Psychic's Mediums & all that jazz

[Guest sslatter]

Jim Gibbinson:

I'm amazed that intelligent life.. developed even on Earth..

Well.. the jury's out on that one..

[The Flying Tench]

Jim Gibbinson:

The whole process bucks the most amazing odds.

If something appears to be a million to one chance I suppose it's reasonable to say, like Jim, 'It's happened once, but it's unlikely to happen again.' Like, if I found a watch in the desert and said 'It's amazing that random atomic activity should produce this. I bet it won't produce another.' But an alternative would be to say 'maybe it wasn't produced by random activity. Perhaps there is a Creator'. You don't have to believe in Christianity or one of the great religions to believe in a God. Einstein, for example, despite his Jewish background, didn't really believe in the personal God of the bible, but had a very strong belief in a creator God which inspired his science.

 

But then I wish I could ask Einstein a question or two..............

[The Flying Tench]

SteveH:

Here's a confession for yas. I am a member of the Spiritualist Church and a 'working' medium.

Steve, I'm a vicar! So I'm not 'coming from the same place' as you, but agree with you totally about the existence of a spiritual world.

 

I'd be interested to know what is going on subjectively when you believe you are given information about someone or their loved ones. Is it very clear, or when you start off is it rather vague, and then becomes clearer with experience?

 

At times I believe I am getting information from God through what christians call a 'Word of knowledge'. Sometimes, if I'm praying for someone, I'll feel I know something about them, but this can be influenced by, for example, the look on their face. So maybe, in that case, I'm unconsciously doing a bit of 'cold reading'. On other occasions there's no such input, and it seems to come directly from God/the spiritual realm - often as a visual picture, sometimes as a feeling or 'sixth sense', and some people receive words, either audible or visual, though I have no experience of this. I am never totally sure that what I receive is from God, and christians believe such guidance needs confirmation. Nevertheless, people have some remarkable insights in this way. As someone with a scientific background I would feel I was disregarding data to dismiss the spiritual realm, even though I freely admit there is a huge amount i don't understand.

 

I believe we have some common ground. I'm not saying I can endorse your beliefs any more than I expect you could endorse mine, but I'd like to understand more what it feels like to receive information. Is it similar to what I experience with visual pictures etc?

[Jim Gibbinson]

Those of us who do not believe in the supernatural are often dismissed by believers - as has happened on this thread - as being prejudiced. Could it not be that we have come to our conclusion after having made an assessment based on empirical evidence?

 

A serious question for John Clarke (I emphasise the word "serious" to make it clear that I'm not being facetious). Those who accept the tenets of religion (any religion) will claim that they have acquired their belief - by its nature unsupportable by empirical evidence - by virtue of their having faith. My question is: what is the difference between faith and gullibility?

[SteveH]

Flying Tench, actually I can endorse your experiences wholeheartedly. The one major difference being the 'cold reading' aspect. I have in the past, been staff and a reader on an online chat, which provided free spirit and psychic readings, please note the distinction, all mediums are psychic not all psychics are mediums

 

When doing readings online, what could I be 'cold reading'? There were no body language clues, no proxemics in action, no verbal clues, nothing for me to work on from the 'sitter'.

 

To answer your question about the subjective experience, for each medium it is different. Some claim to see the spirit and hear them, I pick up on thoughts, feelings and emotions. After many years involvement, including development groups etc. etc. to hone this natural ability most people have, I can now build up such strong impressions from this I can actually give detailed information including addresses, occupations, etc. etc relating to spirit communicator and the sitter and their families. Current situations in the sitters life may also be described as further evidence of the genuine nature of the communication. I would be happy to enter into a private discussion with you on these topics, my e-mail is in my profile.

 

Jim, the empirical evidence that you claim we spiritualists dont have does exist. Yes there are many instances of evidence to the contrary, but the Society for Psychical Research has entiree libraries of evidence that support my claims. this is independant and scientific based research results performed by many eminent scientists, psychologists, philosophers, and others. These people are not trying to 'prove' the phenmomenon from a 'believers' view point, but investigating it from a scientific stance.

 

Personally, I have had too many instances of provable information passsed by 'spirit' to ignore the possibility that we can communicate with them. Many such instances having been information that the 'sitter' had to go away and check on as even they had no conscious awareness of the information being given.

 

The Church of England investigated mediumship in 1937, this incestigation was ordered by the Archbishops of canterbury and York, those involved were Dr. Francis Underhill Bishop of Bath and Wells.Dr. W. R. Matthews Dean of St, Pauls.Canon Harold Anson Master of the Temple.Canon L. W. Grensted Nolloth Professor of the Christian Religion at Oxford.Dr Williarn Brown Celebrated Harley Street Psychologist.Mr. P. E. Sandiands, Q.C. Barrister-at-Law.Lady (Gwendolen) Stephenson this results of this investigation and the report were not published as was supposed to happen. Whilst not agreeing with many common assertions made by spiritualists of the day, the report was in agreement that spirit communication and therefore the continued existence of the 'soul' after death is true. With evidential comments to support this. For those genuinely interested I can forward a copy of this report.

 

This is just one example of a vast body of empirical evidence available to those that seek it, I give this instance as it does not entirely support my own stance, but makes comments that would deny some of my beliefs too. You see, in these matters, as I have stated before, I remain open minded and willing to learn from anyone with new insights or knowledge that I might not posses.

 

This will probably be my last post on this thread, if anyone wants genuine intelligent discussion my email is available, if they just want to use ridicule and personal assumptions that are at the same time not even open to adjustment then Im not interested. I have had the proof, which I have checked as far as I am able, that satisfies me that Death is a transition state, not an end in itself

 

Its been interesting reading though. And Flying Tench, maybe we need to go fishing together, it could make for an interesting day

 

SteveH

 

[ 19. March 2005, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: SteveH ]

[Ken Davison South Wales]

Hi Jim,

 

I do not have a faith, but I do question all this scientific evidence that is used to knock those who have faith or believe in other facets such as UFOs or ghost.

 

I don't want to get long winded by listing dozens of times science has done an about turn. One which did effect a friend of mine was what caused stomach ulcers, science stated NOTHING could live in the stomach bile, WRONG and it took a lone man fifteen years before he could convince everyone else that the evidence he found was correct. My friend who suffered badly with ulcers took one course of pills and has not had a problem since.

 

This is just a simple one and there are many thousands that demonstrate that blind FAITH in science is not always correct or advisable.

 

Someone posted on here that the possibility of little green men was so great that we are the only intellegent life forms in the universe. We are now talking about low life forms as close as Mars.

 

There is never any harm in believing or not believing, but keeping the mind open and not being to stubborn about ones views is always a good idea now days, things are moving faster every day.

[Guest sslatter]

Ken Davison South Wales: ..I do question all this scientific evidence that is used to knock those who have faith or believe in other facets such as UFOs or ghost.

Funny that.. I question all the "scientific" evidence that "proves" such things. It always seems to me that people make a quantum leap of thought from, say, a "vision" of a dead loved one, to a "ghost". Who's to say such a vision is not an "alien" doing a bit of impersonation? Who's to say that it's not a "demon" doing the same? Who's to say it's not an aberration of the "mind"?

 

"Believers" always give the same answer- "I KNOW the truth.." but there are so many different slants- they can't all be right. They could even all be wrong, but try telling them that..

 

Try telling Fatima that she might have had a "vision of an entity" that she morphed into the Virgin Mary, to fit her belief system..

 

Try telling Crowley that he might have had a "vision of an entity" that he morphed into Satan, to fit his own belief system..

 

Try telling a Lakota shaman that his vision of a "Heyoka thunder-being" might just be his own personal belief-system slant on a "hallucination"..

 

Try telling the same to all those people who see "alien greys" etc etc etc.

 

Try telling Mohammed that his "vision of 72 virgins awaiting in Heaven" might have just been his personal belief-system slant on a "hallucination" that he had..

 

..and try telling that to Osama bin Laden as well..

 

You won't live very long if you do..

 

Of all the belief systems that I've encountered in my life, the only one I've ever found that I felt contained some logic, one that I felt did not rely on "blind faith", was one that has been passed on by an oral, not written, tradition: one that says that we all live in a giant cocoon of energy that is the "body of the creator"; that this "creator" is our "God", and that the human part of this entity is so insignificant, that the whole remains unmoved by human supplication; that the only purpose of life is to feed this entity with our energy when we die, so that it might continue living: that, in essence, we are tomatoes in a cosmic greenhouse, burgers in a cosmic McDonalds, and that when we die, we get eaten, and our awareness dies.

 

It's the Yaqui oral tradition btw.

 

Interesting to note that some modern-day physicists now subscribe to the theory that the universe, although super-large, is in essence, finite: that there is, at the furthest limits, a boundary, a web of energy that keeps our universe in place. They model it as a "cocoon".

 

[ 19. March 2005, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: Graham. X ]

[The Flying Tench]

Jim Gibbinson:

Those of us who do not believe in the supernatural are often dismissed by believers - as has happened on this thread - as being prejudiced. Could it not be that we have come to our conclusion after having made an assessment based on empirical evidence?

 

A serious question for John Clarke (I emphasise the word "serious" to make it clear that I'm not being facetious). Those who accept the tenets of religion (any religion) will claim that they have acquired their belief - by its nature unsupportable by empirical evidence - by virtue of their having faith. My question is: what is the difference between faith and gullibility?

Jim, I entirely accept that some atheists and agnostics have come to their views after weighing up the evidence, and I hope I didn't come across as suggesting anyone was prejudiced. Also I accept that many religious people haven't weighed up the evidence as carefully as they might.

 

Like you, it amazes me when people say you shouldn't worry about the evidence but should just have faith - in what? There are many alternatives!

 

I would agree that most religious belief cannot be proved empirically, but to say it cannot be supported is to put it too strongly. As far as I'm concerned the only valid reason for a thinking person to become a christian (or member of any other religion) is if they think the claims are true. Jesus challenged people to believe because of his miracles. The early disciples told people to believe because he had risen from the dead (and apparently no-one could produce the body).

 

I believe for a mixture of reasons - historical evidence, modern miracles, times when prayer is answered in ways that are hard to explain statistically. For example, I didn't apply for my present job, though I'd seen the advert in the paper and sent for details. Then I got a phone call to say that, when he was praying about the new vicar, one of the lay leaders had seen the words 'John Clarke' going past his eyes. He even knew there was an 'e' on the end. He didn't know anyone called John Clarke, and the job was expected to be filled from within this diocese, where there were no John Clarkes. But no-one from the diocese wanted the job, it was advertised nationally, and I applied. It could just be explained as a coincidence. I'm not saying it amounts to proof, of course, but it comes in the realm of evidence rather than blind faith.

 

My understanding of the meaning of faith is putting your trust in something you have reason to believe in. There's an illustration about the escapologist Blondin in the nineteenth century. He was wheeling people across the Niagara Falls in a wheelbarrow over a tightrope, and the English Prince of Wales was in the audience. Blondin asked the prince if he believed he could wheel him across the falls, and of course he replied 'yes' as he'd seen him do it a number of times. Blondin then asked him to get in the barrow, and he refused! - perfectly reasonably as, even if there was only a 1% chance of falling in, it would have been foolish to risk it. Nevertheless, it illustrates the difference between belief, which he had, and faith, which he didn't.

 

Of course it would take ages to go into all the evidence for and against christianity. I don't mean to suggest that it can ever be viewed in a totally detached and objective way, as it does involve the heart as well, eventually. In practice the way faith comes in is this. If someone is interested enough to want to explore christianity it'll obviously involve some work - reading, discussing, etc. Up to this point the whole thing is about evidence, not faith, though people sometimes say that God seems to be giving them nudges on the way. Then, if they decide it's probably untrue they won't take it any further. But suppose they think there's a fair bit of evidence that it's true, but they're not sure, it leaves them with a tough decision - to leave it, or take a bit of a leap of faith - to start trusting and see how it works out.

 

Forgive the long answer, Jim. In the main I'm agreeing with you. I'd feel like thumping someone if they told me to 'just have faith'. I do believe there's evidence, some of it puzzling and contradictory, but I acknowledge there's no proof. I fully accept that people can look at the evidence and come to different conclusions.

[Guest sslatter]

TFT- may I make an observation?

 

The chap who said that he saw the name "John Clarke" in the air.. you immediately took him at his word. You don't seem to entertain the possibility that he might have been lying..

 

??

[jeepster]

i've been watching this thread with a lot of interest, anyone who knows me will know what i do for a living (i work on a show called 'most haunted'

working with two of the countries leading psychic mediums) will also know that i'm a complete heathen unbeliever, indeed i've posted some quite controversial things on here, i wont go into them too deeply, but basically i dont believe a word of the bible and it amuses me when people talk about the events described in the bible as thought they really happened, and not like they're from a work of fiction. to me its akin to really beleiving that bilbo baggins lived in a hole in the ground.....

 

however, since i've worked on most haunted i've seen and heard things myself that make me think there is some kind of an afterlife. i've seen a full colour ghost, not a corner of the eye appartition, or something that could have been mistaken for something else, a real live (well dead but you know what i mean) ghost!! i've also recorded sounds during seances that i know could not have come from anyone in the room, including on a recent trip to america, a voice saying a name

(we were in an old civil war barracks) and the name was that of a soldier stationed there during the civil war (and no it wasnt a common name) i've also, while working with our mediums heard them come up with things that i KNOW they have no way of knowing. so whilst i'm no convert and am still quite sceptical about most areas of 'the spirit world' (mainly those concerning organised religion, which i believe to be the oldest con trick in the world) i truly beleive there is an afterlife, and there are people who would like to speak to us.....

 

[ 19. March 2005, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: jeepster ]