Does demon possession exist?

[LeBronMonsterDunk]

im glad you took that lightly, it was a little harsh. True, but harsh.

It is true. I’m a shell of my former posting self. This place has gotten so stale n boring, my only mission is to trigger Grizz into DM’ing me one last time an angry filled “ur an asshole rant”. He was almost there til you white knighted for him faggot.

He really did that?

[elmouse03]

The only cure for possession is more cowbell.

[Shill Jackson]

I think that is incredibly judgmental. I'm sure there is a subset of atheists that would fit into what you are trying to say.

There is also a subset of people who believe in God who are absolutely batshit crazy and would kill the majority of the world that doesn't agree with their view of the world.

I am an atheist I, and I know many atheists and we got there with independent thought. You are really overthinking this.

Unfortunately, the science is settled on this topic.

Atheists are more likely to be virgins, unmarried, childless, possessing fewer social bonds, be unpopular and bullied, be judged as less sexually attractive, etc...

You have unquestioning belief in "science" when it leads to a conclusion that alien life a)probably exists, and b)probably won't be discovered by us in any time span except maybe the super far future.

But you suddenly lose that faith in science when it proves believers have it all over nonbelievers on the overwhelming majority of important quality-of-life metrics?

Interesting....interesting.

Let’s look at your “science”


Bullet 1 - not even sure what this is saying, since we ALL die.
Bullet 2 - since the stats include Muslims, not surprising at all, since they ban smoking and drinking. There is a very long history of Christian lushes, including rites within the religion.
Bullet 3 - no definition of ‘depressive symptoms’, making rebuttal vague at best.
Bullet 4 - since most religions tell you that their flavor is the key to happiness, not surprising that zealots would respond this way.
Bullet 5 - see response to bullet 2
Bullet 6 - most religious schools are known diploma mills.
Bullet 7 - since most religions dictate marriage as a necessity, not surprising.
Interesting....interesting.

[Bush4Ever.]

rambling

So you are saying you don't trust peer-review?

Psych Bull is the leading journal for all psychology.

You can either admit you don't trust peer-review or science more generally, or you can admit that atheism is a magnet for losers and theism is a magnet for winners and struggling people who want to be winners.

Pick one. But you 100 percent cannot claim to be "pro-science" and then reject completely straightforward scientific truth, especially in a meta-analysis.

You unintentionally fell into the trap and walked right into my bait.

Atheists run towards science when the science has the appearance of being anti-God and run away screaming/fleeing in terror when the science presents religious belief (not even the nature of God himself, just belief) as positive.

Like I said...100 percent emotional and mental illness based analysis.

Thank you for proving my point.

[Shill Jackson]

rambling

So you are saying you don't trust peer-review?

Psych Bull is the leading journal for all psychology.

You can either admit you don't trust peer-review or science more generally, or you can admit that atheism is a magnet for losers and theism is a magnet for winners and struggling people who want to be winners.

Pick one. But you 100 percent cannot claim to be "pro-science" and then reject completely straightforward scientific truth, especially in a meta-analysis.

You unintentionally fell into the trap and walked right into my bait.

Atheists run towards science when the science has the appearance of being anti-God and run away screaming/fleeing in terror when the science presents religious belief (not even the nature of God himself, just belief) as positive.

Like I said...100 percent emotional and mental illness based analysis.

Thank you for proving my point.

If you actually read what I typed, instead of knee jerking and responding emotionally, you would see that I typed “not surprising” several times.
Your effeminate emotion response includes multiple assumptions that are not based on any tangible evidence.

[AtiliusRegulus]

Bullet 1 - not even sure what this is saying, since we ALL die.

go eat burgers, fries with a large coke every day with pizza and beers for dinner.

[Bush4Ever.]

If you actually read what I typed, instead of knee jerking and responding emotionally, you would see that I typed “not surprising” several times.

Yeah, I got it.

What you don't understand (because you are not scientifically literate) is that the primary reason for submission rejection in super high-level journals is because the results are uninteresting or null (but this is a meta-analysis, which makes the likelihood of all null findings to be close to zero).

Competently completed uninteresting work/findings is not going to be published in the LEADING (out of many thousands) psychology journal on the fucking planet.

So you screaming and crying and saying "so what" over and over again is essentially spitting in the face of peer-review and science, at least within psychology and saying the results are completely obvious and trivial, when in fact peer-review judged them as completely interesting.

Atheism is (generally) a magnet for losers raging at the world.

The data is in, and the science is settled.

Stop being anti-scientific.

The earth is not flat.
The Holocaust did (basically) happen.
Atheism has a hugely disproportionate amount of life losers in its population

[Bush4Ever.]

[vcsgrizzfan]

rambling

So you are saying you don't trust peer-review?

Psych Bull is the leading journal for all psychology.

You can either admit you don't trust peer-review or science more generally, or you can admit that atheism is a magnet for losers and theism is a magnet for winners and struggling people who want to be winners.

Pick one. But you 100 percent cannot claim to be "pro-science" and then reject completely straightforward scientific truth, especially in a meta-analysis.

You unintentionally fell into the trap and walked right into my bait.

Atheists run towards science when the science has the appearance of being anti-God and run away screaming/fleeing in terror when the science presents religious belief (not even the nature of God himself, just belief) as positive.

Like I said...100 percent emotional and mental illness based analysis.

Thank you for proving my point.

You are completely making stuff up. I don't believe any of us (certainly I know I haven't) have made a claim that having a religious belief is necessarily negative. It can obviously be very positive and is for many people who need direction, or some of the connection and sense of belonging that religion can bring. Conversely though, it definitely can also be negative as demonstrated by muslim zealots who would blow us all to smithereens in the name of Allah.

I made simple statements which you have ignored. These were: First, I believe there is a very low likelihood that there is a God. Period. Two, I believe there is a very good chance based on just the sheer vastness of the universe that there are many other intelligent forms of life out there. That's it.

All your responses have just been obfuscation.

[Shill Jackson]

If you actually read what I typed, instead of knee jerking and responding emotionally, you would see that I typed “not surprising” several times.

Yeah, I got it.

What you don't understand (because you are not scientifically literate) is that the primary reason for submission rejection in super high-level journals is because the results are uninteresting or null (but this is a meta-analysis, which makes the likelihood of all null findings to be close to zero).

Competently completed uninteresting work/findings is not going to be published in the LEADING (out of many thousands) psychology journal on the fucking planet.

So you screaming and crying and saying "so what" over and over again is essentially spitting in the face of peer-review and science, at least within psychology and saying the results are completely obvious and trivial, when in fact peer-review judged them as completely interesting.

Atheism is (generally) a magnet for losers raging at the world.

The data is in, and the science is settled.

Stop being anti-scientific.

The earth is not flat.
The Holocaust did (basically) happen.
Atheism has a hugely disproportionate amount of life losers in its population

Again, Your effeminate emotional response includes multiple assumptions that are not based on any tangible evidence.

[Bush4Ever.]

You are completely making stuff up. I don't believe any of us (certainly I know I haven't) have made a claim that having a religious belief is necessarily negative. It can obviously be very positive and is for many people who need direction, or some of the connection and sense of belonging that religion can bring. Conversely though, it definitely can also be negative as demonstrated by muslim zealots who would blow us all to smithereens in the name of Allah.

Things can be good or bad. Good things can be warped to be bad things by bad people.

I agree.

Good thing we have a meta-analysis looking at gigantic swaths of people across multiple countries, religions, ages, genders, etc...

And....oops! The result indicate *exactly* what I said earlier.

You don't get to ignore scientific evidence just because it makes you emotionally uncomfortable.

Did you notice how easily I was able to handle Madness's autism about atheists having a higher average IQ than theists?

I didn't scream or cry. I accepted the evidence and dealt with it.

You all need to do the same here. It's simply lack of integrity to do otherwise.

[vcsgrizzfan]

You are completely making stuff up. I don't believe any of us (certainly I know I haven't) have made a claim that having a religious belief is necessarily negative. It can obviously be very positive and is for many people who need direction, or some of the connection and sense of belonging that religion can bring. Conversely though, it definitely can also be negative as demonstrated by muslim zealots who would blow us all to smithereens in the name of Allah.

Things can be good or bad. Good things can be warped to be bad things by bad people.

I agree.

Good thing we have a meta-analysis looking at gigantic swaths of people across multiple countries, religions, ages, genders, etc...

And....oops! The result indicate *exactly* what I said earlier.

You don't get to ignore scientific evidence just because it makes you emotionally uncomfortable.

Did you notice how easily I was able to handle Madness's autism about atheists having a higher average IQ than theists?

I didn't scream or cry. I accepted the evidence and dealt with it.

You all need to do the same here. It's simply lack of integrity to do otherwise.

And you continue to obfuscate and ignore what I say. Have a nice evening.

[Bush4Ever.]

Again, Your effeminate emotional response includes multiple assumptions that are not based on any tangible evidence.

What I said is obvious if you actually did science yourself, instead of parroting what (some) scientists say.

A boring, non-informative meta-analysis (even if competently done) getting prime time coverage in the best psychology journal on the planet is like an NBA team going out of their way to sign a 8/4/4 D2 point guard to a ten-day contract.

It just straight up doesn't happen.

Again though...this is definitely a "you have to be in the business to get it" thing, so I understand why someone who believes YouTube clips are scientific evidence doesn't understand it.

Now stop trolling or be serious. Pick one.

[Bush4Ever.]

And you continue to obfuscate and ignore what I say. Have a nice evening.

I've answered it directly.

You are just mad I'm not letting you avoid critical parts to your argument.

[Titan18]

Are the previous 4 pages of this here thread worth the read?

[LNS]

Are the previous 4 pages of this here thread worth the read?

Honestly not really. Bush is trying to find a correlation between happiness, life expectancy and religion, and Madness is doing his normal “I’m smart for not believing” shit.

[Bush4Ever.]

Are the previous 4 pages of this here thread worth the read?

Absolutely not.

Pretty much nothing substantive and pure trolling.

[Bush4Ever.]

Honestly not really. Bush is trying to find a correlation between happiness, life expectancy and religion, and Madness is doing his normal “I’m smart for not believing” shit.

lol I'm not "trying" to find anything.

It's already been found in a hyper-robust way.

It's not conjecture at this point.

[LNS]

Honestly not really. Bush is trying to find a correlation between happiness, life expectancy and religion, and Madness is doing his normal “I’m smart for not believing” shit.

lol I'm not "trying" to find anything.

It's already been found in a hyper-robust way.

It's not conjecture at this point.

Control your autism.

[ripper76]

Are the previous 4 pages of this here thread worth the read?

It's a whole lot of this being proved right:

A big part of the issue with discussions like this is that people get caught up on words like "demon" or "God" and they get stuck on their preconceived notions of such things that come from childhood and fairy-tales, instead of the bigger picture and concepts that are actually being contemplated. Most people aren't capable of having a discussion on metaphysics because their ego doesn't allow them to start from the premise that they aren't even able to comprehend how much they don't know, let alone acknowledge it.