Peanut Gallery Comments on Great Debate

This is logical. To be honest, the only evidence that I have regarding the possibility of demonic activity is found in videos and in personal observation. Were you with me at these events, you likely would suggest that either willful belief, mass crowd hypnosis, or confirmation bias pushed the people deeper into their beliefs.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.

Name one thing that ICANT has learned. I, for one, have more tolerance for religious philosophies than you do. I have the same tolerance for Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Pastafarianism, etc. as I do for Christianity. I will point out the stupidities in all of them equally.

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.) 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.--Percy

Well, Jesus didn't write books or have coins struck with his mug on them. As for King Arthur, Bede has an interesting explanation. When Rome was being sacked by the Visigoths in 410, they recalled all the legions stationed in England. As usual, a few got left behind, one who was named Arthurius. Add some telephone games and King Alfred and voila, King Arthur. Phat himself gave us a clue, it is mental decline due to leaving his diabetes 2 untreated. I figure two years till death, the rest home, or the looney bin beset by demons in his head.We'll see.

The key is finding out what the snake oil actually is. Ive known a lot of Pastors in my day as well as a lot of secular humanists. The difference between myself and the peanut gallery is that I don't need physical evidence in order to believe something. I need a person of integrity to explain it to me. And quite frankly, I'll never find out anything about God from any of you.The rest of you have drank the kool-aid of skepticism to the point where you wont even consider a hypothetical. Old jar used to claim to believe in God, but he would never discuss God on a personal level and the only three people in this whole forum whom I can do that with are ICANT, GDR and Pastor Raphael.

Of the thre people you list, only Raphael is at all worth talking to. Shame he’s not been here for nearly a year and it’s even longer since he past posted.And I quote from him

quote:

---

In retrospect, EvC is probably a large reason for all that^. If it weren't for the OG's, guys like jar, Ringo, nwr, Stile, Taz, jon back in the day who knows what sort of close minded religious zealot I would be . I had the benefit of having my beliefs challenged and totally torn apart at a very early age, and I'm grateful for it.
​

---

Message 2746GDR is guilty of frequent misrepresentation, and I would not count his as having any integrity.ICANT is an ignorant fantasist who makes up nonsense about the Bible. And the only reason I don’t accuse him of dishonesty is that he seems too delusional to realise that the things he makes up could be false.

Hi, Phat. Even more frankly, you'll never learn anything about God from anyone.How would they know?

It's something that's not based on facts from the real world. I find that hard to believe. In my entire life I've never met a single person who identified themselves as a secular humanist, let alone lots of them. We know. You're a snake oil salesman's dream. What you need is a evidence, and if you cannot personally find the evidence then you need someone who has the credentials that show he knows the evidence. Your guess about a person's integrity is meaningless. In fact, the success of snake oil salesmen depends upon coming across as people of honesty and integrity, so they're really good at that. Everyone knows just as much about God as they do about griffins and unicorns. That's not true. We've considered the hypothetical of God nine ways from Sunday (Saturday for Jehovah) and haven't found any evidence that aligns with his existence. You tell us He's the most powerful and important being in the universe, yet He's nowhere to be found. We've talked about God on a personal level. I'm a little different from some here in that I do believe in God, but not the Christian God. For us on a personal level he is not there. In all our combined personal experience no evidence of God has come to light.--Percy

I don't need anyone to explain "it" to me. I already have the evidence in my heart.What I meant was that only people who understand "it" can explain "it".If you don't believe in the Christian God, you don't believe in Jesus Christ.So what is "IT" Percy? Evidence? Validation? Verification? Certainty?I would imagine that you place your faith in science. Yet without people to work it, science is never anything more than tentative information. AZProphet3 believes that "we" (the prophets of the scientific method" will continually provide better answers.Furthermore, he believes that no gods or demons exist and that metaphysical explanations carry no weight without evidence. The evidence is in your mind and heart. CIt is up to each one of us to search for a greater reality.The apologists predict that the world will someday become unified, but that the "force" running it turns out to be the bad guy. Maybe it has already happened.

You're waxing mystical. What is "it"? Are you sure you get "it" or even know what "it" is?There is no evidence in your heart, nor your brain, of some mystical "it". "Knowing something in your heart" is a way of expressing the sincerity of one's feelings. It's not an actual evidential thing. That's clearly untrue. Lots of people here do not believe in the Christian God but do believe Jesus Christ was a real person. Or did you really mean "accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior"? You're the one who introduced the term "it" - you tell me. I only used the word "it" once, clearly in reference to snake oil. Is that your "it", snake oil? If you mean religious faith, then no. If you mean my views are evidence-based, then yes. That's nonsensical. Without people there would be no science, and science is always tentative. And what does the history of science tell you about whether AZPaul3 is correct? There is no evidence of gods, demons or the metaphysical in your mind or heart.Why do you think this line of argument convincing? In essence you're standing before us, one hand over your heart and the other on your head, telling us, "The evidence is in here." You've communicated no information. You're telling fantastical stories and asking us to just trust you. Why on earth do you think that is in the least bit persuasive?If someone was trying to sell you a car and you asked if the car was in good condition and they said, "I know in my mind and heart that it is in good condition," would that be good enough for you? Would you at least ask him to start it up before signing the paperwork? Yes, of course you would. At least I hope you would.So if you want us to believe your religious mumbo-jumbo, give us some evidence it is true. Don't tell us the evidence is hidden within your body organs. If by "greater reality" you mean the supernatural, then there is no evidence for the supernatural. There's no good guy, there's no bad guy, not based on the evidence. There's just stories and traditions for which there is no evidence, not in your heart or your mind or anywhere else.--Percy