Mod+ 238. WHY SKEPTICS ARE WRONG… ABOUT PSYCHICS & MEDIUMS

#2

238. Why Skeptics Are Wrong… About Psychics & Mediums

I've been hammering atheists on another site when i wrote this.
Atheists are an irrelevant minority who blind themselves to reality. They worship scientism and science, but are oblivious to the fact that science paints a picture about reality that actually doesn't make sense. For example, the big bang happened, as if by magic. Particle-wave duality is a complete mystery to them. They tell us (without proof) that there is a multiverse which provides an anthropic explanation for life; but then, these atheists ignore and deride all of the NDE and paranormal evidence as being woo.

I guarantee there is a more evidence for the existence of spirits, ghosts, an afterlife and God then there is for an anthropic multiverse. From a position of high prestige, the atheist scientific community ignores the evidence of the paranormal, and misleads the public with anthropic principle nonsense. Whatever values these atheists think they observe, they don't observe the principle of follow the evidence.

Any thoughts?

Click here to listen on YouTube
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#3
I've been hammering atheists on another site when i wrote this.

Atheists are an irrelevant minority who blind themselves to reality. They worship scientism and science, but are oblivious to the fact that science paints a picture about reality that actually doesn't make sense. For example, the big bang happened, as if by magic. Particle-wave duality is a complete mystery to them. They tell us (without proof) that there is a multiverse which provides an anthropic explanation for life; but then, these atheists ignore and deride all of the NDE and paranormal evidence as being woo.

I guarantee there is a more evidence for the existence of spirits, ghosts, an afterlife and God then there is for an anthropic multiverse. From a position of high prestige, the atheist scientific community ignores the evidence of the paranormal, and misleads the public with anthropic principle nonsense. Whatever values these atheists think they observe, they don't observe the principle of follow the evidence.

Any thoughts?
Here are just a few problems with your 'hammering'.
'blind themselves to reality' - They usually say they like to 'look' at reality and if say, you can prove any god exists, like perhaps Ganesh the Elephant God, then they too will believe it. Are you that open-eyed yourself?
'worship science' - I never hear them say that, but rather that they don't worship anything, unlike religious people.
'science doesn't make sense' - science is a methodology, not some dogma, if something is SHOWN not to make sense, that has to be accepted.
'big-bang by magic' - this example of yours is invalid since no scientist says they propose the big-bang based on magic, but give very specifics reasons for that position; so it's empirical, not magic.
'particle-waves' -is NOT a complete mystery, they know a lot about both, and about some things that sometimes behave as particle and sometimes behaves as waves. No scientist claims to know everything about everything. But rather they use the methodology of science to try to figure things out.
'multiverse' - they do not say there is proof of any 'multiverse',
'NDE' - they admit people are capable of imagining all sorts of things, whether awake, sleeping, in lucid dreams, under anathesia, etc. But they do NOT accept NDE as evidence that there is life after death, or reincarnation, or resurrection, etc. because it isn't. The very term, near-death, means you're not really dead, but still alive. In all the examples of nde, I've never heard of a doctors death certificate being issued.
''follow the evidence'' - People into supernatural woo-woo things do not accept what constitutes evidence, which leads you guys to not understand how science operates. You will accept anecdotes as evidence, scientists don't; religious people will say that holy books are evidence, scientists don't, etc.
 
#4
Here are just a few problems with your 'hammering'.
'blind themselves to reality' - They usually say they like to 'look' at reality and if say, you can prove any god exists, like perhaps Ganesh the Elephant God, then they too will believe it. Are you that open-eyed yourself?
'worship science' - I never hear them say that, but rather that they don't worship anything, unlike religious people.
'science doesn't make sense' - science is a methodology, not some dogma, if something is SHOWN not to make sense, that has to be accepted.
'big-bang by magic' - this example of yours is invalid since no scientist says they propose the big-bang based on magic, but give very specifics reasons for that position; so it's empirical, not magic.
'particle-waves' -is NOT a complete mystery, they know a lot about both, and about some things that sometimes behave as particle and sometimes behaves as waves. No scientist claims to know everything about everything. But rather they use the methodology of science to try to figure things out.
'multiverse' - they do not say there is proof of any 'multiverse',
'NDE' - they admit people are capable of imagining all sorts of things, whether awake, sleeping, in lucid dreams, under anathesia, etc. But they do NOT accept NDE as evidence that there is life after death, or reincarnation, or resurrection, etc. because it isn't. The very term, near-death, means you're not really dead, but still alive. In all the examples of nde, I've never heard of a doctors death certificate being issued.
''follow the evidence'' - People into supernatural woo-woo things do not accept what constitutes evidence, which leads you guys to not understand how science operates. You will accept anecdotes as evidence, scientists don't; religious people will say that holy books are evidence, scientists don't, etc.
There is actual video evidence of an exorcist being scratched, during an exorcism, by an unseen force. They rolled up his shirt and demonstrated that there were fresh scratches from an unexplained cause. The exorcism went on and then the home owner was scratched by an unseen cause. She panicked and ran out of the house. But they were able to roll up her shirt and video tape fresh scratches on her back as well. How do you explain that? Now I believe that people generally tell the truth and they tell it like it is. I also know that I have seen a black hooded figure in my bedroom; it was the same black hooded entity that my mom had seen, and that her and her friend contacted with a seance. I'm just telling you what I observed and being forthright and honest. The problem with materialist skeptics is that they assume that everyone who has these experiences is either lying, stupid, or engaged in trickery. So I will ask you? Are you an honest and forthright person? I know I am.
 
#5
Here are just a few problems with your 'hammering'.
'blind themselves to reality' - They usually say they like to 'look' at reality and if say, you can prove any god exists, like perhaps Ganesh the Elephant God, then they too will believe it. Are you that open-eyed yourself?
I'm arguing that lots and lots of people are seeing ghosts. Not elephant gods.
'worship science' - I never hear them say that, but rather that they don't worship anything, unlike religious people.
'science doesn't make sense' - science is a methodology, not some dogma, if something is SHOWN not to make sense, that has to be accepted.
That is such a novice way of thinking. Just because something doesn't make sense doesn't mean you get to throw out those data points.
'big-bang by magic' - this example of yours is invalid since no scientist says they propose the big-bang based on magic, but give very specifics reasons for that position; so it's empirical, not magic.
We are told that the big bang came from a quantum fluctuation. But according to scientific dogma, there was nothing before the big bang.
 
Last edited:
#6
We really need a NO SPIN ZONE for these discussions because the materialist-skeptics put more spin on their arguments than politicians.
 
C

chuck.drake

#7
Why don't you put forth your best evidence about ghosts that does not include a TV show. That might go a long way toward convincing some people.
 
#8
Why don't you put forth your best evidence about ghosts that does not include a TV show. That might go a long way toward convincing some people.
If you were lucky enough to get video of a ghost, what would you do with it? How would you present the evidence to the world?
 
Last edited:
#9
In electronics/(signals and systems) there is a concept of Signal to Noise ratio. It means that the strength of a signal is taken as the ratio of the signal to the noise. If there is a lot of noise, then you have to boost the signal. I think that is what is happening with the long sought after proof of the afterlife.

There is quite good evidence of ghosts and othe paranormal phenomena. But there is way too much noise. By noise, I'm referring to a laundry list of things like
-psychics who are just not very good,
-people who give some evidence and then follow it up by saying something absolutely crazy
-people who give messages that are not backed by scientific evidence, etc...

For these people, it's not their fault. They do the best they can which is all we can ask.

Then sometimes there are paranormal experiences that are so strange and so bizarre that skeptics mistakenly believe their story is impossible.

Then there are also the pranks, hoaxes, and disparaging jokes that make the rational skeptic lose hope. This third category I find offensive because it undermines the credibility of real legitimate phenomena through no fault of their own.

So to those who don't believe in paranormal activity because of all the noise, I'm afraid you'll just have to be cheated out of the benefits of belief and knowledge of the paranormal.
 
C

chuck.drake

#10
If you were lucky enough to get video of a ghost, what would you do with it? How would you present the evidence to the world?
If I were serious about investigating any subject, I would not use the medium of television to spread my message. It has zero credibility. Plus today's video editing tools make absolutely anything possible.
 
#11
I'm absolutely convinced of apparitions as a phenomenon, but have grave (sic) doubts about the possibility of photographing them. At least, none of the images that purport to be ghosts have ever convinced me. I suspect they manifest to individuals and groups by interfering with the mind, rather than registering on the physical background.
 
C

chuck.drake

#12
I'm absolutely convinced of apparitions as a phenomenon, but have grave (sic) doubts about the possibility of photographing them. At least, none of the images that purport to be ghosts have ever convinced me. I suspect they manifest to individuals and groups by interfering with the mind, rather than registering on the physical background.
That is what I am getting at. I don't deny an interest in the phenomena. I'm in no way suggesting that "ghosts" can't exist. But insisting that footage from reality TV shows is reliable or to be taken seriously in any way is probably beyond the pale for me.
 
#13
I wrote a rebuttal to your message about being 'scratched' yesterday, yet I don't see it. Did you get it? Maybe it only appears to you privately.
Why would it appear privately? If it's not ghosts scratching people during an exorcism, then what is? Multiple episodes of The Haunting, paranormal investigators broadcasting on the podcast Living Paranormal, and people I know personally have all claimed to have been attacked by ghosts. How is that possible if ghosts don't exist?
 
#14
In addition to ghosts you included ''spirits, ghosts, an afterlife and God" so my point stands. The point was to show that I'm not ''blinded'', but would welcome evidence, and asked if you would also be so un-blind as to accept Ganesh.
What has Ganesh got to do with this argument? Nobody is seeing apparitions of Ganesh or being attacked by Ganesh. Why the red herring?
Your 'data points', are ancecdotes. One anecdote is NOT evidence, a whole lot of anecdotes are NOT evidence.
What part of thirty episodes of the Haunted, 30 sets of testimonial, 30 sets of audio and video evidence has anything to do with one anecdote?
Glad you're concede the point that the Big bang is not based on magic. You might try studying a bit about it at say, the Smithsonian site; http://www.mnh.si.edu/exhibits/evolving-universe/bigbang/. Or watch that new 'Cosmos' TV program, or even Wikipedia.
Big bang is not empirical evidence because it's not reproducible and nobody was there 13.7 billion years ago. It's all based on computer modeling and mathematical calculations. But nobody knows for sure what initiated the big bang event. Some say it was a quantum fluctuation (which requires that wave functions and quantum fields exist before the big bang). Others say it was God.
Scientific dogma? There is none. That's just YOU saying that, not any scientist. Unlike dogma, everything scientific has to be 'falsibiable'.
So science accumulates false negatives. Ghosts were there, but science missed them.
 
#15
That is what I am getting at. I don't deny an interest in the phenomena. I'm in no way suggesting that "ghosts" can't exist. But insisting that footage from reality TV shows is reliable or to be taken seriously in any way is probably beyond the pale for me.
To your credit, you're just saying that video evidence on a small TV just isn't enough to convince you. What you need is a 65 inch flat LED screen like mine. ;)
 
#16
You can 'think' that, but you're mistaken since you're committing the false logic of comparing two un-like things, in this case, electronics(something in the real world), with ghosts(something supernatural).

You claim 'good evidence', but don't show any, just another lame excuse about 'noise'.

Pranks and hoaxses should be disparaged, and it IS their own fault if the perpetrated such hoaxes. Yet you let them off the hook.

So you've gone from 'guaranteeing', to then just claiming 'good evidence', all the way down to; ''you'll just have to be cheated out of......" Way to go.
This is not an argument by someone who has reviewed the evidence. This is just political spin.
 
#17
I'm absolutely convinced of apparitions as a phenomenon, but have grave (sic) doubts about the possibility of photographing them. At least, none of the images that purport to be ghosts have ever convinced me. I suspect they manifest to individuals and groups by interfering with the mind, rather than registering on the physical background.
Bill Bean is a guy who was harrassed by demons throughout his childhood and part of his adulthood. http://www.billbean.net/ Take a look at pictures 11 of 150 and tell me what you think. Personally, I thought it was a great picture and was very spooky even if it's not what I would use to convince skeptics.
 
C

chuck.drake

#18
To your credit, you're just saying that video evidence on a small TV just isn't enough to convince you. What you need is a 65 inch flat LED screen like mine. ;)
To be honest I've never dug into the question of ghosts. I just don't have the time or interest right now. I've read and heard enough to say it is an open question for me. That's as good as I can do. I don't doubt some people are experiencing something. I just don't know how certain we can be in pinning down the cause as disembodied spirit.
 
#19
To be honest I've never dug into the question of ghosts. I just don't have the time or interest right now. I've read and heard enough to say it is an open question for me. That's as good as I can do. I don't doubt some people are experiencing something. I just don't know how certain we can be in pinning down the cause as disembodied spirit.
Perfectly rational reply. The only reason I became interested in ghosts was because the materialist-skeptics-atheists were complaining about people having faith in their religions without any evidence. I don't know what a spirit has to do that it hasn't already done to prove its existence. I am satisfied that spirit and spiritual things exist. I am satisfied that my my religious beliefs, as a spiritualist, are founded upon evidence.
 
C

chuck.drake

#20
Perfectly rational reply. The only reason I became interested in ghosts was because the materialist-skeptics-atheists were complaining about people having faith in their religions without any evidence. I don't know what a spirit has to do that it hasn't already done to prove its existence. I am satisfied that spirit and spiritual things exist. I am satisfied that my my religious beliefs, as a spiritualist, are founded upon evidence.
I find spiritualism and mediumship more convincing than any incidental evidence I have seen for ghosts.
 
Top