CBS's amazingly stupid report on growing exorcisms.

[edhopper]

On the Morning Show today, there was a segment about the growth in Roman Catholic exorcisms.
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=3877043n&channel=i_video

Now while it's interesting that there is a great increase in the number of exorcisms and the Church's response is to have several hundred priest now in the "exorcism task force". It is amazing that the show did not once challenge the notion of demonic possession.
In the on set interview at the end, the interviewer went so far as to ask the priest how they can tell the difference between psychological problems and "real" demons. What century are we living in. Couldn't they at least have on some one not from the Church to point out how ludicrous this is?
Does anyone here actually believe there are demons who possess people?
This is the type of thing that lets us atheist point to religion and say how ridiculous it seems.
If you are a believer, this should make you cringe.

[Mythsaje]

1. Well, I certainly believe religious assholery possesses people...

Demons...not so much.

[ixion]

2. Welcome to the Dark Ages, Part II... up next: Witch burning

because, you know, you can tell if they're a witch because the won't burn. :eyes:

[Marrah_G]

8. You have no idea how scary that thought it to some of us.

[wtmusic]

3. Will they demonstrate how to exorcise demons from a 60 Minutes

report on Republican corruption? "Now to our affiliate in Decatur, Alabama..."

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

4. Someone needs to perform an exorism in the WH

so that when our DEMOCRATIC president takes office, she/he(?) will have it cleaned of evil.

[Ian David]

5. You're either with the exorcists, or you're with the demons! n/t

[shain from kane]

6. Jumping on the Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings bandwagons. There's money to be made.

[heidler1]

7. The judge not thing of Jesus is very wise IMO. Christians seem to hate it.

[struggle4progress]

9. Seems t'me th'oil-thirsty demon Automo-Beelezebub sent th'US&A spinnin into Iraq recently

[and-justice-for-all]

10. Whatthefuckever..."Exocism Task Force?! oh please...

Why do some people fall for this "snake oil saleman" bullshit and others do not?

Demons, Ghosts and Satan oh my!

[Goblinmonger]

16. The "media" never seems to fail me in this regard.

Same thing with the "tomb of Jesus" bullshit. Not ONCE did I see any journalist/reporter even venture to suggest that we need to actually show that Jesus existed before we go looking for a grave.

Oh, well, such is life.

[kanrok]

11. Ironically

I am about half-way through "Hostage to the Devil: The Possession and Exorcism of Five Living Americans" by Malachi Martin. Pretty interesting. I've never experienced what those who claim to have seen in these "possessions", so I can't say I believe them or not. I'll leave it up to the medical profession to sort this out. Presuming what the author witnessed is accurate, I guess there could be a rational, scientific explanation for levitations, for those
allegedly "possessed" to speak languages they are unfamiliar with, and for them to have intimate knowledge of the deepest secrets of those who they encounter in the exorcisms. I searched DSM-IV and couldn't come up with a ready explanation though.

[varkam]

12. I don't think you should be looking in the DSM for explanations...

I think that easier explanations might include: confabulation, unreliable sources, misperception, misremembering, et cetera as opposed to postulating a world that consists of ghosts and demons that can (somehow) possess you, thereby influencing your behavior in remarkable ways and - apparently - violating the laws of physics.

[kanrok]

13. Those are all plausible explanations

but I don't dismiss the whole "demon" thing out of hand. Scott Peck, a (deceased) Psychiatrist and the author of "The Road Less Traveled" also wrote a couple of books on "possession" and exorcism. BTW, Malachi is also deceased, so he and Peck probably know now, but they're not talking. I find the whole mysticism of religion (especially Catholicism with Marian apparitions and stories of the saints) fascinating.

[immoderate]

14. A good story can spellbind you.

And there are rational explanations for all the phenomena you describe. To believe in the romantic notion of demons, all you have to do is throw out all we actually know about science. :eyes:

--IMM

[kanrok]

17. Really?

What does science tell us about demonic possession?

[Random_Australian]

33. It says we'd expect a number of wrong reports of phenomena based on

the not-so-perfect cognition of the mind. Like the memory effects the poster referenced earlier.

And lo and behold, we found them.

There is no evidence against the null, therefore it is not rational to believe demons exist.









Well, you DID ask.

[Realityhack]

65. It also says

The more controls are in place the less likely these types of errors will occur.
See James Randy etc.

[onager]

24. Two of the most "spellbinding" demon stories were pure fiction.

The Exorcist--a NOVEL by William Peter Blatty, very loosely based on a case involving a 14-year-old boy, not a girl. At the time of his so-called exorcism, the boy already had a reputation in his hometown as a...sorry, I can't resist...hell-raiser. He was allegedly fond of profanity, fighting, screaming tantrums and well-targeted spitting.

According to some reportage, he was an only child raised by a...religiously enthusiastic mother who also fiddled around with Ouija boards and other occultic claptrap.

One of the priests involved in the alleged exorcism, Father Walter H. Halloran, lived until March 2005 and denied many of the claims about the case. The boy never spoke any foreign languages out of the blue. He managed some Latin, but Halloran suspected he was just mimicking the priests around his bed. One priest was hurt, but not by anything satanic--the kid pulled a bedspring loose and slightly cut the priest on the arm.

And in a big disappointment for some of us, the kid couldn't rotate his head 360 degrees, either.

The Amityville Horror--OK, you've bought a house you can't afford that was the site of a horrible mass murder. Fortunately, it's 1975 and America is still enjoying a demon-fad sparked by the movie The Exorcist, released only a little over a year earlier. So why not hire a hack writer...Jay Anson, in this case...and escape the real horrors of your mortgage by making up some bogus horrors about the house?

Worked like a charm. Even though the local priest said he never saw anything unusual at the house. Even though the Lutz family never called the police once during the entire time they lived there. And even though, despite the bangings, demonic voices, glaring red eyes in windows, and phantom marching bands (!!!) reported by the family, neighbors living just a few feet away never heard or saw anything unusual.

Hint for anyone thinking of trying the same thing: before you write that chapter about the cloven hoofprints magically appearing in the snow, at least check your local weather records and make sure it was snowing that day. The Lutzes didn't, which caused them some embarassment when the usual spoil-sport skeptics started taking a closer look at their hokum.

Predictably, the whole Amityville hoax eventually ended up in the courts with a barrage of suits and counter-suits. Those were a lot more entertaining than the bogus demonic nonsense.

[ironbark]

20. Peck and exorcism

I've read every book Peck ever wrote. Greatly admire his insight, imspiration and contribution.
From his 'Community Stage Development' through to 'Civility, A World Waiting to be Born'...he is a great author and a great American. (High praise from an Australian ;-)

Sadly-

Pecks work-'People of the Lie' on Evil, the 'posessed' and 'exorcism' was >crap<....stupid crap...
shallow crap and dangerous crap.

As a former mental health worker I was consistantly stunned by the number of people with psychiatric disabilities who had been taken in and under the wing of supporting/loving church groups only to be subject to exorcisms.

These are vulnerable/ill people being subject to >PURE EVIL< in the churchs/by the churches.

In the State of Victoria (Aus) a psych disabled woman, strapped to a chair, died during one of these foul 'exorcisms'.

Ban it, prosecute it, advocate against it.......exorcisms are evil.

Science on exorcism?

'The Mind Posessed' by William Seargent.

[Dorian Gray]

15. That book scared the shit out of me...

I've read it twice. It's great in a cabin in the woods, far from the madding crowd.

I don't know whether I believe in exorcisms, but stories about demonic possession scare the crap out of me. :)

[kanrok]

18. I'm with you on that

It scares me irrespective of whether it's true demonic possession or some psychiatric or other medically explainable phenomenon.

[Hugabear]

83. You assume those things actually happen

Levitation = could simply be someone thrashing around in an epileptic fit

"Speaking in tongues" - again, sign of an epileptic fit. Unless they're speaking in clear, concise French, German, Russian, or some other language - emphasis being on clear & concise - then sounds to me there's a perfectly rational explanation

[davidthegnome]

19. Of course the masses swallow it whole

It's a popular belief - or at least a popular fear. Even many of those who don't believe in demonic possession will admit that they're scared of it - frightened by the stories and such. Movies, stories, a whole bunch of babble from those who believe in it.

It's the same way people are fascinated by horror movies. It's that little thrill of fear, the idea that something beyond our understanding - something out of this world, can play a part - can in fact overtake our will, our minds, our bodies.

Personally, I admit, it scares the shit out of me. After I watched the Exorcist I couldn't sleep well for a week - with the lights on every night.

Do demons exist? Hell, I don't know. If they do, I'd rather not ever find out for sure. If they don't, all well and good.

[Gala328]

21. I Believe

I certainly believe in exorcisms but I think their need is few and far between. More often than not, the true need is for deep psychological counseling, rather than to involve what many would regard as a 'quick fix.' Counseling combined with meditation and prayer cannot be hurtful. However, I speak from experience when I saw I have counseled people who have had deep problems which are not easily identified or cured. I would never suggest an exorcism to someone as a 'first step' by any means.

As a Catholic who studied in the seminary, before deciding the path was not right for me, I can assure you that Catholic priests have very solid educations in the ways of theology, psychology and counseling. All but the most naive and disturbed priests would not even consider taking an exorcism route before first suggesting that the patient (and I do believe you must classify these people as patients) spend months - if not years - in professional therapy. Then, of course, an investigation is performed by the diocese which typically results in denying the exorcism and suggesting more counseling.

The truth of the matter is that few exorcisms are actually performed in this country (but I admit that I cannot speak for Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia or the Balkan states). The reason for secrecy on these numbers by the Church is twofold. First, sadly, the Church has more important things to worry about these days than the media frenzy of the exorcism. Second, this type of thing is a private matter and should be handled privately.

[Realityhack]

82. ok, question

on what grounds do you believe in exorcisms?


Also as an aside.
The current pope seems to think the church does not have more important things to worry about.
the third reason you missed is that this makes the church look downright silly.

[Zebedeo]

22. Of course demons exist.

There have been so many documented cases of demonic possession, that it would be impossible to count them. Some are documented in the Good Book. It would be foolish to pretend that demons do not exist.

[onager]

23. That's the David St. Hubbins school of philosophy...

“I believe virtually everything I read, and I think that is what makes me more of a selective human, than someone who doesn't believe anything.” -- David St. Hubbins

[rexcat]

25. Of course demons don't exist...

to truly believe in demons one would have to ignore all of the psychological and medical advances in the 20th and early 21st century. To date I have never seen a demon nor have I meet anyone who has that was coherent and sane. I have run across some people who have said the have seen and talked to demons but they have all been psychotic and in need of medical and psychological care. There are some people in our society that really need to come out of the dark age mentality.

[Zebedeo]

27. If you assume anyone who has witnessed

demons is "psychotic and in need of medical and psychological care," your assumption dictates your conclusion. What would be satisfactory proof to you of the existence of demons? Must you observe a demon yourself? Do you apply that same standard to other beings or phenomena?

Have you ever been influenced by a demon? Have you ever observed anyone else who is under the influence of a demon? I have, and I suspect that most people have.

[PassingFair]

28. Got any pictures?

Do they look like this?:

[rexcat]

29. Demons are a form of superstition at best...

They were used in the Dark Ages to try to explain things that were not understood. You want to believe that demons exist go right ahead but don't drag the rational, sane people down that path with you! I will take science and rational thought any day over superstition.

[kanrok]

30. Ask this scientist what he thinks...

Here's an article written by a board certified psychiatrist with a great pedigree: http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0308-gallagher

It's an interesting read. He claims he witnessed a true exorcism. He claims the woman knew things that she couldn't have possibly known; spoke languages she did not know and levitated. All pretty good tricks. Heck, I don't know if it's true, I wasn't there. But to dismss it out of hand calls for a good sight more faith than I "possess."

[rexcat]

31. For one thing....

according to the article Richard Gallagher, MD, is catholic and the only psychiatrist to "witness" an exorcism. This at best anecdotal and a non-scientific observation by someone who has every reason to be biased. It would also appear that the New Oxford Review is not scientific in nature and is not peer reviewed. Even though the good doctor is on the faculty of the Columbia University Psychoanalytic Institute so are a lot of other people. He is also on the faculty of a Roman Catholic seminary and I am sure he uses what little science he remembers from medical school to good use at the seminary.

Below are the web sites for Columbia University Psychoanalytic Institute and Medical College of New York. His name is among many and he does not hold any positions of real responsibility such as chairman of a department, research staff, etc. So despite your high regard for the good doctor I am not impressed. I say this not in jest because I work with some of the brightest and best MDs in oncology research in the US who have real positions such as the Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, New York Presbyterian Hospital/ Weill Cornell Medical School just to name a few. I take academic and professional credentials very seriously.

http://www.columbiapsychoanalytic.org/facultyRost.html
http://www.nymc.edu/depthome/academic/psychiatry/faculty/home.htm

[Zebedeo]

32. Since you have a priori excluded all supernatural causes,

beings and phenomena, it comes as no surprise that your conclusion is that demons do not exist.

Should I suggest that maybe you should approach the subject with a more open mind? Nah, your mind is made up already. It would be a waste of effort. You are so proud of your position that you will never subject it to the scrutiny that it warrants.

[Random_Australian]

34. No, they observe human cognition and expect some wrong reports of phenomena.

Then some reports were made about all sorts of things for which there was no evidence, and in some cases it was quite clear that the claims were made by a person who was (at least at the time) mentally ill.

These lined up as expected.

Therefore there is no evidence against the null hypothesis.

Therefore it is not rational to believe in demons.

[TZ]

35. Do you understand anything about mental illness

Schizophrenia, multiple personality disorder, psychosis, sociopathy etc? May I remind you that the paranoid schizophrenic who was the VT shooter was taken to church to "exocise his demons". Didn't do much good did it.
Treating mental illness as a demonic posession goes straight back to the dark ages when things like the plague were also considered demonic posessions and witchcraft. Would you like to explain away germ theory as demonic posession as well. Because the basics of mental illness are actually well understood and observed.

[Zebedeo]

36. Mental illness

Thank you for your reply. It is interesting to hear your perspective. However, I take issue with your assertion that "the basics of mental illness are actually well understood and observed." I do not think that is an accurate statement at all. I think that mental illness remains quite mysterious.

If you understand mental illness so well, perhaps you could explain what causes a genetic vulnerability to schizophrenia. If you believe that it is caused by environmental factors, rather than genetic vulnerability, please identify with precision the particular environmental factors that cause it, and describe the biochemical reaction of the brain to those environmental factors. Please do not forget to address counterexamples, where persons have been exposed to the specified environmental factors, but have not developed schizophrenia.

You have also set up a blatant strawman, in suggesting that I have proposed "treating mental illness as a demonic possession." I made no such proposal. I simply asserted that demons are real, and that they affect people. This is a throughly documented fact, which you have utterly failed to rebut.

I genuinely look forward to your reply.

Best Regards,

Zebedeo

[varkam]

37. "This is a throughly documented fact..."

I think that there are many people, including myself, who would assert that the existence of demons is not a "thoroughly documented fact" despite your claims to the contrary.

[Zebedeo]

39. I can't believe there is any serious dispute on this issue.

when the documentation is so widely http://paranormal.about.com/library/bl_exorcism_video.htm">available

You might wish to read "Glimpses of the Devil: A Psychiatrist's Personal Accounts of Possession, Exorcism, and Redemption," by psychiatrist M. Scott Peck, M.D. In it, he describes supernatural events, including his patient acquiring a snakeline appearance.

Please, if you will, provide an explanation for how a mere mental illness could cause a woman to spontaneously acquire the appearance of a snake.

[Feron]

40. Alright so I watched the video.

It's a puff piece (looks like it came from a Russian tabloid newsmagazine show) for a priest that claims he cures people of demon possession and one person of schizophrenia. And this is what you consider definitive evidence?!!!! If so your standards for evidence are rather low.

My dad had a cameraman gig in his youth filming religious rallies. He was told in advance which people would be "healed" and to make sure he focused on them when they went up to the preacher.

That video smacks of the same garbage.

But for the true believer there are many cognitive biases like confirmation bias that come into play along with other phemoneom like Folie a Deux. Some people may actually believe that they are possessed by a demon and will act accordingly. Other people may simply be mentally ill, mentally handicapped, or are considered to be possessed for a laundry list of other mundane reasons.

And of course some will act out the part of being possessed either because it is expected, they like the attention, or simply to speed things up as to avoid a prolonged session.

There have also been many studies about the power of suggestion and how faulty observation can be. He may have truly believed that her face took on a reptilian appearance ,however I'm willing to bet that only his perception of her face changed.

Of course demon possession is rubbish. There isn't any scientific evidence for the existence of demons or that demons possess human bodies. Unfortunately superstition tends to linger around rather than die.

[varkam]

41. As the other poster noted...

your standards for evidence seem rather low, but then again given our conversations in the past this doesn't exactly come as a shock.

:hi:

[Realityhack]

66. really? lets put that to the test

If it's a well documented fact and as the video claims demons cause people to walk on water and are a serious threat to all of us... this must have been documented under controlled circumstances on tape with professionals con-artists making sure everything was above board right? After all it's a serious threat that everyone should take seriously and thats the fastest way. No? All you have is some yelling and screaming that can be explained a hundred different ways using known proven psychological principles?

The face of the snake was on tape and that tape was examined for manipulation right? no?

a hundred poor anecdotes do not make for serious documentation. There where entire scientific papers written on N-rays and you don't even have that.

[TZ]

38. Here you go!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070730173440.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080227210845.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080228093212.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071121213845.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080226193113.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080116123517.htm
Enough evidence for you? I could dig up more. We learn more and more everyday. And MRI's and CAT scans of the brain can also show how mentally ill people differ from healthy people

[Silent3]

42. Demonic possession

If you understand demonic possession so well, perhaps you could explain what causes a innate vulnerability to possession. If you believe that it is caused by societal factors, rather than innate vulnerability, please identify with precision the particular societal factors that cause it, and describe the metaphysical reaction of the soul to those societal factors. Please do not forget to address counterexamples, where persons have been exposed to demons, but have not developed demonic possession.

[Zebedeo]

43. Thank you for giving me the opportunity

to point out your error.

I never said I "understand demonic possession so well."

By contrast, turtlensue DID claim that "the basics of mental illness are actually well understood and observed."

I took issue with that, and I stand by my objection.

Your attempt to turn it around on me is unavailing, because I never made a claim that demonic possession is well understood. I merely claimed that it is a thoroughly documented fact.

[edhopper]

44. Again we must ask

were do you see this thorough documentation. Where in that video did a women take on the appearance of a snake.
What evidence do you have for the existence of possession. Evidence so thorough that it is documented fact.
A statement like that compels me to see evidence that reaches the level of fact on par with evolution or the age of the Earth.

[TZ]

45. If this is so well docomented

Would you like to get me some peer reviewed data from respectable journals?
AS I DID ABOVE! Are you gonna stand by your claim that there is as much documented evidence for demonic posession as there is for mental illness? Did you look at any of my links?

[Zebedeo]

46. I read the articles at all of your links. Thank you for that.

However, none of them actually answered the questions that I posed.

You asked: "Are you gonna stand by your claim that there is as much documented evidence for demonic posession as there is for mental illness?"

I never made any such claim. If you think I did, please point me to the post in which I made such a claim.

You asked: "Would you like to get me some peer reviewed data from respectable journals?"

The most respectable journal in history is the Holy Bible. Demonic possession is documented numerous times in the Bible. In addition, you can read the book that I referenced above by psychiatrist M. Scott Peck, M.D. You can also read about specific incidents in the writings of Father Malachi Martin. You can also see it for yourself in the video which I linked above. In addition to all of these, there is documentation of case after case after case of demonic possession, in numerous different cultures around the world, and throughout world history. It happens in the most primitive societies, as well as in the most advanced.

Like I said above, I can't believe that there is any serious dispute about the existence of demons. The fact that there are demon-deniers in the face of such overwhelming evidence is mind-boggling to me.

[Evoman]

50. The bible is neither respectable, nor is it a journal.

Hell, it's barely even historical, unless by historical you mean almost complete myth with some nuggets of half truth.

[Zebedeo]

55. You forgot

to point out that the Bible is not "peer reviewed," since God has no peer. ;)

[edhopper]

57. So

the Bible is the absolute word of God and is infallible? Just want to know where you stand.

[Zebedeo]

58. The Bible is the Word of God

That's not to say that every translation on the market today is accurate in every detail. The Bible must be interpreted according to sound principles of scriptural interpretation, including the principle that Scripture interprets Scripture.

[trotsky]

59. ...

[Zebedeo]

60. LOL

Good one, trotsky!

That's funny, and it really did make me smile.

Of course, as you know, I'm not using circular reasoning. I'm not saying that Scripture is true because Scripture says it's true. I'm merely describing a basic rule of interpretation of Scripture. You are free to reject Scripture entirely if you so choose. But if you are going to engage in a serious and genuine effort to understand Scripture, it stands to reason that you would want to read it in the context of other Scripture, so that you do not inadvertently mistake its meaning.

Thanks for brightening my day!

[trotsky]

62. Ah yes, Zeb: the early posts.

Before everyone else gets you hopping mad because you can't defend your limited little theological position with anything resembling logic. The same pattern plays out over and over. How long will you stick around this time before you run back to your fundie church crying again?

[Zebedeo]

63. If I cry,

I cry for thee, trotsky. I cry for thee. :cry:

[trotsky]

64. LMAO

Too rich! Please make sure you stick around longer this time, so more people can see your narrow, literalist dogma on display.

[Evoman]

61. I think you have to actually exist to have peers.

:shrug:

[Realityhack]

67. "The most respectable journal in history is the Holy Bible."

ROTFLMFAO

Wait you where serious?????

WOW. Welcome to 2008 please try to get acquainted with what we have learned over the past 1-2 thousand years before posting further.

[Zebedeo]

68. Serious as a heart attack

In 2008 there are more Christians on Earth than at any other time in history. As we learn more over the years, more and more people realize the Truth about God's Word.

[Evoman]

69. That's because you people breed like rabbits.

And brainwash your kids.

[varkam]

70. There are also more people on Earth than at any other time, period.

Argumentum ad populum...and a bad one at that.

[Zebedeo]

73. Not argumentum ad populum

My post was in response to this: "Welcome to 2008 please try to get acquainted with what we have learned over the past 1-2 thousand years before posting further."

The implication of the poster was that in 2008, society has advanced well beyond Bronze Age superstitions and people don't believe that stuff anymore. That poster was the one employing the argumentum ad populum fallacy. I merely pointed out that his premise is wrong.

[varkam]

74. Here's what you wrote, Zeb:

In 2008 there are more Christians on Earth than at any other time in history. As we learn more over the years, more and more people realize the Truth about God's Word.

Here's the definition of argumentum ad populum from Wikipedia:

An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it

Here, at least, you are resorting to an appeal to the people. You're essentially offering as support for the truth of a religion the fact that it's adherents are numerous. That's textbook, my friend.

If you were merely trying to rebut the claim to which you were responding, then you should've left off the last sentence.

[Realityhack]

78. ?

I didn't say people don't beleive in them any more. That would also be argument ad-populum. I said get acquainted with what we have learned over the past 1-2 thousand years.
We HAVE actually learned a lot about the world around us. You and some other people like to continue making arguments as if we have learned nothing but there is a whole lot of information that you have to either be completely ignorant of or willfully neglect to continue making those kinds of arguments.

The Bible is NOT a journal
it is NOT peer reviewed
it is NOT reliable

You loose on all points.

[Realityhack]

71. argument ad-populum

Almost every time events in the bible can be tested scientifically they are disproved. How exactly does that make it a 'respectable journal of history'?

Is it updated with new information as it becomes available? How does that make it a journal?

Oh right. Circular logic.

[trotsky]

72. There are also way more atheists today than at any other time in history.

You guys not being able to burn us at the stake anymore has helped. But I credit the free flow of information, too.

[Silent3]

47. You simply took the opportunity to play the same old game you always play

For that which you want to believe, your standards of evidence are laughably low.

For that which you don't want to believe, you create ridiculous, deliberately impossible standards of proof.

[Zebedeo]

48. Why would I "want" to believe that demons exist

and that they maliciously possess people? It's not that I "want" to believe it. It's that it is plain to anyone who isn't blinded by their own fundamentalist rejection of all things supernatural.

If someone claims that mental illness is "well understood," then I think it is legitimate to ask her for an explanation of mental illness, and I don't think I imposed any "ridiculous, deliberately impossible standard of proof." I merely asked a question which was designed to either (a) elicit an answer that would be quite illuminating and contain much useful information; or (b) demonstrate that mental illness is not so "well understood." I believe that what we got was some (a) and a lot of (b).

You, on the other hand, attempted to impose a standard of evidence on me that was inapplicable, because I never claimed that demonic possession was "well understood." Nor would I ever make such a claim.

[Evoman]

49. How about this for proof that mental illness is "well understood".

It's written in a psychology book.

If your going to mindlessly accept something because it's written in a book, you might as well accept that.

[Silent3]

51. Why would I "want" to burn in hell forever?

Yet I've heard fundamentalists argue that I must WANT exactly that, because I know deep down that they're right, but for some amazingly stupid reason I can fully understand the horrible fate which awaits me yet think, boy oh boy, I can't pass up my chance at some lovely eternal torment.

My thinking that you "want" to believe in demons is a far, far less far-fetched thing. You "want" it to be true in the sense that, even if you don't like the particulars of demons themselves, your whole world view and focus of your life depends on them being real. Disbelieve demons and the whole structure of your literalistic belief system falls apart.

I can far more easily accommodate the existence of demons in my life, should compelling evidence ever arise, than you can accommodate the lack of them.

I still say you're playing games about degrees of evidence. "Well understood" does not mean the same thing as utterly, completely understood in every last detail, to the extent that every single aspect of a thing can be thoroughly explained and fully predicted in each and every case.

Rainfall is "well understood" in many ways. We know quite a bit about the hydrological cycle, and we're a long, long way away from having to "explain" things via rain gods and Thor tossing around thunderbolts.

That doesn't mean, however, we can predict forward and backward in time the exact particulars of every storm that ever was and ever will be. In fact, part of what is "well understood" is that weather is a chaotic phenomena, therefore nothing short of infinitely precise measurements of an infinite number of data points, fed into a calculational process with infinite precision, can yield more than a few days worth of accurate regression or prediction based on current circumstances.

Your challenge about mental health issues being "well understood", and the implication that demons are a "reasonable" way to fill in the gaps about what we don't know, can't predict, and can't explain, is akin to the farce it would be to insist that since a meteorologist can't tell you exactly why a storm happened exactly as it happened on a particular time, in a particular place, meteorology is therefore a bogus enterprise, and since the meteorologist can't predict exactly what the weather will be in every town on the planet nine months from today, we'd better start taking Thor seriously.

[Zebedeo]

54. You misunderstand my point of view.

For me, it is not an either/or proposition or a zero sum game. I do not believe in the existence of demons to "fill in the gaps" left by what is not known regarding mental illness. I believe that mental illness exists, and that demons exist. They are two different, but not mutually exclusive, realities. You are trying to portray me as someone who disbelieves in mental illness and therefore attributes strange behavior to demonic possession. That is not what I believe at all.

Your point about "well understood" is a valid one. Perhaps turtlensue and I had in mind different definitions of "well understood." It's a subjective phrase. In my subjective opinion, I don't think mental illness is understood very well. I don't see a lot of people with mental illness being cured by some simple therapeutic technique. I think mental illness is highly complex and mysterious, and that a "cure" for mental illness is nowhere in sight. I wish it were otherwise.

Your example about meteorology is interesting, but you of course take it too far. You imply that I would be the type of person to say that "meteorology is a bogus enterprise" because accurate weather predictions cannot always be made. That is an unfair analogy, because I never said that the study of mental illness is a "bogus enterprise." I support continued work in the study of mental illness.

None of that changes the fact that demons exist, that they are full of hate and jealousy against mankind, and that they are actively working to corrupt humanity through every means possible.

[Silent3]

56. With comments like this...

None of that changes the fact that demons exist, that they are full of hate and jealousy against mankind, and that they are actively working to corrupt humanity through every means possible.

It's a good thing you do believe in mental illness. I hope your beliefs include the category of paranoid delusions. Wow.

When your evidence for demons is as good as the evidence for evolution that you off-handedly dismiss, when your evidence reaches a comparable level of research, volumes of data, physical evidence, peer-reviewed publications, testable results, and predictive value, please get back to me.

I made the analogy about meteorology because I've seen you play the same gambit with evolution before, and your challenge to turtlensue about mental illness had very much the same tone: Act like you're being oh-so-scientific by always demanding impossible levels of proof, pretending that your unreachable (and very mobile, should they ever appear in danger of being reached) goalposts are merely basic evidentiary standards. If in the particular case of the subject of mental illness you're being more reasonable than it originally appeared to me, for that I apologize for jumping to an unfounded conclusion.

I still hold, however, that if you're so damned certain that demons exist, and consider the evidence for demons so good that only a perversely unconditional denial of all things "supernatural" could blind someone to the alleged quality and persuasive power of said evidence, yet at the same time you can made the anti-evolution arguments I've seen you make in the past, you are indeed guilty of conveniently shifting standards of proof based on subject matter.

[Realityhack]

79. "Why would I "want" to believe that demons exist"

Actually there are a number of reasons why you would want to believe that.

Peer acceptance
Being in on something
Cognitive dissonance with your other beliefs (where you not to)
Feeling of superiority (various reasons)
Established position (also combines with cognitive dissonance)
Etc.

All of which have been documented in a wide range of studies.

But let's not go messing things up with actual facts.

BTW if you or anyone else provided actual valid proof that Demonic possessions occurred you would win the Nobel prize with ease. But silly us... we require actual evidence.

[edhopper]

80. Or at the least

a million bucks from James Randi. :-)

[Realityhack]

81. would have but IIRC that is modified now. n/t

[immoderate]

52. I like to watch Rev. Bob Larson perform exorcisms on TV.

One thing I've noticed is that the demons never curse if they know they are being taped. You would think that demons might be defiant of broadcast standards, and use all sorts of bad language, but nooooo! I think we can say that this is well documented as Rev. Bob has performed many exorcisms right there on camera.

--IMM

[Dervill Crow]

26. I'm much more afraid of zealots than I am of demons.

At one point I thought my daughter might be under attack by a demon of some sort, but it was probably just adolescent acting out. I did some praying as recommended by a book on spiritual warfare and she got better. I got better, too, and have since given up that evangelical christian hornswoggle. Seriously, watching that video makes me embarrassed to believe in anything spiritual.

:hide: It also makes me wish fewer people at work know I'm a Pagan.

[charlie]

53. Possession by demons?

Or invasion of the Happy Holy Spirit? You decide:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-tylAuq7Uo

Or maybe it's just the bag of twisted impulses that once crawled up Bobcat Goldthwaite's backside. Whatever it is, it's loose in Canada now. If it ever gets ahold of Evoman, we'll definitely have to build a fence on the northern border!

[AnnieBW]

76. Call the Winchester Boys!

They're really good at fighting demons. And they're pretty hot, too!

[AnnieBW]

75. I keep having this recurring nightmare

of being kidnapped and dragged away so that someone can exorcise the Evil Pagan Spirits away from me. Sorry, bub... I'm me. I CHOSE to be a Pagan. I can recite the words of Jesus without my head doing 360's or spitting up pea soup. It's just that I choose to follow Yahweh's wife rather than Yahweh.

[PATRICK]

77. The Catholic Al Qaeda

as it is being quizzically recycled by the new pope. Encouraging the fear and passing the spiritual buck.
Jesus had bigger fish to fry and in quite different ways than the occasional exorcism healing.