I want you to listen to Surging Inflation Is Anything but Transitory – Ep 700 and using everything your rational mind can tell you about truths, cons, and rational economic theory tell me that Schiff is simply a con and not a legitimate voice crying in the wilderness.
Oh, wow, Irwin Schiff had a son who's a conman, too. Irwin was a leading voice in the tax protester movement of the 1980's, but he was at least honest enough to practice what he preached, convicted of tax evasion just like Kent Hovind and eventually dying in prison.
Peter Schiff seems to have invented his own brand of nonsense schtick. I'm guessing that he's the source of your hyperinflation nonsense - his father preached the same stuff. You know what I think you should do? You should send all your money to his Euro Pacific Capital. I'm sure he'll see you safely through the coming financial crisis.
This may sound crazy, though you all already think I am, but right after I got saved I began to obsess about gold and silver and read a lot of literature back then. It had since proven to be right.
You're being selective. Much literature predicted gold and silver would fall. How did you select which was right? Why weren't you convinced by the other literature to sell gold short?
You need to propose how the US is going to wriggle out of our inflationary and debt mess so as to prevent the fleecing of the middle class which will occur as jars infamous bill gets paid.
The only inflationary and debt mess is in your head, like most of what you say. You have enormous difficulty anchoring your flights of fancy to reality. You can't guide your life by making random decisions about who to follow. Well, you can, but then you get chaos, though after a while I suppose you get used to it and it seems normal.
This is what keeps the likes of any of you from believing anything.
Having evidence keeps people from believing things that aren't true.
You have flawed thinking, though it likely isn't your fault...it is rational.
Can you provide an example of rational thinking leading to flawed conclusions while irrational thinking leads to correct ones?
You first conclude that all gods are in the same pile.
More inclusively, all gods are in the same pile with everything else that lacks evidence.
Insisting upon objective proof, (which one will never find with God) you find none and move on.
More accurately, "objective evidence" rather than "objective proof." Everything real interacts with the real world, and those interactions are evidence that it is real. Ask yourself how we know neutrinos are real?
Some of you even claim to have known God at one point in your past but you dismiss Him as just another Santa Claus and refer to the pile of gods as collective human mythos. In such conditions, there never would be any God to cling to, since your internal standards regarding objective evidence shuts the possibility of belief out of any equation.
Without evidence, how do you tell which beliefs are true and which are not?
And I have no credibility among any of you with which to convince you.
If you had any credibility it might cause us to judge what you say as worth taking seriously before checking it out, but you have a long history of not being able to connect ideas to reality. You have trained us to automatically reject what you say as flights of fancy.
But credibility can only be employed to get one's ideas considered. Ideas do not become accepted because of the credibility of those promoting them but through evidence. So even if you had credibility it wouldn't help you convince anyone that God is real.
Not only do I have trouble with some of the book words of Jesus,...
You're picking and choosing what to believe.
With no evidence, you have no basis for your conclusion.
Yes I do. Its called belief.
If belief is all it takes for something to be real then all religious beliefs are valid.
My problem was that I believed in gold and silver and not enough in Jesus.
You can hold gold and silver in your hot little hands. We know gold and silver exist not because you believe in them but because there is evidence galore that they exist. That is not true of Jesus.
Yes, as your title says, there's no conclusive evidence of demons. There isn't even halfway decent evidence of demons, only really really bad poor quality evidence. You can't even give "demon" a real world definition. Wikipedia is pretty clear about it's fictional status:
quote:A demon is a supernatural being, typically associated with evil, prevalent historically in religion, occultism, literature, fiction, mythology, and folklore; as well as in media such as comics, video games, movies, anime, and television series. In Ancient Near Eastern religions and in the Abrahamic traditions, including ancient and medieval Christian demonology, a demon is considered a harmful spiritual entity which may cause demonic possession, calling for an exorcism.
You are hopeless. You will never be able to connect ideas to real world data. Your search for reality in mysticism will forever come up dry, as has always been its history. There's no sun god, no Zeus, no Thor, no Jewish God, no Christian God, no Mormon God, no God at all, no holy ghost, no ghosts in general, no demons, no spirits, no angels, no little green men on Mars, no aliens nor abductions by them, no ether, no N-rays, no cold fusion, no Trilateral Commission running the world, and no hobbits, elves, gnomes or ogres.
Once you're able to believe in something without evidence, such as God, then it's possible to believe in anything without evidence, such as that there is evidence of God. Did you know there's more evidence for Jesus Christ than for Julius Caesar? (I hope you answered no.) Did you know there's as much evidence for Jesus Christ as for King Arthur of Camelot? (I hope you answered yes.)
Here is a zoom video of several "deliverances". I observe that the reactions do not look staged to me, though there is most definitely no evidence of anything other than a human who believes they have a demon.
You are as gullible as they come.
During your descent into absurd and baseless ramblings you may have noticed a change in how people respond to you, changing from explanatory rebuttals into mockery. There's no point rebutting you anymore, you just say, "Good point," then continue on in your incoherent nonsensical way.
You have always had this quality but until recently would only employ it in the service of encouraging serious consideration of ideas with little or no evidence. But now you just endlessly present ludicrous "evidence." There's a real world out there, try engaging with it sometime.