Existence of Demons (and Angels)

Faith,I would advise you to do some research on hypnogogic hallucinations. It may explain some things to you.

How? You do it by testing and the scientific method is the best methid we have for that. The misconception among believers that their beliefs about the world, based solely on opinion, are somehow equitable to discovered verifiable fact is a gulf between superstitous theism and realism that perhaps cannot be crossed.You may believe that you have in demons and angels or leprechuans and smurfs or pink unicorns and flying away on Pegasus, but until you can provide some test or verifiable observation, you're misguided if you think anyone else should take you seriously. Absolutely not. I know hallucinations exist, having expierenced them and science having tested them. Hypnagogic hallucinations can be triggered in a controlled enviroment. Demons and angels and leprechuans and all the rest of that rot have been talked about for ages and not one iota of evidence has been found for their existence. So, unless evodence is presented for these entities, I will continue to dismiss them and it is in no way a priori. Show me some evidence and I will accept it. If you have read about hypnagogia much, you are aware that those who expierence it often think they are awake and the feeling of being choked or being unable to breath is common feature of such hallucinations. Well, we know hypnagogia exists, as I stated above. If the spirit world were to be similarly documented then your question might have merit. What you are asking is analagous to saying "How would we know whether children's parents sometimes take a bite of a cookie that was left for Santa on Christmas eve or if Santa actually did it?" We can safely answer that with, "There is no evidence for the existence of Santa, while there is ample evidence for that sort of playful, festive deception on the part of parents". I am not assuming the answer, as described above. What you really can't do is answer such questions completely subjectively and expect them to be accepted or correct.

The idea that the number of people who believe a thing is a factor in determining it's truth is called argumentum ad numerum and it is a common fallacy.That's why all these eyewitness accounts or "witness evidence" are not evidence. Humans are lousy witnesses. That's one of the reasons why we had to invent science.Also, the santa/demon analogy is hardly silly. Both refer to the belief in an entity for which there is no evidence. The fact that you mistakenly believe in on eof them doesn't make it silly.

Absolutely incorrect. You are adding a fundamental misconception about science to your formidable array of errors, Faith. There is clear scientific reason to ignore such folderol as demons and angels. Science is gathering evidence and formulating the best explanation you can based on the facts; it's making predictions based on your explanation and then testing them. Since that first key factor, evidence, is missing, you are stopped before you get out of the gate. I absolutely accept that you believe what you believe. I would never debate that. You are the only source of information on the state of you mind. But does the content of your mind reflect reality? When that becomes the question, then evidence becomes the coin of the realm and frankly, on this you're broke.That's the simple point you are missing... just because you think it doesn't mean anything. To think that it should is what is stupid and high-handed. If everyone had always been content with their own subjective perceptions and culturally biased knee jerk reactions, we would still be praying over the sick and living in huts in a purely agricultural society. It is only by learning to look beyond those ingrained beliefs and learning to look for facts that we have advanced our knowledge.You see, as soon as you invoke the supernatural, you're done. You have explained a thing without really knowing anything more about it. By saying, "That person is hearing voice. Demons are talking through or to him" you don't have to ask "Why is that person hearing voices, if he is?" and you end up never learning about schizophrenia and how to actually help those people.That kind of anti-intellectual supernaturalism (which is exactly what you are engaging in) is simply dangerous. Actually they can't. Only by applying the standards of science and rationality can that distinction be made. If it happened, it will leave traces in the physical world that can be detected. If it didn't, there is no reason to believe in it's reality. What gives you this rather high handed idea? Crash and I ask for evidence in physical reality and that means we can't distinguish actual events form imagination? You are an excellent example of the mental acrobatics needed to maintain supernatural beliefs in the face of rational enquiry.This message has been edited by mikehager, 04-18-2005 11:33 AM

Time will tell? I would say that it already has, for the reasons Crash gave. It certainly sounded like you were. Not doing so was, I think you said, "stupid and inhumane".Or perhaps you only take the word of people that agree with you. Would you believe that some animist somewhere who had expierences like you describe and explained it in a manner contrary to your christian mythology? No, you would say that person was decieved and that it was a demon, a servant of Lucifer, cast out of heaven for the sin of rebellion. At least from your writings I guess that would be your take on it.So, assuming my assesment is accurate, why are you right and he wrong?

In what way have I misread you? Would you not impose a christian world view on the situation I described?Also, if people are often misunderstand you, consider looking at how you present your ideas.

And someone once said to me, "You better be a good boy or Santa won't leave your presents." Do you believe everything people tell you? Of course I don't. Why should I? It's just another fairy tale, like all the others.

Perhaps you can tell us why you would believe this?

Not for the billons of people who have heard of it but not believed it. You are the one so hyped on taking subjective experience as evidence. Are you discounting all those people? If one must already believe in it for the evidence to be compelling, the evidence must not be all that good.

It is hardly dogmatic. It is the result of long research into mythology and acceptance of science. This is a common theistic claim, that non belief is as dogmatic as belief. This can be true, but often is not. The problem is that many theists are so accustomed to operating by dogma that they assume others must do so also and that simply isn't so.

That is not the case. I started out christian and it was the interest in mythology, the "long research" that showed me the error in my thinking.The pronouncements may sound dogmatic to someone who operates on that basis continually, but that is not the case.

Then we are left with the fact that you believe only those that agree with you, regardless of the fact that they have arrived at their ideas in exactly the same way you arrived at yours. How reasonable is that?

There's no reason, really. Another "Faith denies reason" thread is redundant.I would likely reply if you started one, but I see little future in it.

So you admit that your beliefs are entirely dogmatic and unreasonable? You likely won't admit it, but you have clearly shown that the are.

Wrong. My closest relationship is to my girlfriend. Want to meet her?Yours is to your idea of god. Where exactly is he?