St. Louis – KSDK — A discussion in St. Louis had a crowd of hundreds on the edge of their seats Tuesday. The topic was the true story that led a book and a movie on “The Exorcist.” Two men had just over an hour to give the highlights of their studies on the subject.
It’s been more than 30 years since “The Exorcist” first left moviegoers frightened as well as intrigued. The story with a St Louis connection began with a book, and later turned into a cult classic. “This is such an interesting topic and it’s scary and we like to be scared,” said Eileen Dreyer. People of all ages came to St. Louis University to hear remarks from two archivists who studied the exorcist phenomenon. Their work uncovered what they believe are true accounts of bizarre and demonic like behavior of a 13-year-old. “At root something very strange happened and some of the events were witnessed by reasonable, rational people, but what the cause I don’t know,” said archivist John Waide.
Rumors said an exorcism was performed in the grand hall of SLU’s Dubourg Hall. It happened on a boy known as Robbie in 1949. SLU researchers confirmed an exorcism story was a reality, although the details change from story teller to story teller. Archivists said the only campus building involved was the Francis Xavier Church. Stories of furniture including the boys’ bed suddenly lifting off the floor are accurate. The archivists said getting to the bottom of what really happened in 1949 involving the exorcism depends on who you believe. They did say it definitely included a local connection with SLU, a home in Bel Nor, and the old Alexian Brothers Hospital in St. Louis.
Scariest damn movie I’ve ever seen….. Happy Halloween!
From what I remember the boy has very little or no recollection of the events.
The scariest part is that he is a pilot for a major airline. Which one I can’t remember.
These kind of spiritual “situations” happen quite often in other parts of the world, so it isn’t much of a stretch to think such an occurrence took place here in the west.
I have the director’s cut which is even scarier. My sister still can’t watch it. What made this so great is they kept it real and simple. I think some of the scariest part was the machines she was placed in by the doctors. The were big and noisy.
Hey, John- “scariest DAMN movie” well put
Lemme know if you’d like help out of your DAMN predicament vis-a-vis eternity, etc.
[No thanks, I’m “good” – McCullough]
Funny, but as an athiest, I didn’t find it particularly scary. Actually, I found it rather hokey.
As to the so called true story, well, professional charlatans of all sorts have managed tricks for centuries. Nothing new here. Move along folks, nothing to see.
Once I got over general childhood nightmares, I found horror films to be comedic. Watching the Exorcist is kind of like my own personal Mystery Science Theatre 3000. As Beetlejuice so aptly put, “I’ve seen “The Exorcist” about 167 times, and it keeps getting funnier every single time I see it!”
Scary stories that portray events that can actually take place or have taken place are far scarier.
Great post. Since no one involved with the original events has ever tried make anything out of the events… which would be pretty easy to do in today’s culture… you have to wonder about motive, and question if this could really be genuine (something atheists are too unintelligent to consider).
In my opinion, you had a child acting out in a heavily Catholic environment… what else were they going to chalk things up to?
#7
> question if this could
> really be genuine (something
> atheists are too
> unintelligent to consider)
I’m not sure where you get your ideas about atheism, but I wager that there is not an atheist on the planet that would not accept the events as described if someone were to provide scientific evidence that supports their claims.
The claim that a person was possessed by a supernatural force and eradicated by another supernatural force. If you can provide scientific evidence that said forces exist, are quantifiable and detectable and that said events were caused by said forces, every atheist on the planet would accept that.
Instead what we have is a fantasy story about a series of events with dodgy explanations and zero science to substantiate them.
i thought this guy was the boogie man
#8 – Atheism is only the belief in the nonexistence of god(s). It has nothing to do with science.
In my opinion apatheism is perfectly acceptable, and is the best approach for looking into these things, where as atheism is the immediate rejection of a side.
By definition, atheists are just as closed minded as the bible thumpers they attack.
#10. I couldnt agree more. The same goes for debunkers and “skeptics” of many unproven theories.
#10
Again, your ideas about atheism are inaccurate as is your definition. Atheism is a lack of a belief in god or more formally, atheists reject the hypothesis that a deity exists due to insufficient evidence. Atheists lack belief without evidence. They are as open minded as the evidence suggests. Provide repeatable, tangible, unbiased evidence and we’ll believe.
Atheists do not immediately reject one side. We reserve acceptance until evidence is provided.
#12
Thomas, my little impchkin, can you prove that you exist?
#13
Indeed I can. Just as I can prove that juveniles exist.
(BTW, a quality post number for the supposed almighty. I thought seven was your lucky number? Or is it three?)
#7 You mentioned that the people linked to this exorcist event had not tried to capitalize on it like we would expect charlatans would. In other words what was the motive behind the event and publicity that followed? Good question.
I for one would love for all the supernatural things we read in stories to be true. It would make life far more interesting. However, just about all of these supernatural things are always proved to be hoaxes later on.
I really wish the UFO’s, especially recent stories on them, were true alien activity. But alas, they will likely turn out to be proved to be man-made objects that the public was not meant to witness.
As someone else said, athiests are on one extreme end of the spectrum in regards to belief in God, while the religious fanatics are on the other extreme end. The funny thing is that I have a feeling that God resides at a point to an infinite magnitude in the middle of the spectrum 🙂 In other words, neither side it right. 🙂
#12 – what is an agnostic? I thought they were the ones who reserved judgment.
All things, like atheism, is not one thing.
Some atheist, aka “strong atheism,” do hold it as a belief system and come armed with it as a shield.
Other atheist, aka “weak atheism” simply hold no beliefs until proof is proved and confirmed.
Same word, very different people.
I’m an atheist. I don’t buy into the idea that there’s a spiritual entity beyond my comprehension.
#17 – I agree, we live in a world of degrees. I like to use a physics analogy (Newton’s Third Law) such that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Athiests are a reaction to the action of theists… and vice versa.
Can’t really have one without the other. Right now theists are more numerous and powerful. Maybe this is cyclical and we may see theists take a dip in number and atheists rise in number over the next 30 years.
We’ll see…
My brother tells me that he was in a movie theater on Market Street (SF) watching a matinee one afternoon and right at the bed shaking scene the whole theater started to shake. For a few seconds he thought is was a cool sensoround effect added for the re-releaae and then he noticed the audience running for the doors as the chandeliers were swinging and he bolted too. That was back in the late seventies.
Carcarius–sometimes analogies help, other times the hurt, most times, they are irrelevant.
Words are definitional. People vary in how reactive they are. Ideas evolve from first notions all the way thru to fully considered, passing thru being reactive to something else.
If there were no theist, would atheism stop as well? No. Something wrong with your analogy==although I’m sure its true for many “strong atheists.”
Words–the stuff of thoughts.
My favorite line from the movie, “your mother sucks cocks in hell.” I’d like that on a bumper sticker.
#18 Yeah, I don’t believe in you either – unless I’m getting a blow job.
#18 Special Edward – LMAO! I’ve been inspired into prayer before too.
the only boogie man i know of that is for real is kc and the sunshine band.
#20 it also hurts to over-complicate things. Explain how the analogy is irrelevant. If you don’t understand the analogy that is one thing, to call it irrelevant to the discussion is another.
My point is that the meaning of a theist loses it’s power without something to balance against it (atheists) , i.e. if everyone is a theist the definition may stay the same but the relevance changes from a person who believes in God (or part of a denomination of religion who does) to simply being a person. If every person believed in God then why do we need to define further that a person is a theist.
#25–Carcarius==you ask: “Explain how the analogy is irrelevant.” /// I did.
Then you go on to be wrong. What you “mean” to say is that if everyone was a theist then it losses its power to make distinctions. It still has meaning however.
Words–the stuff of thoughts.
#26 losses? If you are going to nitpick definitions then at least use spell-check.
By the way:
Words, the stuff of communication – not thoughts.
I guess animals don’t think because they can’t form words?
#12 – You seem like a nice guy, so I’ll be kind: Go buy a dictionary. If that’s what you believe, you believe in apatheism.
#15 – I agree. I believe the story has been left out there because, to use an X-Files term, Christians “want to believe”, and those behind the story don’t see a need to take that away.
#16 – An agnostic is one who reserves judgement. In other words, they might care… where as apatheism includes those who don’t care.
#17, #19, #20, #25, #26, #27 – That’s like being “kinda pregnant”, right? We live in a world where words mean things, and trying to parse the meaning of a word to make it cover more ground than it was meant to is a waste of time.
#21, #22 – Your mom’s from Chicago?
#28
Firstly, there is no such term as “apatheism.” So, if we are picking nits about the meaning of words with the aid of dictionaries, let us stick to words that are actually recognized as part of the English lexicon. Secondly, from Websters Unabridged Dictionary:
1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
2. Godlessness.
That definition is a close enough for most people to get the idea, however, it is imprecise. “The existence of God” is a claim made by theists. Excluding that word from the definition creates confusion as to what atheists are proposing. It is the equivalent of saying that evolution is “just a theory.” It would have been more accurate for them to define atheism as “The disbelief or denial in the claim that God or a supernatural being exist.”
The problem is that you *think* you know what is meant by atheism and you are in error. The etymology of the very term “atheist” is “without a god belief”.
“It is not what you know that gets you in trouble. It is what you know that ain’t so.”