Who & what are the demons ?

Just saying something doesn't automatically make it true.Can you provide an original source or not? Why is any translation you decide to follow, the correct translation?Please show the provenance.

So I take this mean to mean you are not going to provide any evidence to back you statements other than "I believe it is true, therefore it is true. I do not have to provide any evidence"Well I guess you can never lose an argument. Tell me how is delusion working for you?

But your god can?

This whole idea that a belief can not be wrong is ludicrous. This belief pervades this site and has gotten me in trouble more than once.From forum guidelines.

quote:

---

The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect.

---

Bullshit. Some beliefs are only worth derision and abuse.Are the beliefs of a member of NAMBLA worthy of my respect. Neo-Nazi and Klan beliefs?Beliefs should be ridiculed and tested. If a person can not support their beliefs then they should reexamine them. Happens to me all the time.

And when will you people understand that absence of evidence is evidence of well.. let see... uh..oh yeah. Nothing.This whole idea that since there is no evidence we should seriously entertain the idea that something is possible isn't just ridiculous it is assinine.

WTF does this even mean?

What you wrote originally did not mean this. Your original meant nothing in the english language. I do not think my comprehension is the issue. This is still just more gibberish.Are you saying that there is 5000 years of history and there are 1000 nations in the world and how much do we have evidence for?If that is what you are saying it is a false premise to start with.How do you get to 5000 years of history? Writing goes back 6000 years and possibly to 8000 years ago. The term history is general understood to be the time since written records. Prior to that we have prehistory.We have very strong evidence for the people of these prehistorical periods.Back to your statement. What we understand in history is what we have evidence for. There are extrapolations from that evidence, but we know what we know from evidence. Things we do not have evidence for we do not know about.Now to get to your other point. 1000 nations? WTF is that? Do you have a list? How is membership in these nations determined? Is it based on citizenship, genetics, language? Can a black man and a white man be of the same nation?

Boy you sure now how to make a point don't you. Still trying to determine what you are actually trying to say. I am assuming english is not your first language. That is cool but you should probably have a native speaker, or someone more skilled read what you write and help you because it is coming a cross as gibberish. Except for your insults of course.The part that is not evidenced has no bearing on anything. You seem to be making a classic mistake of fundies.Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but neither is it evidence of anything. If there has no evidence for the existence of an event in history there is no reason to think it happened. I am amazed that you think that your pet ideas can have some grounding in reality, because we do not have a historical record for everything that has happened through out time. Your whole premise is ridiculous.You are saying that since we do not know what was on Henry VIII's menu on March 23, 1522 then we should think your religious fantasies should be true also. Now doesn't that sound a little silly to you?I would still like to know more about these 1000 nations of which you speak. Really? According to who?

How about responding to my post?1000 nations?
Absence of evidence?Or are you going to just move on to more gibberish?

According to who? How do you define nation?

How do you make the leap from unexplained to demons? I see and hear things all the time that are unexplained. Whoopee. Doesn't mean with scientific investigation they cannot be explained. That being said there are lots of things science can not explain. Do you subscribe that the explanation is supernatural for these too?

Well I should have an addendum to my signature."Woo" is not an explanation. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

Just saw this line again.Are these things you equate as evil? Here is the problem with your whole view on this. You are applying extremely subjective views in order to reach your conclusions.A lot of people have no issue with porn. Most would not admit it, but a high percentage of people look at porn. Even the extremely "moral" people.By nebulous I assume you mean something like unseemly. You might want to look up nebulous. I don't think it means what you think. Why is association with some people a negative thing?Knowingly mock God is quite hilarious. Really? Is your god so weak a little mocking pisses the shit out of him. And you wonder why people don't believe?Your whole idea of demons is vague and nebulous. It is a classic example of not knowing how to define something but knowing it when you see it. Subjectivity at its finest.

More woo?
Until you show me some studies on it, it is just a load of bunk someone is making money off.

Is that truly how you think? Are your base instincts the most dominant in your life? Pleasure is not bad.Everything in moderation, even moderation.