Exorcisms on the rise: Occult activity sparks 'pastoral emergency'

[theHandpuppet]

Catholic News Agency
November 6, 2014
Exorcisms on the rise: Occult activity sparks 'pastoral emergency'
By Mary Rezac

Rome, Italy, Nov 6, 2014 / 04:01 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Catholic experts say occult activity and the resulting need for exorcisms has reached a critical level.

Just prior to the season of all things supernatural, the International Association of Exorcists (AIE) met for their 12th annual conference in Rome, from Oct. 20-25.

According to AIE spokesperson Dr. Valter Cascioli, an increasing number of bishops and cardinals asked to participate in the conference due to an increase in demonic activity.

“It’s becoming a pastoral emergency,” Cascioli told CNA. “At the moment the number of disturbances of extraordinary demonic activity is on the rise.”....

MORE at http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/exorcisms-on-the-rise-occult-activity-sparks-pastoral-emergency-18264/

[phil89]

1. What century is it again?

and what evidence is there for demonic possession?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

2. Is it true that if you don't pay the priest

you get repossessed????

[PeoViejo]

52. Too clever...

[Dorian Gray]

155. Funny

[cbayer]

3. Oh, geez, really?

I was really hoping for some increase in reason in this group. This article doesn't even address the guidelines for psychiatric and medical evaluations of those requesting exorcism.

And the AIE spokesperson makes some really outrageous statements about things like horoscopes and ouija boards.

Frankly, it's an embarrassment.

[skepticscott]

5. No, you weren't

You're the one who's been defending the practice of exorcism, and saying that as long as people get some comfort from it, it doesn't do any harm for the RCC and others to keep practicing and promoting it.

All hail the Placebo Effect!

[trotsky]

7. That's an interesting double standard.

Can you prove demons don't exist?

[rug]

47. That's pretty diingenuous.

Can you prove this is here for discussion and not flamebait?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/123030873#post15

!

[bvf]

8. That the very concept of exorcism

continues to exist in this age only demonstrates how deluded some people are.

As for:

"I was really hoping for some increase in reason in this group",

LOL!

[cbayer]

9. I think it more represents a wish for an easy answer

not a delusion.

When people are suffering or having some serious bad luck, it might be easier to put the blame on something like a demon rather than look at their own issues.

It may also be a reflection of the lack of adequate and available psychiatric care in many places. Although they are supposed to have people screened for psychiatric and medical problems, from the looks of the story that may not be happening.

[bvf]

10. Easy answers = religion.

I can live with that.

I never looked at it quite that way. Saves someone from having to think.

[cbayer]

12. I did not say that. I said that about exorcisms.

There are many, many great thinkers, both past and present, who are/were religious.

You are just trying to score an easy point, but it is without merit.

[bvf]

13. So where do you draw the line?

Belief in exorcism?

Belief that you're eating the flesh of Jesus at communion?

Belief that you'll be somehow dealt with in some afterlife?

Belief in an imaginary being?

[cbayer]

16. I draw the line at harm.

I have concerns about exorcism because I think some people with medical/psychiatric problems may not receive appropriate evaluation. Although the RCC has a policy about this, I am concerned that it is not followed.

As far as people's beliefs in what communion is, or what happens after you die or there being a god, as long as it causes not harm, who am I to judge? What business is it of mine or yours?

And when you make definitive statements about things being imaginary, you really need to provide some evidence to support that.

Otherwise, it's just your belief based on some kind of faith. Should we draw the line there?

[bvf]

17. Four simple questions

and you couldn't answer even one. So you don't think you have a vested interest in what your fellow humans believe? That's pretty depressing.

[cbayer]

19. No, you asked one question and gave 4 options for my reply.

And I expressed my opinion about each and every one of them.

Go back and read it again.

A vested interest in what other believe? I think those that judge others based on what they believe when their beliefs harm no one are the ones that are depressing.

Are you one of those?

[bvf]

21. You addressed none

of the options with a single yes or no. Very definitive of you.

Do you believe in demons? Yes or no will do. Saying it's none of my business won't much further your case, whatever it is.

[cbayer]

23. I told you I draw the line at harm.

Then I addressed each of the four examples you gave and told you why one concerned me and the other three didn't.

No, I personally don't believe in demons. Any other questions?

If you want to know what my "case" is, all you need to do is ask me.

[bvf]

29. I've asked already.

Do you believe in an afterlife?

Why or why not?

[cbayer]

31. I do not have a belief in the afterlife, but I don't know for sure

and am not rejecting the possibility.

I'm basically a skeptic and like proof, but when it comes to religion I am agnostic and unwilling to take a hard position concerning theism.

Basically it doesn't matter to me whether there is a god or not. It wouldn't change anything about how I live my life.

And I generally don't care if you or others believe in a god or not.

As I stated in response to your initial question, I draw the line at harm.

Is this somehow different than what you had assumed about me?

[trotsky]

34. One thing she's never discussed...

is the innate contradiction in declaring she draws a line at "harm."

Who gets to define what "harm" is? As many have pointed out (and been ignored, of course, because they bring inconvenient facts to a tidy little worldview), anti-choice individuals would undoubtedly declare abortion to be harmful. So using cbayer's logic, they have every right to oppose people who have pro-choice beliefs. Just like she can define what "harm" is for her to oppose other beliefs. It's all good.

[skepticscott]

57. No, you don't draw the line at harm

Despite the people who have died because of the ignorant superstitions propagated by the church, you think they should keep up the practice of exorcism, instead of condemning it. You are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. Your concerns about exorcism have been expressed quite clearly here.

basically your primary concern is that this never be discussed here as a problem associated with religion. Aside from that you have defended the practice, which considering your alleged professional status with respect to mental health practices, is quite frankly embarrassing for you.

[Feral Child]

30. I'll make it easier for you,

just 1 question: Do demons exist?

[cbayer]

32. There is no need for you to make anything easier for me.

I don't know if demons exist or not, but I doubt it.

Is that simple enough for you?

[Feral Child]

42. Not really.

I was thinking a more "yes" or "no", but not surprised you could waffle a simple question.

You try to imply impartiality, but you can't help but make it clear that you want the semblance of being open-minded whilst actually pitching for the "Mysteries".

Straight out: Christian, Yes/No?

[cbayer]

45. Waffle? I state my position and you think it's waffling?

In your opinion should every one have a definitive position on demons?

And you also are reverting to making it personal, which is the sure sign of losing a debate.

I am actually open-minded and I don't pitch anything other than that people should be open-minded and accepting of other people's beliefs or lack of beliefs unless they are harmful.

Not a christian.

Have I answered these questions to your satisfaction?

[Feral Child]

69. "Thrice you will deny me..."

[cbayer]

75. Wait, now you are placing yourself in the role of Jesus Christ and me in the role of Peter?

You are hilarious….. sort of.

[Feral Child]

90. Quoting is not assuming a persona, but have I struck a nerve here?

You don't seem capable of repeating your denial. You have very obvious "tells".

[Feral Child]

73. No.

See how easy that is?

[cbayer]

76. You remain unclear. Are you making the definitive statement that demons do not exist?

Show me how easy it is to prove that?

Otherwise, the much smarter answer would be "I don't know".

See how easy that is?

[Feral Child]

86. I'm an adult.

No, I don't believe "demons" exist. Less "smart", perhaps, but much more honest.

Your next query is unclear, but I'll assume the punctuation error and that you meant to challenge me to prove "demons" don't exist. That's a ridiculous game that achieves nothing, it's a dishonest deflection of true discussion, a Christian talking-point

Using talking-points is indeed easy, but it's intellectually dishonest and lazy..

[cbayer]

89. Last post, because I think some clarification is needed.

Your question was whether demons existed or not. My answer was that I did not know, but I doubted it.

You then said the simple answer was "No". As the question was not about belief, your answer was then, "No, demons do not exist."

That is a definitive statement. That leaves the ball in your court.

Now, if you say that you don't believe, there is nothing to prove. I think that is what you meant but I wanted to clarify why I put up the challenge.

You can continue to make this personal but it is the final sign that you have lost the debate. I am neither intellectually dishonest nor lazy.

You have a nice weekend now.

[skepticscott]

14. If you actually believed that

you'd be advocating for the RCC to do what it SHOULD do in every one of these situations, which is to unequivocally denounce the notion that there is any evidence that humans can be possessed by demons, and ONLY encourage people to seek appropriate medical treatment. But instead, you encourage the promotion and propagation of dangerous delusions and superstitions that get people killed, while all the time pretending that there's no harm in it.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. lead by example then

[LunaSea]

4. increase in demonic activity?

And I thought it was low voter turnout...

[hrmjustin]

11. Duzy!

[trotsky]

6. Red alert!

Good thing this isn't a mainstream religious group! Just a fringe minority!

[Leontius]

15. Who cares about this story believers are mentally ill anyway aren't they?

This seems to be the common answer from our resident "freethinkers" and 'brights" to explain religion and religious people.

[cbayer]

18. That is one of the most despicable positions concerning religious

people that is posted here. It is a position held by a small group of people who have absolutely no education, training or experience that give their POV any credence whatsoever.

It's a weak and nasty attack that says much, much more about those that express it than it ever will about religious believers.

Let them play in the mud. I am glad that there are a few that will stand up to it, but they will be rapidly ostracized if they persist.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. That is a massively dishonest characterization, one that you have made repeatedly.

The people you are attacking have not stated that all believers are mentally ill, and you know that. Instead the discussion has been about the problematic distinction made in the DSM between delusional beliefs and religious beliefs, a distinction so tortured that it gets re-written on a regular basis.


However you have remained silent while one of your buddies has directly accused atheists here of being mentally ill. So it seems your apoplexy is reserved only for imagined attacks on people's mental health, not actual ones.

And do you still claim that exorcism is fine because of "placebo effect"?

[bvf]

27. So what do you believe in?

Demons? Afterlife? What?

You're really good at telling people to shut up, but fall pretty short of enunciating your own views beyond that.

Perhaps you don't know what you believe.

[cbayer]

33. Oooooo, getting personal. That's a sure sign of losing a debate.

I am more than happy to answer any questions you wish to ask me and have already answered the ones you posit here.

Is is important to have beliefs and know what they are in your opinion? What are your beliefs?

[bvf]

36. I simply asked whether you believe in

an afterlife.

Is that so hard to understand?

[cbayer]

37. And I answered you. But you made it personal by saying that I am good at telling

people to shut up and then went on to say that I fall short in enunciating my own views.

The fact is that I have spoken of my own views openly, repeatedly and will respond to any questions you have about them.

That you haven't seen that and have made all kinds of false assumptions about what they are is not my fault or my problem.

Is that so hard to understand?

[bvf]

113. Ah. Another non-answer.

"I do not have a belief in the afterlife, but I don't know for sure and am not rejecting the possibility."

So you believe there could be an afterlife. Or maybe not.

Crystal clear.

[cbayer]

115. I'm an agnostic, bvf. I know you don't like that answer, but that is my position regarding religion

I don't know and I'm not interested in taking a position. I'm an apatheist, bvf. I don't know if there is a god or an afterlife or demons or anything like that and I don't care. If you consider that a non-answer, so be it

So yes, I believe it could be possible or maybe not. If you consider that a non-answer, so be it. It matters not at all to me.

I don't care if you believe or not, unless there is harm, so why do you care so much whether I do?

What is this, the inquisition? Are my answers not sufficient for you?

Or perhaps more like this: are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party?

Did you happen to catch the member that wanted me to deny that I was a christian three times, then drew the conclusion that I must be lying because I thought answering the question once was sufficient.

Truly bizarre times we are in here.

[bvf]

128. Hmm.

"What is this, the inquisition?"

I'd have guessed you'd drag out the "witch hunt" chestnut again, but "inquisition" substitutes nicely as equally inappropriate.

To shrug off the question of belief is to look the other way when harm is done.

Harm is done to every child dragged to worship of an imaginary being, and in whose name is taught that an eternity spent roasting in fire awaits those who don't toe the line.

Harm is done with every utterance to millions of slavish believers that an omniscient unicorn set it all in motion.

Harm is done daily, everywhere, buttressing the delusions of the misguided.

[cbayer]

129. Yes, I did.

You keep asking me questions. I answer them honestly and straightforwardly, no games, and you just keep asking them again and again.

You are looking for a specific answer and when you don't get it you just keep asking hoping that I will say something you can hang me with.

Yes, that has a very familiar ring to it.

I don't look the other way when harm is done and not taking a position on belief has absolutely no correlation with doing that. The only way to make sense out of your position would be to say that only by denying belief is one able to address harm being done.

Frankly, that's just bullshit.

You have beliefs. They are based on faith, not data. You have absolutely nothing to substantiate your beliefs that taking children to church is harmful. You are just making it up.

Your beliefs are faith based, and since there is actually contradictory evidence, it may be those beliefs that are actually the delusional ones.

Sorry, you may feel strongly about your position but it's not the true, one way.

But if you feel the need to go out and save people, you certainly won't be alone.

Now, how many more of those shallow hollow religious references can you put in your next post? I'll be looking for invisible sky daddy, a reference to santa claus and possibly something about mental illness.

Surely you won't disappoint?

[bvf]

130. Unbelievable.

"Your beliefs are faith based, and since there is actually contradictory evidence, it may be those beliefs that are actually the delusional ones."

What contradictory evidence is that? Are we going to hear the usual claptrap about missions that pass out bibles and food?

"You have beliefs. They are based on faith, not data."

Kids are eventually told there is no Santa Claus. That's one. Never cared for "Invisible Sky Daddy." That's two.

You should know that "delusion" has other than psychiatric meanings--but it doesn't seem to prevent you from ridiculous inferences. That's three.

When you shrug off belief, you are indeed looking away from harm. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable.

[cbayer]

137. No, absolutely believable.

There is no data that shows exposure to religion to be correlated with some kind of harm to children, or anyone for that matter.

No claptrap about missions that hand out bibles. I haven't heard that, but perhaps you also have evidence that that occurs?

Since you are making the claims about harm, it is up to you to provide the evidence. Don't bother. There isn't any. Your assertions are baseless.

I am fully aware that delusion can be used in a colloquial way by those with no experience or knowledge about the clinical definition. But then again, some use it to actually describe those with religious beliefs as being mentally ill. In which way are you using it?

I'm not uncomfortable in the least. I am amused.

Your beliefs are faith based and without evidence. They are based on faith. You are no different than anyone else who thinks they have found the one way and has set about to save people.

Now, why don't you just back down and contemplate that some people that see the world differently from you are actually good, sane people with whom you have a great deal in common.

This crusade you are on is pointless.

[bvf]

138. Oh, that's right--I forgot.

Religion is never responsible for anything bad in your view.

You haven't heard of missionary work. Do I read you correctly?

I take harm in this sense to be the inculcation of delusions in others. Whatever you take it to mean typically results in exoneration of that, from what I've seen.

There's nothing colloquial about the non-psychiatric usage of "delusion." Your use of the term "colloquial" reads like a back-handed insult.

I'm not out to save anyone. I just would like to see people use their fucking heads.

As for your suggestion about backing down:

No.

[cbayer]

139. No, that's wrong. Religion is responsible for a lot of bad things in my view.

In fact, I post about that frequently.

And of course I know about missionary work. You are so very silly and so very lost.

I am so done with you.

You have a nice rest of your weekend. Perhaps we shall meet again and perhaps not.

[bvf]

140. Your view of religion couldn't be any squishier.

Nor could your impotent protestations about needing data to show that religious missions are about anything but creating converts.

Atheists can feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and shelter the homeless without the delusional bullshit.

[cbayer]

143. And yours any more rigid.

I'l go for flexibility over rigidity.

Let me know when secular and governmental agencies step up to the plate and start taking over from the religious organizations that take care of the most marginalized and harmed on this planet. I would like nothing more than to see that happen.

In the meantime, take a look at Half the Sky if you get a chance and let me know what you think about all that delusional bullshit being invoked to take care of girls and women who are being unspeakably attacked around the globe.

And then, when you get a chance, go out and do some of that work yourself.

I know you've got it bad, and that ain't good.

[skepticscott]

144. When religions stop sucking at the public teat, claiming all manner

of tax exemptions for non-charitable functions, and whining about restrictions on religious freedom when they don't get them, then maybe we'll have the money to do that. Or maybe if religiously motivated conservatives stopped their war on the poor and underprivileged, that'd help too.

No one sensible is holding their breath.

[bvf]

145. So much for doing good works without all the crowing

and expectations of credit.

"And then, when you get a chance, go out and do some of that work yourself."

That's a very presumptuous and ignorant remark, not to mention insulting in the extreme. If it wasn't clear where you're coming from before, this certainly clears it up.

[cbayer]

146. Well, that's because I am presumptuous, ignorant and insulting.

I'm glad that your vision has cleared and you can now see so clearly who I really am.

Oh, wait. It's exactly who you always believed I was.

There couldn't be any confirmation bias, could there?

Nah.

[bvf]

147. Presumption upon presumption.

Spare me the smilies and get that plank out of your eye.

[cbayer]

148. But if I take the plank out of my eye, I won't be able to make

people walk off my yacht when they displease me.

And I just can't bear the thought of that.

What? You don't like smilies?

[bvf]

150. Looks like you could use

a fresh bucket of bait. You're resorting to gibberish.

[cbayer]

151. Yep, fresh bait is always useful, particularly when I start talking

about fish.

What do you think? Worms or crickets?

[okasha]

149. Oh, dear.

We "presumptious" peasants just don't have any respect for the gentry anymore. Maybe you should call yourself Sir bvf, KBS. I

[cbayer]

152. He's fun. Take my word for it.

If you aren't too busy yachting about, you could play!

[okasha]

153. Perhaps another time.

Grand Duke Mikhail--you remember him from that bash down in Vallarta--fell overboard, and the steward and bosun are trying to haul him out now.

[cbayer]

154. Oh, dear. Was he fighting with the dolphins again?

Well, perhaps another time.

Hope your wealth increased today and that you were kind to the house staff.

[rug]

156. "Lord" has been taken.

[trotsky]

28. Much like people who claim that atheists are just believers who had a bad childhood experience

or trauma.

And you've been quick to criticize and scold them, too, right? Oh wait, nope.

All I know is that I've never said all believers are mentally ill. But then I've also been falsely accused of calling someone a homophobe.

[rug]

48. Yup, the question in 47's been answered.

Flamebait, and there you are. Looks like you've been waiting a while.

[TM99]

51. And it continues

with fresh religion = mental illness in the AA forums as of today!

[cbayer]

53. Yes, I know. It is one of the ugliest of it's kind that I have seen here.

But it does shine a light on some individuals and that is just fine with me.

[TM99]

56. I have stopped kidding myself that it is 'some' any longer.

It is many, and as long as others there refuse to call it out well then don't they tacitly approve of it just like all Catholics are homophobes because they don't quit the church?

[skepticscott]

71. Would you accept the accusation

that you "tacitly approve" of everything wrong that you see, hear or are aware of but don't "call out"? If not, why would you level the same horseshit at others?

And do you grasp that it is fundamentally different to give material support to a fundamentally bigoted organization?

[cbayer]

74. It's some and most people just stay away.

[TM99]

91. I definitely stay away.

[cbayer]

92. Like I said, most people do.

I do give credit to those that do stand up against it, though. They often don't last long, but they take a stand.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. some believers are mentally ill, and the fact that religions exploit those people

and abuse them by subjecting them to medieval practices like exorcism is appalling.

[Leontius]

40. Absolutely mental illness should only be treated by professionals

and even then at times they are blindly groping for an answer.

[Warren Stupidity]

54. Do you include 'exorcists' in 'professionals'?

Because some of the defenders of this crap in this thread do.

[Leontius]

55. Not unless the exorcist has an MD in the fields that treat mental illness.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. Kinda rules out being an exorcist.

[Warren Stupidity]

65. There probably exist one idiot who has a degree in psychiatry and performs exorcisms

There are quacks in every profession. The poster dodged the question, obviously. The rank dishonesty continues, but if it pointed out that that is the norm, *huge upset*.

[Goblinmonger]

38. I don't know anyone in this group that has said all believers are mentally ill.

But nice strawman you built.

I also don't think there is anyone here that self-identifies as a "bright." But that goes well with your other strawman.

Maybe if you actually engaged in a discussion with atheists about what they are actually saying instead of building a strawman that looks like a complete fucking asshole, you might actually find something out. But that, of course, would mean that you would have to stop seeing atheists as complete fucking assholes which seems unlikely coming from you.

[cbayer]

39. I'm sorry. Did you forget to stop by A/A on your way over here?

[Feral Child]

43. That's a hateful post, CB

Alcoholism is a devastating disease and shouldn't be the butt of a rude joke.

[Leontius]

44. A/A = Atheists and Agnostics

a group here on DU.

[Warren Stupidity]

67. It was still a hateful post.

[Feral Child]

70. Thanks, Leontius.

[cbayer]

46. OK, I hope you are kidding. I was, of course, referring to the Atheist/Agnostic group

not to Alcoholics Anonymous. The fact that you would so incorrectly assume my meaning here shows exactly how little you know about me.

But continue to make false assumptions about me based on no actual information. I guess it's ok as long as it meets your agenda.

[rug]

49. Amazing how many who accept nothing without evidence are quick to leap to conclusions.

They must be powerless over confirmation bias.

[cbayer]

50. Yes and they are so rational and driven by reason and data and science!

It is truly startling at times.

[Feral Child]

72. Ah, the delightful universe of acronyms.

I made an honest mistake. I do that sometimes. For my error, I apologize.


Now, you had a chance to take the high-ground and gently correct my mistake (see Posts #44 and #70 for an adult exchange) but you chose to rush to the defensive to score some passive-aggressive "points". How telling.


Sorry, kiddo, but I know you all too well.

[cbayer]

77. You made an honest mistake because you don't know anything about me

or the person I was responding to or the issue at hand.

And you might want to look up both defensive and passive-agressive, because you are using them completely inappropriately. That is what is telling.

You know me not at all, kiddo. You only know your own fantasies about me.

Oh, by the way. Tell Leonitius one of his posts is hateful because of your honest, but highly prejudicial, mistake and see what happens. Go ahead.

[Feral Child]

84. Fantasies?

Now you're just being conceited.



It was an honest mistake, but you go ahead and try to make it look nefarious.. Maybe "rug" will buy your game, but I really just wasn't aware of the A/A forum. Never posted there, but it sounds like "home".

Look, you think you're clever, but your tactics are transparent. And you're really not as nice as you pretend. You get real cranky when someone spots the trail you leave; hence, passive-aggressive.



Let's have Denial #2: aren't you really a Christian?

[cbayer]

85. How is calling your made up stories about me conceited?

You made the mistake because of your prejudice against me and even went so far to call it hateful. You were completely off the mark and are now probably embarrassed, which accounts for your making this personal.

They would love you in the A/A group and I strongly suggest you skedaddle over there at your first opportunity.

You still don't know what passive-agressive means.

Now, I am done with you. Perhaps next time our interaction will be more fruitful.

[Feral Child]

88. Our discussions won't be any more fruitful

untill you start responding honestly.

And yes, it's conceited to imagine I fantasize about you, double entendre disregarded.

Perhaps you think saying I misunderstand a term doesn't mean you're correct, but it won't stand no matter how fervently you wish it so.

In true "cbayer" deflection, you've refused to answer my question: "Are you a Christian"? Do you fail to answer directly because denial of your faith is prohibited, or because you hope vainly to obscure your purpose? Come now, no excuses about having answered before, humor me with a direct answer. Are you a Christian?

[Warren Stupidity]

94. Welcome to the religion forum.

You've been given the standard keel hauling from the self appointed protectors of the faith.

[Feral Child]

157. CB thinks she's subtle

and oh so devious in neither admitting nor denying her savior. If she's a Christian (she's a Christian) then her numerous, tedious requests that we respect one another deflate, because it's clear she has a personal interest that's she's trying to advance.

"Getting along" and "respecting each other's beliefs" requires giving credulity to her belief in the supernatural. I can't do that. It would be dishonest and dishonorable to play "let's pretend" just to avoid treading on someone's sensitivities. If nothing else, it' would be opening the door to being proselytized.

I would think that anyone with the single-mindedness to believe in magic despite all evidence shouldn't be concerned about my opinion; after all, if she's right, her god will get his revenge on me.

[beam me up scottie]

158. cbayer's not a christian.

She doesn't believe in any gods but thinks atheism is an intolerant position, so she likes to be called agnostic.


"Do you believe in Santa Claus?"

Saying I don't believe in Santa sounds intolerant, so I'm going with "I don't know".

I'm agnostic when it comes to Santa Claus.


"Do you believe in demons?"

and so on...

[Warren Stupidity]

159. it doesn't seem to be more than a public facade

but that is just my opinion.

[beam me up scottie]

160. Well, christian apologia does make more sense coming from a christian...

And she does love to redefine words, so you could be right.

[Feral Child]

161. I understand

that's her online persona, I just don't believe it's real.

And in any case, she's failed to justify her stance that atheists should treat Xians as if all that nonsense is real and act as if their barbaric rituals are valid.

Look, I don't argue with Xians, it's hopeless. I tolerate them...at a respectful distance. If they proselytize me, or insist I respect their delusions, it's time for a call out, though. They need to follow His advise, and keep it in the closet.

Xians have at every possible opportunity harassed, isolated, repressed, and punished scientists. Historically da Vinci, Copernicus; and their still at it, now it's stem-cell research. Individual Christians might be slackers but Boss Christians are the most intolerant bunch of assholes in the history of our miserable species and have tried their best to return us to the Dark Ages.

[Goblinmonger]

82. Well, it often seems like you are more concerned about A/A than many of us.

But, yes, I do know the tread you are talking about.

But, you will notice that I said "in here." Your example would be off point. Safe havens are different. I don't see anyone making that statement here.

Additionally, since I believe you have trotsky on ignore, you missed his prediction of what you did in the thread:

Merely asking about a link, or asking how we distinguish between mental illness and sincere religious belief, is generally met with a chorus of "ZOMG YOU FUCKING ATHEIST BIGOT, HOW DARE YOU CALL ALL BELIEVERS MENTALL ILL?!?!

Nobody's doing that there. Nobody's doing it here. To claim otherwise is building a strawman. You do seem to have some skill, though.

[cbayer]

83. Oh, I doubt very much that I am more concerned than many of you,

but you really can't blame me for keeping an eye on a group that has no qualms about or restrictions against calling me out and attacking me on a regular basis.

And I would ignore that completely if I weren't likely to run into some of those people elsewhere on this site.

So you were being specific about the religion group and not holding people accountable for what they say outside the religion group? Like those POV's just don't exist or aren't also expressed "here".

Ah, trotsky the prognosticator called it right on the money. Who could predict that when you call a group of otherwise wonderful members of this site mentally ill there might be some accusations of bigotry. He is nothing if not brilliant.

There are many people doing exactly that there, including the OP. This is not surprising and it isn't anything like a straw man.

I question whether you saw that thread before you made the post in this thread. If you did, then I find this post of yours quite awkward.

The skill is all yours.

[Goblinmonger]

108. Yes, I was being specific

since the discussion was about what was happening here.

But I was quite aware of the thread in A/A. And, contrary to your misrepresentation of what is being said in that thread, nobody there is saying that all believers are mentally ill. Nobody is calling a "group of otherwise wonderful members of the site mentally ill." The OP is not doing this.

This post isn't awkward in light of the A/A post, it is stating the reality of what is happening in that post and this post.

[cbayer]

109. So it's ok for people to hold one position in one group and then

claim that it's not a position expressed "here" because technically we are in a different part of the site.

Glad we are clear on that.

It has been said here and it is being said in that group. If you want to get fussy about exact words, then I guess you will have a point. A very, very weak point though.

This is not about building a straw man that looks like a complete asshole. This is about a position that is a completely assholish position to take. I would give you quotes, but I know how much quote mining is frowned upon, unless it is going in the other direction.

If I were to make an argument about there being a link between atheism and mental illness, I think you would see this very differently.

The thread is ugly except for the handful of members who stood up to say the right thing.

[skepticscott]

110. I defy you to show us where either that thread or the original post is "ugly"

That's nothing but a knee-jerk reaction by you, against a straw man that you and the psychoscolds here have invented.

Here's just one excerpt:

Is there a link between religion and mental illness?

I would argue that there is and intend to demonstrate this by showing the way children are raised in the Christian faith, giving statistical evidence of the correlations between Christianity and social problems and detailing the mental illnesses which exist only in relation to religion and especially Christianity. I am an atheist with personal experience of religious OCD and have also worked in caring and nursing roles in psychiatric hospitals, homes and clinics. Mental health, for me, came with atheism. I am active in forums for religious debate and also supportive forums for OCD sufferers and those with general mental health problems.

Many atheists, most notably Richard Dawkins, have likened belief in a god to a delusion but of course this is not a clinical diagnosis. People with religious beliefs are not psychotic but have been taught or have chosen to suspend disbelief in just one ofthousands of gods for whom there is no evidence whilst rationally assuming the non-existence of the rest. However, this self-delusion can lead to harmful neuroses in a number of ways.

Does that sound like an uninformed religion hater frothing at the mouth in "rage" with the opinion that "ALL religious believers are mentally ill"?

Not remotely. It's you who is ranting without facts to back up a thing she says.

[hrmjustin]

118. Just a question here that you may or may not know the answer to but post 25 in that thread

baffles me. Do you have any idea what that meant?

[Leontius]

111. There were 14 posters in that thread

Seven answered yes, three answered no, two answered maybe, two had no answer.

[cbayer]

114. That's not a very good score, imo.

But let the light shine on them.

At any rate, it's not a position of reason or rational thinking or anything even resembling science. It's a belief system based on faith.

[okasha]

116. Post 25 in that thread is a real gem.

And since the poster is intelligent and mentally coherent enough to put a capital letter at the beginning of the sentence and a period at the end, I assume that s/he also knows s/he's lying.

[hrmjustin]

117. I just saw that. talk about a wtf moment.

Where the hell did the poster get thst from?

[okasha]

121. The place s/he sat on to write it.

In a way, it's good to have bigotry like that out in the open.

[hrmjustin]

122. I a racking my brain to figure out what was meant.

Just a big wow, just wow moment.

[cbayer]

119. This is not a time for truth. It is a time for beliefs based on faith.

Reason, rational thought and science be damned! If it doesn't fit my agenda, I'm tossing it.

[skepticscott]

131. If you had actually read the blog post behind the question

Which gave the context in which people were answering (and I know you didn't, or you wouldn't be foaming at the mouth like this), you'd have seen that reason and science were front and center. You may choose to disagree with some of the points made, but to imply that it was just an irrational smear of religion is blatantly dishonest horseshit. If there's any agenda here, cbayer, it's that of you and your cronies, who have the same knee-jerk reaction every time this issue is raised. You've proven that you have no interest in discussing facts or rational arguments, only in declaring that your opinion is the only valid one.

[Goblinmonger]

120. Not what I'm saying either.

But talking about the attitudes in the OP are talking about the attitudes in this OP. Other groups have different types of discussions. That's why there are other groups.

It is not being said here. It is not being said in the other group. Nobody is even implying that all religious people are mentally ill. Is there a discussion about possible links and connections? Yes. But never has there been a claim that all religious people are mentally ill. Never.

Why don't you go talk to your buddy MADem and let her know that saying that people that are atheists and are angry are suffering from some prior hardship and that's why they are angry. I'm not even parsing words. That is pretty much an exact quotation. But I don't see you telling her that her explicit statement is bad, but you are going out of your way to talk about a statement that isn't even being made here and telling us that statement is bad.

[cbayer]

123. That's fine. It's your group and you make the rules.

What I object to is the claim that it's not happening. It's clearly happening and it's pretty despicable. Your attempt to make it into some kind of high brow intellectual discussion about the links between religion and mental illness (for which, btw, there is no evidence) bears no resemblance to most of what is going on there.

Yep, I'm telling you the statement is bad and challenging your initial statement that it wasn't being said. That was, of course, before I realized that you meant here very literally and not in general.

What I do or don't say to MADem has absolutely no bearing on this discussion.

[Goblinmonger]

124. What you do or don't say to MADem has impact on this discussion.

If you are going to hold yourself up as some kind of champion for all that is good and just and you just have to call out things as you see them, then you need to be a champion for that. You are saying that saying a certain thing is bad. MADem is saying exactly what you are saying is a bad thing. If you want to maintain a shred of credibility on your championing skills, you need to call it out everywhere. Even when your friends are doing it. When you don't, you just look like someone spluttering about something because it is being said by those you don't like and not because you find it to be repulsive across the board.

And the above discussion does not indicate I agree with you that the thing is being said by atheists because I don't believe it is.

[cbayer]

125. No, actually it doesn't

There is no standard which I must live up to and I do not have to prove anything to you or anyone else, least of all to your friends.

If I see something I object to, I will respond…. or not. If I see something I agree with, I will respond… or not.

I will be a champion for what I choose.

I do not wish to discuss MADem with you now or ever.

You don't think I have a shred of creditability? Frankly, I don't care.

If you think I look like I am just spluttering about something, I don't care about that either.

I will have discussions with you, or not. I'm under absolutely no obligation to fulfill your demands about how I should behave.

You exercised your one small shard of power over me a long time ago. There is nothing left except to either have civil conversations with me… or not.

Your call.

[Goblinmonger]

126. Fair enough

And if I see that you are condemning someone for something that you let slide elsewhere, I'll feel free to point that out. We may or may not have a discussion at that point. Like you, I am under no obligation to fulfill your demands about how I should act.

I hope you have a good remains of the weekend.

[cbayer]

127. You may challenge me or point out what you see as inconsistencies anytime you want.

You always have. I don't expect anything about that to change.

Condemnation seems a bit extreme. I think I challenge, but condemn?

I make no demands about how you act. In fact, I try not to make my interactions with you personal at all.

And while I point out what I see as despicable behavior in your group, I make no demands on you to do anything about it whatsoever and don't expect that you will.

I only ask that you don't deny it.

You also have a good remains of the weekend. It's way to hot here, but hopefully will get better over the next week.

[skepticscott]

132. And yet you can't prove a word of what you claim

You claim there is no evidence of a connection between religion and mental illness. And yet the blog post linked in that OP is full of evidence and arguments showing exactly that. But rather than try to dispute them, as a rational person would, you simply blather that they don't exist, because your misbegotten agenda can't support anything else.

Bottom line…if you're claiming that ANYONE in that thread says that all religious believers are mentally ill, or anything resembling that, you're lying. I challenge you to cite ONE quote from anywhere in that thread that says that.

[Leontius]

41. Facts are a fucking killer too bad you ignore them.

I see people for what they are portraying themselves to be, if they want to posture as assholes that's cool if they want to pose as hypocrites that's cool too.

[Goblinmonger]

81. So who has said that here?

I mean, if "facts are a fucking killer" then I assume you have some.

"I see people for what they are portraying themselves to be" seems to mean "they haven't said it but I know they mean it." Which goes back to you not creating a strawman of atheists. But, as I already posited, you aren't going to do that. But at least don't piss in my ear and try to tell me it's raining.

[Warren Stupidity]

95. well leontius said it.

So there is one data point.

[Leontius]

98. Well there you go case solved. Nothing to see here folks keep moving.

On another point I went back and saw what you thought was a dodge of the question of are exorcists professional. The answer is no.

[Leontius]

99. Really. I guess ignorance is bliss as they say, willful or not.

[Act_of_Reparation]

26. It's tempting to laugh at this, I know...

...but religious people taking this nonsensical occult shit seriously is an historical problem, especially for kids.

Anyone remember the West Memphis Three?

[cbayer]

35. I agree that there is a history of harm and potential for harm here.

I am disappointed that their spokesman has taken this position. I am even more disappointed that he didn't talk about the requirement for medical and psychiatric screening.

This is a big step back from the last thing I read on this. I had hoped this new organization was going to take a harder stand on this, but the opposite appears to be the case.

[skepticscott]

58. And despite your claim to "draw the line at harm"

You are on record as wholeheartedly supporting the practice and promotion of exorcism, which you now, and only undress duress and threat of humiliation, admit has a great potential for harm.

The hypocrisy and double standard is despicable.

[Warren Stupidity]

66. oh really? Previously you have supported the benefits such as "placebo effect".

[AtheistCrusader]

59. Ah, the Catholic Church. Full of shit as usual, with no clue as to how the universe works, or

Our place in it.

Their imaginary enemies are just as imaginary as their god.

[rug]

61. You're going to get an ulcer.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. From what?

[rug]

63. Fulmination.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. You don't understand me at all.

[muriel_volestrangler]

68. Catholic experts fear for their jobs, make shit up about 'occult activity' and spread fear

amongst the gullible with talk of an 'emergency', just to hang on to their meaningless, cushy positions ('cushy'? Yeah, they don't do any honest work at all. Any kind of living you make from fearmongering is 'cushy', and some fools respect them for it too). These shitbags are as bad as the GOP fearmongers who claim illegal immigrants are secret ISIS members bringing ebola into the US.

[cbayer]

78. After reading this, I have to agree with your assessment here.

It seems to be all about fearmongering and trying to rein in more flock.

I am extremely disappointment, though I probably shouldn't be surprised.

[Warpy]

79. Yeah, people got out of the habit of taking crazy people to doctors

since so many of us didn't have access to health care for so very long.

Priests and shamans work a lot cheaper.

[cbayer]

80. And even those that did often did not have coverage or had inadequate

coverage for psychiatric evaluation and care.

And even if they had adequate coverage, the system is so overwhelmed that getting into see someone can be impossible.

Priests and shamans are generally readily available and much cheaper, at least financially.

[skepticscott]

93. I hope your point isn't

that it's OK for people to be going to purveyors of dangerous and unproven "treatments" that are based on ignorance and superstition, just because they can't afford anything else. Because that would be really despicable.

[hrmjustin]

87. Oh it's always amazing how an exorcism thread gets everyone's juices up here.

[rug]

96. What on earth posesses them to post the same stuff over and over?

[hrmjustin]

97. lol! it can be rather entertaining.

[Leontius]

112. Demons

[AtheistCrusader]

133. The tired repetition of humans taking the boogey man seriously.

[rug]

135. Oh, are exorcists the new bogeyman?

[AtheistCrusader]

136. No, but the field of 'expertise' they claim to be able to deal with, is.

[cbayer]

100. Actually I think this is an important article and not flame bait.

FWIW, this member does not generally engage in posting flame bait, imo.

The problem here is that the spokesperson for this group makes some really outrageous statements here.

He talks about horoscopes and ouija boards being gateways to demonic possession. He talks about how possession is on the rise because people are straying from the church.

He never says anything about the critical need for medical/psychiatric assessment.

I had hoped that this group would take a much different tack and work towards tighter criteria and less actual episodes.

But that doesn't sound like what is going on.

Now, the bullshit threads posted here from time to time which are clearly flame bait and have no legitimate story about the state of exorcism in the RCC are an entirely different matter.

[hrmjustin]

101. Oh I agree the op is an honest poster.

I just always find this topic a bit odd and difficult to deal with.

And s ome of the responses are always entertaining.

[rug]

102. I agree about the OP but it was still cross-posted from A&A on trotsky's dare.

That one never posts, or urges posting, anything without an anti-religious slant. That is routine intellectual dishonesty and routine disruption of any semblance of a civil discussion about religion, be it pro, con or both. You can see in this thread precisely how it's being used, and by whom.

[cbayer]

103. Wow, just wow! I didn't know about the dare.

Watch out, I was blocked from the group after reporting on a dare to post something in this group. But it was a repeating and horrible troll that I quoted, so you might be safe.

Oops, I forgot! You are also blocked from that group and were resurrected just this week for a brief time.

I'm not sure this OP is really aware of the dynamics between the two groups and some of the members, so I am going to give her a pass.

However, I am glad to have a discussion about how this particular group (the RCC exorcists) appear to be a serious problem.

[rug]

104. I'm sure the suggestion wasn't made for the sake of a robust discussion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=161785

Same old bullshit tactics from the same old people.

[cbayer]

105. Lol! Thanks for the laugh.

Some things never change.

As for that thread in A/A, it is despicable and meant to be so. I give a toast to the few that challenged it in the thread and a big dose of disrespect to those that supported it, despite having no education, training or experience to even pretend they know anything about this.

When things get that desperate, though, it's a sure sign that some are drowning.

[okasha]

106. I agree.

Hand puppet is a thoughtful poster.

[Warren Stupidity]

107. Which is why your first response was "Oh, geez, really?".

Make up your mind.

[AtheistCrusader]

134. There is no 'legitimate' story about exorcism and the RCC. It's bullshit.

[SamKnause]

141. The year is 2014.

The insanity continues.

[bvf]

142. The Middle Ages are alive and kicking. n/t