Mind you, looking at this site which gives some pointers as to the symptoms one might expect from demon possession:
Causes and Effects of Demon Possession 1. Interest in the occult 2. Demonic favors 3. Demonic games ... 4. Pornographic and obscene materials 5. Mind-altering drugs 6. Multiple-personalities (MPD), schizophrenia, and hearing voices 7. Demon possession and homosexuality 8. Homosexual clergypersons 9. Demons and criminal behavior ... 10. Sex crimes against children 11. Repressed childhood memories of sexual molestation 12. Suicide 13. Godless Rock music 14. Spontaneous Human Combustion
It doesn't say anything about not eating or drinking for unfeasible periods of time. Maybe one for the list?
Does anyone find it interesting that the supposed experts don't know the difference between a cause and an effect?
To me, it says that their association is not based on well-founded knowledge, but rather a dogmatic abhorrence for all those things and the corresponding need to associate them all, even if one doesn't know how or why they're related.
quote:Hey, JustinCy, I really hope that you’re joking but if your not and if you think that ejaculation and teen pregnancy is caused by "Demons" I think you need to take a step back and seriously think about what you are saying. Though I try not to make fun of people for their believes I have to ask you, do you also believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Clause?
I was joking. Although, one of my favorite books is "The Demon-Haunted World", but that's a little different.
I am going to include one other death that occured as I found in the Skeptical Inquirer
"1997, Bronx,New York: A five year old girl died after her mother and grandmother forced her to drink a lethal cocktailcontaining ammonia,vinegar, and olive oil and then bound and gagged her with duct tape. The two women claimed that they were merely trying to poison a demon that had infested the little girl several days earlier." Why do things like this not make the #1 story across the nation as a wake-up call to people who place belief in such things.Perhaps they need to make graphic to these people how incredibly horrible and painful the death must have been not to mention the emotion horror of your mother and grandmother being the ones doing it.
I wonder if anybody out there who believes in demon possesion can tell me how they these people made an error in distinguishing demons from some other event.Is there some special formula they have for working it out? Come on guys this sort of story really brings out a need for justification.
Because some misguided fools are still in the Dark Ages.
There was the case about 3 months ago in Chicago where the pastor (church worker?) sat on the 4 year old boy to 'cast' the demon out and the little boy died of suffocation.
This is ridiculous.
And I don't want to accuse, but I am going to anyway, it is the fault of fringe churches. It is your idiot, fringe, Baptists, Pentecostalists etc. that really believe all this crap. The mainstream Christian churches left this mumbo jumbo behind 100-150 years ago but the fundamentalist nutcases (and show me one who isn't) still rabidly believe the demon nonsense.
I know freedom of religion is one thing, but murdering a child is another.
2. I'm sure, beginning from the time of Jesus til now, much good has been accomplished by knowing of the evil empire. For example, the tribe in New Gineau was much blessed having the demonic oppression removed from their village. Thanks to the missionaries, nearly all of the cannabalism has been erradicated from the planet.
2. Ultra evil people like Son of Sam, Charles Manson, Jimmy Jones, etc attest to the possibility of an organized evil invisible empire. These are just a few. Also, Hitler was involved in the occult, if this means anything to anyone.
I do happen to consider ABC, CBS and NBC a bit better than Fox. However, I think it is pretty silly to think that any TV source (including PBS) is the right way to find out real, in depth, accurate information about most things.
quote:Do you consider ABC, CBS and NBC any better than Fox for bias?
Yes. The survey explicitly shows it. In looking at the various major news outlets, Fox had the worst rates of viewers coming away misinformed:
Fox: 80% at least one misperception, 45% average CBS: 71% at least one misperception, 36% average ABC: 61% at least one misperception, 30% average CNN: 55% at least one misperception, 31% average NBC: 55% at least one misperception, 30% average Print: 47% at least one misperception, 25% average NPR: 23% at least one misperception, 11% average
quote:I didn't, btw say that Fox was perfect or totally unbiased as you falsy infer,
Indeed, you said "most unbiased and objective," and I was going off of that. The point I directly stated was that you may think something, but that doesn't make it true.
And the reality is that you are completely mistaken. Not only is Fox not the "most unbiased and objective," it is the most biased and most unobjective. Its viewers are the most likely to be misinformed about events.
How can a news source be "unbiased and objective" if it is lying to its viewers?
Fox's founder and president, Roger Ailes, was for decades one of the savviest and most pugnacious Republican political operatives in Washington, a veteran of the Nixon and Reagan campaigns. Ailes is most famous for his role in crafting the elder Bush's media strategy in the bruising 1988 presidential race. With Ailes' help, Bush turned a double-digit deficit in the polls into a resounding win by targeting the GOP's base of white male voters in the South and West, using red-meat themes like Michael Dukakis' "card-carrying" membership in the ACLU, his laissez-faire attitude toward flag-burning, his alleged indifference to the pledge of allegiance--and, of course, paroled felon Willie Horton.
Described by fellow Bush aide Lee Atwater as having "two speeds--attack and destroy," Ailes once jocularly told a Time reporter (8/22/88): "The only question is whether we depict Willie Horton with a knife in his hand or without it." Later, as a producer for Rush Limbaugh's short-lived TV show, he was fond of calling Bill Clinton the "hippie president" and lashing out at "liberal bigots" (Washington Times, 5/11/93). It is these two sensibilities above all--right-wing talk radio and below-the-belt political campaigning--that Ailes brought with him to Fox, and his stamp is evident in all aspects of the network's programming.
Fox daytime anchor David Asman is formerly of the right-wing Wall Street Journal editorial page and the conservative Manhattan Institute. The host of Fox News Sunday is Tony Snow, a conservative columnist and former chief speechwriter for the first Bush administration. Eric Breindel, previously the editorial-page editor of the right-wing New York Post, was senior vice president of Fox's parent company, News Corporation, until his death in 1998; Fox News Channel's senior vice president is John Moody, a long-time journalist known for his staunch conservative views.
Fox's managing editor is Brit Hume, a veteran TV journalist and contributor to the conservative American Spectator and Weekly Standard magazines. Its top-rated talkshow is hosted by Bill O'Reilly, a columnist for the conservative WorldNetDaily.com and a registered Republican (that is, until a week before the Washington Post published an article revealing his party registration--12/13/00).
The abundance of conservatives and Republicans at Fox News Channel does not seem to be a coincidence. In 1996, Andrew Kirtzman, a respected New York City cable news reporter, was interviewed for a job with Fox and says that management wanted to know what his political affiliation was. "They were afraid I was a Democrat," he told the Village Voice (10/15/96). When Kirtzman refused to tell Fox his party ID, "all employment discussion ended," according to the Voice.