[Sarah Lou]

Sceptics wouldn't believe in ghosts even if one punched them in the face. Most of them are soooo annoying

[hellee]

I don't want to cause a fuss with my first post, and I realise this thread hasn't been active for some time, but sara lou, did you not read the posts explaining the difference between skeptics and non-believers? A skeptic would, if they were presented with satisfactory evidence, accept the existance of ghosts gladly. The level of evidence that a skeptic is willing to accept probably differs, but the point has already been made. A skeptic is a person who questions, and seeks information. A skeptic is not a person who disbelieves everything out of hand in the face of evidence. As for most skeptics being 'soooo annoying', do you know most skeptics?

[Bram]

Hello to you all, what an interesting site.
I arrived here via CHP's 'old friend' Richard Dawkins and his book 'The God Delusion' which I was reading for an insight into an aetheist's perspective on religion.
Unfortunately I have yet to see the C4 programme featuring the pair of them but if I find it on UTube I'll post a link back.
I did watch the series he did on religion which was extremely thought-provoking.

This post seemed the best place to enter the site as I admit to having no psychic/paranormal experiences to date, and feel I must be either; unlucky and missing out or in tight control of my critical faculties?
I totally agree with the previous poster hellee when she says:

A skeptic is a person who questions, and seeks information. A skeptic is not a person who disbelieves everything out of hand in the face of evidence.

This definition would label me a sceptic and such a label on this site would imply that I have a closed mind?
Clearly,one who searches and questions, in the face of a lack of any personal or available empirical evidence, should be recognised as having a valid input, by virtue of the fact that they are bothered to look into the subject critically in the first place?
What I find hard to understand is why the whole process of communicating outside of our dimension is mired in 19thC practises.
Sibyl wrote:

Mediums have produced materialised forms in the past, discarnate voices in a room, objects levitating etc etc;

and

There are still physical mediums working who can produce materialised forms or faces, together with independent voice

Wallace described experiencing the same things in the 1870's during seances with Mrs Guppy (then Miss Nicholl).
Is this the only way spirits can communicate with us?

This kind of stereotypical expectation is on a par with the majority of alleged Alien sightings that relate to 'big headed/black eyed ,five-foot greys'.

The uninitiated surely have a right to be sceptical and require some evidence before blindly accepting all that such a belief would entail?

Bram

[Nat]

Originally Posted by Bram

This definition would label me a sceptic and such a label on this site would imply that I have a closed mind?

I believe it is us mediums who have been labelled closed minded by non believer on this site - not the other way around.

Originally Posted by Bram

Clearly,one who searches and questions, in the face of a lack of any personal or available empirical evidence, should be recognised as having a valid input, by virtue of the fact that they are bothered to look into the subject critically in the first place?

I think you will find that is exactly what many of the people on here have done, both mediums and non mediums, believers and non believers, some have just found sufficient evidence, some have not. I for one, and I know this applies to others, did not just decide believing is spirit was a good idea - evidence inexplicable as anything else was required first.

Originally Posted by Bram

Is this the only way spirits can communicate with us?

No. Physical phenomena is only one way, and a less common way, for spirit to communicate with us. It is usually done through mental mediumship, - basically a telepathic link between two minds - one here, one in spirit.

Originally Posted by Bram

This kind of stereotypical expectation is on a par with the majority of alleged Alien sightings that relate to 'big headed/black eyed ,five-foot greys'.

I can't say I really know any mediums who "expect" people to believe them, but that does not change the info and evidence they have recieved or can give to others for them to make their own minds up about it.

Originally Posted by Bram

The uninitiated surely have a right to be sceptical and require some evidence before blindly accepting all that such a belief would entail?

I would hope that was the case, and did not cease to be the standard applied to each phenomena as encountered.

Enjoy your search
Nat xxx

[Viper]

I myself am a skeptic. Why is this challenge still out there if psychics are real?

[Nat]

This is like a game of tennis ..lol

Equally may I ask - Why didn't anyone take up the offer made way back in 1909 for $1,000 US ( a tidy sum back then) to prove Eusapia Palladino did not use any fraudulent means to levitate objects? Why does no one despite their claims to be able to reproduce such things take up the 1/2 mill Zammit has (relatively) recently put on offer to recreate phenomena as seen in a David Thompson seance? If skeptics can prove that mediums are frauds - then why don't they? :lol: The ball hit's both sides of the court. :wink:

Why also is there footage of Randi seemingly fraudulently bending keys on national TV when trying to debunk Uri Geller by claiming to be able to do the same thing by non-parnormal means? \/ Hardly a spokesperson for the skeptical side methinx ... :smt046

Nat xxx

[wheels]

[quote="Nat"]

Equally may I ask - Why didn't anyone take up the offer made way back in 1909 for $1,000 US ( a tidy sum back then) to prove Eusapia Palladino did not use any fraudulent means to levitate objects?

This sounds like an interesting story, do you have a link or a good write up on this Challenge?

Why does no one despite their claims to be able to reproduce such things take up the 1/2 mill Zammit has (relatively) recently put on offer to recreate phenomena as seen in a David Thompson seance? If skeptics can prove that mediums are frauds - then why don't they? :lol: The ball hit's both sides of the court. :wink:

It sounds like lots of work, If the Zammit challenge is recent it would guess it would take quite a bit of work to put this together, not to mention getting David Thompson to co-operate.

However, the whole idea of skeptics having the burden of proof is a non-starter. Think about it this way: If someone walks up to you holding a black box and says "go to the Bank and withdraw all your money and put it into this box. Then meet me back here tomorrow and your money will Tripple." Are you going to be a black box skeptic? And is it up to you to "prove" the black box works.

I would be skeptical of the black box, and the burden of proof, is on the person making the claim. If he can really do what he says than it should be a simple matter to show it work. If not then my money stays safe in the bank.

And that is the way the JREF Challenge works, if someone says they can do something then they just need to do it. Being skeptical of a paranormal claim is the same as being a skeptic of the black box, show that it does what is claimed in a controlled environment and walk away with the money.

Why also is there footage of Randi seemingly fraudulently bending keys on national TV when trying to debunk Uri Geller by claiming to be able to do the same thing by non-parnormal means? \/ Hardly a spokesperson for the skeptical side methinx ... :smt046

I could not find any footage where Randi clams to bend keys in a non-physical manner. The only one I could find is where Randi explains how he bends the key (under the table), he is after all a magician and is upfront with the notion that he is tricking the viewer. But I do not see where he claims to have "magical
powers".

One other thing: There are psychics who have taken the JREF challenge and even though they have failed... all it does is show that one particular psychic was unable to prove their abilities...not that all psychic are frauds, not that the afterlife does not exist, only that the psychic taking the test could not do what they claimed. Therefor I would think the Believers would encourage psychics to take the challenge, where the failure of one medium shows nothing, the success of one would be a huge boom, and would change the world.

Just my 2 cents.

Steve

[dannagain]

"Why does no one despite their claims to be able to reproduce such things take up the 1/2 mill Zammit has (relatively) recently put on offer to recreate phenomena as seen in a David Thompson seance? If skeptics can prove that mediums are frauds - then why don't they? "

This has been addressed. you cant prove a negative. Zammit is asking people to prove the world of spirit doesn't exist. this is impossible. If i told you the invisible flying spaghetti monster existed, how would you prove he didn't?

if you are asking 'why haven;t sceptics shown that it is possible to recreate psychic powers through non-psychic means then that has been done numerous times. these are very good examples:

youtube(dot)com/watch?v=G18NfN76bAs

youtube(dot)com/watch?v=lW2yKlNFFuU

"Why also is there footage of Randi seemingly fraudulently bending keys on national TV when trying to debunk Uri Geller by claiming to be able to do the same thing by non-parnormal means? Hardly a spokesperson for the skeptical side methinx ... "

i don't understand. randi was showing that it is possible to bend keys and forks and spoons etc using trickery rather than psychic powers. that's what he was doing. where's the problem? if you want to learn how to do it i recommend morgan strebler's liquid metal video. the preview can be found here: www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=5By9c970gRE

morgan strebler's much better than uri gellar

[Nat]

Hi Steve, ....sorry, had not seen your post, ... you should be able to find all the thigs I mentioned by putting some key words in to Google. There is a link in the video section to the Randi thing - which does not seem to be whatever one your talking about, ... Zammit has his own website with details of the challenge, and I think it might be survivalafterdeath.org that has the Palladino info. Might not be that site tho, but I read it ages ago and would have to put as much effort at you in to finding it again, so I'll leave that with ya to find if it is not the site I mentioned.

Dannagain, if these clips are showing physical phenomena (which was what my comment was on) maybe you would like to contact the person involved and let them know 1/2 a mill is there for the taking - if they can do what David Thompson does under the same conditions.

Prob with Randi, ...he was trying to show how he can do what Uri Geller does, ... but was caught redhanded. If he did it without us seeing how he cheated, well then I might be impressed enough to question someone who has undergone scientific testing. He is not giving much credibility to scientists such as Puthoff and Targ (who tested Geller) if he thinks they are stupid enough that he could pull a shifty like he did and manage to trick them.

Nat xxx

[dannagain]

oh i see, in that case you should check out: en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Project_Alpha

what did you think of morgan strebler just of interest?

the reason why derren brown would not apply for zammit's challenge is that zammit is asking the impossible - to prove a negative. he is not asking sceptics to prove that it is possible to replicate psychic phenomena through trickery, he is asking them to prove that all psychic phenomena ARE accomplished through trickery. which is impossible to prove for reasons already mentioned on this board.