exactly what I'm saying.

I never said accept any testimony. I said vetted and corroborated testimony, examples ... multiple witnesses, witness stature and status (experts are consistently given greater weight in trial), witness motive, witness consistency. There are many factors. Obviously people are mistaken and yes people lie including some who have claimed to have experienced paranormal events. Yes, people make mistakes in testimony, but that does not mean testimony is unusable as evidence. People are convicted in cases where testimony is the determining factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are talking about different things. When I say non-belief in demons, I'm talking about actively asserting and believing them to be fake and figments of the imagination. I'm not talking about not having found religion, or merely not being aware of demons. The reason for this being that when you practice non-belief in demons or ghosts or bigfoots or whatever...all the things that people see and jump to the conclusion that they must be paranormal just end up being easily explainable naturally occurring phenomenon.

But to say that you don't believe in 'the natural occurring phenomenon' that you have actually experienced, and pretending that it was indeed something else is being in denial... I'm not going to play tricks on my mind like that. This is for ME. I know what I have seen, so I know they exist...

Edited by SpiritWriter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't watch 'The Grudge' anymore.

she's more like the mermaids I saw in the ice age 4. she creates an illusion of a hot blond girl but my perception rapidly shifts between her true scary form & that fake blond.

Edited by C235

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

she's more like the mermaids I saw in the ice age 4. she creates an illusion of a hot blond girl but my perception rapidly shifts between her true scary form & that fake blond.

*shrugs* I haven't seen Ice Age 4. My hair is mostly prematurely gray on it's own but if anyone wants to be a fake blonde, let them be. At least you know she's not the typical Asian ghost that's come up recently in pop culture. :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got rid of a demon once, I divorced her daughter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is simply your unsubstantiated testimony you expect us to believe.

So your position has changed. Now you are are willing to accept testimony under some circumstances. This is exactly what I'm saying.

I never said accept any testimony. I said vetted and corroborated testimony, examples ... multiple witnesses, witness stature and status (experts are consistently given greater weight in trial), witness motive, witness consistency. There are many factors. Obviously people are mistaken and yes people lie including some who have claimed to have experienced paranormal events. Yes, people make mistakes in testimony, but that does not mean testimony is unusable as evidence. People are convicted in cases where testimony is the determining factor.

But to say that you don't believe in 'the natural occurring phenomenon' that you have actually experienced, and pretending that it was indeed something else is being in denial... I'm not going to play tricks on my mind like that. This is for ME. I know what I have seen, so I know they exist...

Meh. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not trying to take anyone's beliefs away, so it was silly of me to make the snarky blanket statement in the first post I threw out. I live in a house that supposedly is haunted - or so I've been told very earnestly. I don't believe it. I've never seen a smidge of anything unexplainable happen in my house. So whats the difference? Either they are gullible or I'm in denial. No way to prove either I suppose.

Nobody here needs my permission to believe in demons. Until someone produces some kind of irrefutable, smoking gun evidence of their existence, I will believe simply and personally that they are non-existent.

I'll respectfully bow out of the discussion now. Thanks for reading.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The shaman priests of the Aztecs slaughtered tens of thousands in blood sacrifices. Of course the difference is bethlaham was not a Christian, and the Aztecs were not lunatics.

He created free will. Free will freely chooses what path to follow. They could have chosen to do otherwise.

There can be no free will with omniscience.So which is it? Omniscience or freewill. The existence of omniscience ensures a deterministic universe.

Funny thing is that I believe in a great spirit, but not the devil of Abraham.

Edited by Seeker79
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There can be no free will with omniscience.So which is it? Omniscience or freewill. The existence of omniscience ensures a deterministic universe.

Funny thing is that I believe in a great spirit, but not the devil of Abraham.

Exactly. You can't have it both ways. You either have free-will or you have God's plan. Quite possibly the biggest contradiction in the whole damn Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely believe that nothing good could ever come out of the interaction. If you think of being curios then its just a waste of time... If you ever see one, hear one you will absolutely go crazy or become a priest or nun. Things like that are never worth exloring or getting into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely believe that nothing good could ever come out of the interaction. If you think of being curios then its just a waste of time... If you ever see one, hear one you will absolutely go crazy or become a priest or nun. Things like that are never worth exloring or getting into.

I have seen "demons" at first I fought with them, then once I understood I took responsibility for them. Woke up one time with ones claws around my legs, I took control of the claws and made them massage my feet. I fell back asleep chuckling at myself.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any good trial lawyer knows you should never convict on the basis of eyewitness testimony alone - you must have physical evidence also to build a solid case. Eyewitnesses are inherently unreliable as objective measurers. This is because our senses are subjective and everything we experience through them is subject to the filters in our minds. An eyewitness can believe 100% that he or she is telling the truth and still recall many things inaccurately. I'm not calling eyewitnesses of paranormal activity liars. Please don't misunderstand me.

Its not just my opinion...

http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=98096

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm

http://www.law.yale.edu/news/2727.htm

Yes,but how many people are wrongly convicted via eyewitness accounts ? The trial lawyer is quite unimportant ,when it comes down to the jury ,and common man's opinions .

Everyone sees things differently. When looking for witnesses,the cops always talk to the women for and details,as they notice much more than men .

They are trained to do this mind you.

Like in all things,some people are reliable and accurate ,some are not. Some see things way off the norm .

It's like the movie Rashamon .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not trying to take anyone's beliefs away, so it was silly of me to make the snarky blanket statement in the first post I threw out. I live in a house that supposedly is haunted - or so I've been told very earnestly. I don't believe it. I've never seen a smidge of anything unexplainable happen in my house. So whats the difference? Either they are gullible or I'm in denial. No way to prove either I suppose.

Nobody here needs my permission to believe in demons. Until someone produces some kind of irrefutable, smoking gun evidence of their existence, I will believe simply and personally that they are non-existent.

I'll respectfully bow out of the discussion now. Thanks for reading.

I didn't click like because you were bowing out of the discussion. I understand where you come from, you haven't seen the ghost that's supposedly in your house, so you don't believe it... I get it. If you did, you probably would believe it was there... etc.. :D

It is fine to agree to disagree, you should feel good though, your in the majority..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There can be no free will with omniscience.So which is it? Omniscience or freewill. The existence of omniscience ensures a deterministic universe.

Funny thing is that I believe in a great spirit, but not the devil of Abraham.

I believe in a great spirit and the father of Abraham :) I know some have their 'specific' Gods. But I think that those in Judo-christian etc. religions seek after the most high God. It may have been another entity to begin with that absolved into that hierarchy throughout history, but that doesn't mean Abraham, did not converse with the supreme being - whatever you want to call it. I know I'm different, but the notion of the Abrahamic God does not bother me. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There can be no free will with omniscience.So which is it? Omniscience or freewill. The existence of omniscience ensures a deterministic universe.

Funny thing is that I believe in a great spirit, but not the devil of Abraham.

Omniscience does not logically contradict free will. Knowing something will happen is not the same as forcing it to happen. The difference is clear. A barometer anticipates the weather, but does not create it. God knows unfailingly what will happen, but we still have the free will to make our choices in life. God cannot force a free will agent to do something. That is a logical contradiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Omniscience does not logically contradict free will. Knowing something will happen is not the same as forcing it to happen. The difference is clear. A barometer anticipates the weather, but does not create it. God knows unfailingly what will happen, but we still have the free will to make our choices in life. God cannot force a free will agent to do something. That is a logical contradiction.

Omniscience on its own is logically permissible; omniscience + omnipotence and/or omnibenevolence is not. A being which knew when something terrible was going to happen, and had infinite power with which to prevent it, and yet did not, cannot be omnibenevolent. A being which, with infinite power, brings into being all things (as god are purported to do), and yet does so in full knowledge that some of those things created will serve no purpose, and will instead play out entirely miserable, painful existences, is nothing other than a sadist. One of the most monstrous sadists which could possibly exist: creating life, merely to let it be tormented for the entirety of its existence. The attributes given to god are simply logically inconsistent, when taken as a whole. As I began: omniscience alone is not out of the question (though logically impossible to prove beyond sheer hypothetical: how does one go about proving that he/she knows everything?), but omniscience in tandem with omnipotence and/or omnibenevolence are simply self-contradictory, by definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Omniscience on its own is logically permissible; omniscience + omnipotence and/or omnibenevolence is not. A being which knew when something terrible was going to happen, and had infinite power with which to prevent it, and yet did not, cannot be omnibenevolent. A being which, with infinite power, brings into being all things (as god are purported to do), and yet does so in full knowledge that some of those things created will serve no purpose, and will instead play out entirely miserable, painful existences, is nothing other than a sadist. One of the most monstrous sadists which could possibly exist: creating life, merely to let it be tormented for the entirety of its existence. The attributes given to god are simply logically inconsistent, when taken as a whole. As I began: omniscience alone is not out of the question (though logically impossible to prove beyond sheer hypothetical: how does one go about proving that he/she knows everything?), but omniscience in tandem with omnipotence and/or omnibenevolence are simply self-contradictory, by definition.

You've trotting out the refuted notion of the problem of evil.

First, God has chosen to give us free will. It is logically impossible for Him to force us to make choices and maintain our free will. He is omnibenevolent in that He offers us, completely free, salvation from our sinful choices, but WE must choose to accept this offer. This is truly omnibenevolent.

Second, you have no evidence whatsoever that humanity would make any better choices if our world was completely free from physical suffering. On the contrary, we have every indication that if we had no suffering humanity would be far more self centered and hedonistic than it already is. Physical suffering is not evil. Evil comes from the hearts of free willed beings. Evil is the absence of the will of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've trotting out the refuted notion of the problem of evil.

Not precisely. The problem of evil certainly touches on the same principles, but I was exclusively responding to the question of the logical consistency/viability of omniscience/omnipotence/omnibenevolence.

First, God has chosen to give us free will. It is logically impossible for Him to force us to make choices and maintain our free will.

If he is supposed to be omniscient, then he already knows what choices we'll make; therefore, based on this prospect (an intrinsic property of omniscience), those of us who make poor choices, he created from the beginning specifically to make those choices. Which begs the question: why did he bother creating those people, whom he would ultimately condemn to hell, in the first place?

He is omnibenevolent in that He offers us, completely free, salvation from our sinful choices, but WE must choose to accept this offer. This is truly omnibenevolent.

Salvation from the sadomasochistic torments which he would himself have ordinarily subjected us to? That isn't benevolent in the least, let alone omnibenevolent. That's blackmail, not mercy.

Second, you have no evidence whatsoever that humanity would make any better choices if our world was completely free from physical suffering. On the contrary, we have every indication that if we had no suffering humanity would be far more self centered and hedonistic than it already is.

Freedom from suffering = humanity making better choices. Your statement in self-contradictory.

And please, enlighten us all with the "every indication" you refer to. The suggestion that a lack of suffering correlates to solipsism is a bald non-sequitur; in any case, it wouldn't matter in the least if people were more hedonistic in a world free of suffering, now would it?

Physical suffering is not evil. Evil comes from the hearts of free willed beings. Evil is the absence of the will of God.

I did not say that physical suffering was evil. As you say, evil comes from willing beings; if your god is a willing being, and behaves as your religion claims he does, then he can be said to be nothing other than the source of the most superb evil.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe in a great spirit and the father of Abraham :) I know some have their 'specific' Gods. But I think that those in Judo-christian etc. religions seek after the most high God. It may have been another entity to begin with that absolved into that hierarchy throughout history, but that doesn't mean Abraham, did not converse with the supreme being - whatever you want to call it. I know I'm different, but the notion of the Abrahamic God does not bother me. :D

It's the spirit of spirituality that bothers me. It's the absolute belief in story telling that in my opinion misrepresents the great spirit and anything truthfully spiritual that may have occurred. I believe Abraham might have been a real spiritual person at some point. But the stories that erupt from such and the telling of the character of the god, I think is about man and his problems. Most religions trace their roots back to Somone who probably was a very connected person, but then their messages are twisted to fit the manipulationd of men. I don't think the judeo god has better traits than some of the others, strictly observing what the bible says any way. Wankan tanka of the Lokota would be a much better choice in my opinion. Middle eastern mythology dosn't have any apeal to me.

Edited by Seeker79
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.