[Sibyl]

I realise I cannot make anyone believe anything if they have already made up their mind not to believe.

In the case of Craig and the recipient of his message from spirit referring to the mine inheritance. It happened in a Church over 300 miles from where Craig lives and the message was given to a local lady, known by members of the Church and witnessed by about 60 - 70 people.

And, if mediums had to go to all that truble to organise people to sit in the congregation and say yes to everything we give them in a message, multiplied by about say 10 messages a week times say 40 weeks a year times about 30 years works out at 12000 and thats not counting those we give private sittings to. Sorry but I certainly have better things to do with my time.

Please do not think I am upset becos I am not, I am just pointing out the illogicality of it

luv
vi

[Etheress]

Good point.

I certainly wasn't trying to say he was/is a fraud. My point wasn't really about fraudulant or genuine psychics but about the difference between reality/truth and perception (in regards to the initial post).

Have you heard of the TV programme called Scare Tactics? The people who are set up in that show are experiencing something that is totally real for them. It's not actually real but they perceive it as real.
I don't know if I'm making sense but my point was that human testimony doesn't neccessarily equal fact/reality, so in terms of proving factually that life after death exists I don't think you can rely primarily on human testimony.

I'm not a skeptic, I know from experience that psychic abilities, the after life etc exist. I'm just playing devils advocate here.

Jo

[Sibyl]

I understand exactly what you are saying. Human testimony cannot be relied on - I would agree - except when it is muliplied by people saying the same thing over and over again.

In Craig's message he described a spirit communicator that lady recognised and that communicator knew about the letter in her handbag. She was convinced that Craig was in touch with someone she knew and who was in the spirit world. If we take the millions of messages which are given over the years which all convince ppl that their family and friends are still alive, did all these millions of ppl get it wrong?

Forgetting messages, were the scientists who investigated physical mediumship and saw spirit materialise in front of their eyes and speak to them, wearing blinkers?

Over the years the mass of evidence is too large to be ignored

luv
vi

[Etheress]

You've got to wonder what would happen if a 'scientist' took up the challenge, tried to disprove the afterlife, then actually got evidence of it instead. Would they release it? Bury it?
It would probably be labelled a fraud by the rest of the scientific community anyways.

On a slightly different tangent, why can't scientists be more open minded? Instead of looking for evidence to prove their theories, why not gather ALL the evidence first and base a theory on it.
And why, when new evidence comes along, do they immediately state that it's wrong? Just because it disproves their own theories? Flat earth anyone?

Not to tar all scientists with the same brush, mind you. Just thinking that humans would be a lot more advanced scientifically and spiritually if scientists and researchers did what they're supposed to and investigate.

Whoops, sorry for rant ops:

xxx

[abbondanzieri]

markpearce, i agree with all the points in your first post.

i've read zammit's book, and it's just anecdote after anecdote. just because there are a lot of them, doesn't make it any of the testimony more true. proving things "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not the same as proving a scientific theory. there's an oft used sociology quotation along the lines of "the plural of anecdote is not data".

humans would be a lot more advanced scientifically...if scientists and researchers did what they're supposed to and investigate

this just makes me want to cry...

[Sibyl]

Hi Abon

One day you will have an experience which will literally blow your mind. Hope I am around to tell you its just an anecdote when you try to tell me and is meaningless

luv
vi

[Etheress]

Originally Posted by abbondanzieri

this just makes me want to cry...

You disagree? Most science today is political. Evidence is found to prove only what certain bureaucrats and organisations want proven, as funding for most research is paid for by businesses.
If some "outsider" comes up with a different theory it is not scrutinised or re-studied but immediately dismissed as poppycock. Things have not changed since Galileo's time.

[antiskeptic]

Originally Posted by Etheress

You've got to wonder what would happen if a 'scientist' took up the challenge, tried to disprove the afterlife, then actually got evidence of it instead. Would they release it? Bury it?
It would probably be labelled a fraud by the rest of the scientific community anyways.

Firstly, hello to you all from AntiSkeptic - the spiritualist's answer to people like James Randi... They're extreme in their de-bunking of Spirituality and I'm what you can call their counter-balance...

Ok, introductions over. Skeptics (the hardcore ones at least) are never going to admit that they've been living in the darkness, completely mis-guided for most of their lives. It goes against their grain.

One guy who has always particularly gotton up my nose is a Professor of psychology called Dr Chris French. I haven't seen him in a while but he used to be on quite a few psychic 'investigation shows' a few years back. I believe he's recently been doing a show for ITV. (He's the tall skinny one with the round rim glasses).

It didn't matter what was put before him, he always found a 'scientific' solution to the problem. He's one of the most vocal skeptics I know of. It's his JOB to cast doubt and disprove paranormal claims. After having been so critical of the Spiritual faith for so many years, can you really see him admitting he's been wrong all this time? Nor can I.

What makes me sorry for Skeptics the most though is their complete ignorance of their true selves, where they came from - and where they'll one day return and then they'll *have* to see the light, as it were.

Personally, the comment another user made (sorry, I forget your name!) was about Spiritualists being asked to validate their belief system, whilst no-one would dare to question other 'mainstream' religions - which after all are nothing more than good teachings twisted by the centuries to act as a form of mass mind control. Although I enjoy nothing more than indulging in a little Skeptic-bashing, I feel no need to prove someone's identity to them when they refuse to acknowledge it themselves.

** I know I have very strong views. I do not, and never intend to cause offence to anyone. I simply call things as I see them, and enjoy a good healthy debate. **

I know who I am. I know where I come from. I don't have to prove it to ANYONE.

Your friendly local...
AntiSkeptic

[Timothy Claypole]

I believe there is life after death but no-one has proven spirits (whatever they are) contact living people. Cold reading has been proven, but show me evidence of a dead person contacting someone living - no way. Ok, a Medium may 'contact' spirit thats easy, but getting them to talk back thats the difficult part. James Randi can back up everything he says. No-one has passed his challenge because no-one has been able to demonstrate pyschic powers. If chp is so confident Randi is talking rubbish then he should take his challenge.

I agree there is good evidence to suggest we live on after death, but i have seen nothing to suggest any Medium brings through dead people. The two things should be seperated. I have never listened to any pyschic reading that cannot be explained by cold reading. Infact some Mediums don't even have to cold read. Some are blatant cheats. I know that it was the case if you wanted a personel reading with Gordon Smith you had to apply through his website. That meant filling in an online form saying why you thought you warranted such a reading. The cany Scotsman had bags of information about you before you got there!!!

[AMP]

There is plenty of evidence of the continuance existence of the soul as far as i am concerned. You only have to look back to the physical mediums of the past. They were subjected to so much investigation by sceptical scientists/journalists and proved to them that what they were doing was real. And Timothy - psychic readings are not the same as mediumistic ones. There is no spirit contact involved in psychic readings - except with the spirit of the sitter. Yes I agree that some psychics or mediums may be out to make a quick buck and may not be genuine at all. That does not mean, however, that this is the case for all of them. As for Gordon Smith he makes no charge for his readings. What would be the point for him then of making it up? I have seen some of his readings and know that he gives evidence that he could never have got through a form. He has brought comfort to many, and surely it is up the recipient of the message to decide whether or not it is evidence. I have myself received many messages from mediums and given many myself. I have enough evidence through this to know it is reality. I do not need to prove this to anyone, least of all James Randi who is not a sceptic. Sceptics are open minded and will accept evidence when they see it. James Randi cleverly manipulates things so that he never has to accept what he has already decided is not real.

AMP xxxx