Why do 'believers' believe?

[wooo_oops]

I wasn't quite sure where to put this post but here seems as good a place as any.

I'd like to know why... (and perhaps that question has been put before - but it hasn't been answered-)
...why, believers believe? I keep hearing anecdotal stuff which, with respect, is interesting, but it gives no idea as to why these experiences have qualified believers with 'knowledge' of the existence of spirit. I don't want to hear an argument for it's existence - oh, spirit exists because I've seen it - but what it actually means for the believer, to have this 'knowledge'?

[Tin Lizzie]

I wasn't quite sure where to put this post but here seems as good a place as any.

I'd like to know why... (and perhaps that question has been put before - but it hasn't been answered-)
...why, believers believe? I keep hearing anecdotal stuff which, with respect, is interesting, but it gives no idea as to why these experiences have qualified believers with 'knowledge' of the existence of spirit. I don't want to hear an argument for it's existence - oh, spirit exists because I've seen it - but what it actually means for the believer, to have this 'knowledge'?

Not blowing my big old trumpet here, my actual experience with communicating with the dead and my own guides is extremely small compared to practising mediums. To answer your question, what it means to have this knowledge, well firstly I can now see that the point we are all at now, us as in the human race and the whole planet, is not even a minuscule pin-prick in the ticker-tape of eternity. Okay, we will never again inhabit the physical bodies we have now, but now I certainly do not fear death. In fact (yes, this did become too much of a temptation at one time) I am coming to believe that the 'spirits' are far more understanding and non-judgemental than us here will ever be. The thing is though, they know that we have to make our own choices, we have to make the choices which mean we may or may not develop, in the longer scheme of things. So, they can be quite 'socratic' in their teaching style. Hope I haven't confused / offended you.

[Admin]

I hope you guys don't mind - I've split these postings off to a new topic as I think it's interesting enough in itself to warrant it. O0

[Melanie]

I wasn't quite sure where to put this post but here seems as good a place as any.

I'd like to know why... (and perhaps that question has been put before - but it hasn't been answered-)
...why, believers believe? I keep hearing anecdotal stuff which, with respect, is interesting, but it gives no idea as to why these experiences have qualified believers with 'knowledge' of the existence of spirit. I don't want to hear an argument for it's existence - oh, spirit exists because I've seen it - but what it actually means for the believer, to have this 'knowledge'?

Whatever religion or faith one explores, there has to be some personal resonance or it doesn't stick. It's almost as if one has a propensity to believe, some kind of internal model of an ideal belief system, and hence a need for a faith to follow which will tick all of those boxes.

In this enlightened age one can explore any number of faiths and religions until one finds the faith that fits one's internal model. It's largely about choosing the one that feels right.

For example, if I were to feel the need to adopt a faith to live by, it would be Buddhism, because for me quite a lot of the dogma makes sense. The religion is all about Living Today, not being good through fear of after-death retribution. At the other end of the scale is fundamental Christianity, which is built on fear and guilt and makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Once one finds a faith that fits - or at least one that ticks enough boxes - it's easy to ignore the bits that don't quite gel with one's internal model, and accept them because they are part of that faith.

Again, for example, when I was exploring spiritualism, it occurred to me that if I accepted life after death, I would have to accept reincarnation also, otherwise survival made no sense whatsoever.

This may be why there are so many different versions of what the afterlife is supposed to be like - because they're all made up to suit the particular protagonist's various views of logicality.

Hmmm. I am not sure this makes any sense and don't like posting such vague ideas, but maybe someone else can interpret what I'm trying to say and write it more lucidly?

[wooo_oops]

Thanks John, I know you've asked a similar question before in another thread http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=18 with some interesting answers but I suppose this was a more personal approach.

I say personal because the notion that we are able to exist in spirit after we're dead and gone is completely anathema to me, partly because the comfort value of this idea is not enough for me as a thinking and questioning person, to justify its existence. I would be more concerned with having never had children, for instance.

Thanks TL, for your answer though...I am a little confused but not offended in the least!
I hope you don't mind more questions?

If having the belief helps you not to fear death, what does this say about your other fears? Do you fear being alone? Whether you fear death or not, we all die anyway, so what's the reasoning behind having your spirit carry on? I'm just curious to understand as to how such a huge notion as life after death has done anything for people apart from give comfort. I don't want to patronise, but you do know that you can get comfort down other avenues...from other members of your family or friends who are still alive, for instance?

The thing is, there are so many 'ifs' involved here. You say you 'know' and yet, none of us do for sure. Being a skeptic doesn't mean I stop asking questions - I ask more questions of sources which have real answers from living brains. You said yourself that spirit is non-judgemental and leaves us to make our own choices. If that's so, why did I make the choice not to believe that my dead mother is watching over me and capable of communication, if, as you're suggesting, you know that she is? (Before you say something to the effect that it's because I'm blocking her (doh!) or that she hasn't been in touch because she wants me to make my own decision about it, I will say... QED)!

[MRT]

Humans are genetically pre-disposed to believing in gods and the after life. When humans started to form large social groups, they needed a form of morality to keep order. Those who believed they were 'being watched' by gods, or 'spirits' of ancestors, would have become more moral, so adapting better to a social existence. Research has demonstrated that people who think 'gods' or 'spirits' might be watching them do indeed behave better.

We all have this adaption to a greater or lesser extent. Of course, atheists behave no worse or better than anyone else but atheism has only become tolerated in certain western societies very recently in evolutionary terms. There are still many societies in the world today where an atheist would have a very hard time of it. The vast majority of people in the world are either overtly religious or have at least passive beliefs in spiritual matters.

Once born, a human with a genetic predisposition to believe. is then subject to the continuous cultural transmission of religious and spiritual ideas. Many people are, even in modern western societies, still brought up 'in' a religion, even if they are too young to understand it. The ideas percolate in even if they are later rejected. Even after rejecting a faith, people will still be subject to uncritical coverage of paranormal phenomena in the popular media.

Given the above, I think the real question should be, 'why are there ANY people who DON'T believe in spirits?'

[wooo_oops]

Hmmm. I am not sure this makes any sense and don't like posting such vague ideas, but maybe someone else can interpret what I'm trying to say and write it more lucidly?

Pfft! Tell me about it! Took me half an hour to work out how to word stuff without sounding vague and incoherent because it's all so subjective.

Thanks though - food for thought as ever. My question is still why though. Why is the need there if not just for comfort?


Since neuroscience has found that we all have a brain, (duh;)) in which the emotional response (neural firing) to...lets call it 'religiosity', varies enormously from person to person, for one reason or another... it follows that we all have our different reasoning and are capable of making our own minds up about what we need to keep us going on our journey through life, but I feel that therein lies the 'how'. As to why, unless it's something to do with selection and social evolution (thanks Maurice)... then if we're happy to be a believer, does it make us more successful as a species?

No, still don't see why, since insects don't believe in spirits, or God, and they're pretty darn successful.^-^

[MRT]

... then if we're happy to be a believer, does it make us more successful as a species?


So evolutionary biologists say. We are a social species. Imagine what life would be like if we all lived in separate family groups like, say, foxes. Would we have invented the computer? Or even a language beyond a few grunts?

As with all genetic traits, religiousity has pluses and minuses. I bet you can guess the minuses ..

[wooo_oops]

So evolutionary biologists say. We are a social species. Imagine what life would be like if we all lived in separate family groups like, say, foxes. Would we have invented the computer? Or even a language beyond a few grunts?

As with all genetic traits, religiousity has pluses and minuses. I bet you can guess the minuses ..

Ha! Never mind guess!

Cheers MRT.O0

[Melanie]

My question is still why though. Why is the need there if not just for comfort?


Maybe the simple 'why' is just that it's too damn scary when we think that all 'This' is just an accident, that there's no point to anything, no reason or plan.

Come to think of it, what's the first thing any of us says when a personal disaster strikes? 'WHY?'

The idea that we have no control over life can feel unimaginably scary. Someone has to be responsible - there has to be a reason for things bad - or good. Hence the invention of God, the gods, fate et al. Gives us someone to blame, at least. (Though we usually have to reminded to give thanks as well when they're due.)

Probably the second thing that any of us says when disaster strikes is 'not my fault'. That's an instinctive reaction for sure. Those of us who do accept responsibility instantly have spent years learning how to do that. Much easier if we can invent a god, or fate, to blame.

So it's not quite 'comfort' - more a wish to abnegate our own responsibility.

[bindeweede]

I'm reading Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot" at the moment. On p49, he quotes from Jean-Jacques Rousseau,

"It is hard to prevent oneself from believing what one so keenly desires".

[Tin Lizzie]

I'm reading Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot" at the moment. On p49, he quotes from Jean-Jacques Rousseau,

"It is hard to prevent oneself from believing what one so keenly desires".

This is true. Sadly not for pessimistic/'realisticly selectively positive' types like me. I've always wanted as a girlfriend a really hot chick who has a great sense of fun but who is also compassionate and caring too, and all of this without being up her own backside. I have never ever believed I will achieve this, and to this day I do not believe I will get the things I want most from this life. O joy.

I don't know if there is anyone else here who minds discussing this but I also have had the old 'God / no God' thing but in a rather major way. I was a confirmed Christian but some things happened and I started to look at all the really crap things that happen in some peoples' lives. I abandoned the idea of God, or at least one that loved us.

Funnily enough it was after one really particularly crappy thing that I started to believe in a 'supreme being' again, but only after I started receiving messages from my guides, not through any desire to believe. I accept that although God loves us he can't control everything we do - free will and all that. I don't mind discussing these things at all. Not everyone has reason to believe/disbelieve; we all lead different lives.

[Tin Lizzie]

If having the belief helps you not to fear death, what does this say about your other fears? Do you fear being alone? Whether you fear death or not, we all die anyway, so what's the reasoning behind having your spirit carry on? I'm just curious to understand as to how such a huge notion as life after death has done anything for people apart from give comfort. I don't want to patronise, but you do know that you can get comfort down other avenues...from other members of your family or friends who are still alive, for instance? [quote]

Some of what I said to 'Bindeweede' above addresses this but on the point of fear/comfort, I personally lost faith in human nature years ago and I still managed to survive without faith in anything other than my own physiology and my handful of close friends (and the friends who helped me drink these liquid close friends;o) ) When I....i'm laughing here because I know what you will be thinking....when I began to realise that the 'signs' I had been given were quite possibly signs, I took things into my own hands, I thought 'I've got nothing to lose' and so I began to learn for myself if I could actually contact anything at all. What has happened since has provided comfort, but only when I have really needed it, not when I have just been feeling sorry for myself. It is the other messages which are far more interesting. Needless to say, I would rather not dicuss them here just yet and I am sure you won't be offended!

[quote]
The thing is, there are so many 'ifs' involved here. You say you 'know' and yet, none of us do for sure. Being a skeptic doesn't mean I stop asking questions - I ask more questions of sources which have real answers from living brains. You said yourself that spirit is non-judgemental and leaves us to make our own choices. If that's so, why did I make the choice not to believe that my dead mother is watching over me and capable of communication, if, as you're suggesting, you know that she is? (Before you say something to the effect that it's because I'm blocking her (doh!) or that she hasn't been in touch because she wants me to make my own decision about it, I will say... QED)!

There are so many ifs about lots of things, none more so than the spirit plane. Although mediums have a variety of opinions based on thier own experiences and personalities, it is certain that spirits only make contact if there is a genuine need which will serve some kind of purpose. This may not be apparent immediately, e.g. a spirit saying 'your purse has fallen down the back of the small blue settee in the conservatory' may not be life-shattering info, but it may prove their existence to the sitter, thus relieving their grief. I am not the expert; Suppose you did want to talk to your mum again, would you accept a reading from one of the most reputable (not the most heard of though) mediums around? From the viewpoint of what I believe, your mother is content to wait until you meet again, should you choose to.

[wooo_oops]

I don't know if there is anyone else here who minds discussing this but I also have had the old 'God / no God' thing but in a rather major way. I was a confirmed Christian but some things happened and I started to look at all the really crap things that happen in some peoples' lives. I abandoned the idea of God, or at least one that loved us.

Funnily enough it was after one really particularly crappy thing that I started to believe in a 'supreme being' again, but only after I started receiving messages from my guides, not through any desire to believe. I accept that although God loves us he can't control everything we do - free will and all that. I don't mind discussing these things at all. Not everyone has reason to believe/disbelieve; we all lead different lives.

Fair enough, but you've given me no reason to suspect that this was all down to your spirit guides and not down to your own coping mechanism. Sorry.


Suppose you did want to talk to your mum again, would you accept a reading from one of the most reputable (not the most heard of though) mediums around? From the viewpoint of what I believe, your mother is content to wait until you meet again, should you choose to.

Of course I would choose to. I miss her terribly, but I can dream about her - which, I understand, is based on my memory of her. As for having a reading, I'm afraid I can not accept that it would be her communicating, rather than myself - a good 'medium' will pick up on what I already know, embellished with some stuff that would apply to any of us. What's the point of that?

[Tin Lizzie]

Fair enough, but you've given me no reason to suspect that this was all down to your spirit guides and not down to your own coping mechanism. Sorry.


That wasn't my intention. It would take quite something to convince you of my guides, and their messages are best kept to myself and a select group of very few people. They scare the hell out of me in fact.



Of course I would choose to. I miss her terribly, but I can dream about her - which, I understand, is based on my memory of her. As for having a reading, I'm afraid I can not accept that it would be her communicating, rather than myself - a good 'medium' will pick up on what I already know, embellished with some stuff that would apply to any of us. What's the point of that?

I find that interesting. Okay you know I am not criticising or trying to change your thought here, but if the medium could tell you of things only you and her knew; if she could tell you exactly how and when your mother died; if she could tell you the name of your first pet when you were a child and all of its' characteristics, if she is picking these up from you, then surely some sunbconscious telepathy is involved?

[MRT]

My coping mechanism for a crap life is chocolate. It's more reliable than spirits.

[wooo_oops]

I find that interesting. Okay you know I am not criticising or trying to change your thought here, but if the medium could tell you of things only you and her knew; if she could tell you exactly how and when your mother died; if she could tell you the name of your first pet when you were a child and all of its' characteristics, if she is picking these up from you, then surely some sunbconscious telepathy is involved?

Are you relating what happened to you when you saw a medium?
Are you saying you think it might be due to telepathy and not communicating with the dead?
Just wondered. I'm not criticising either. I just don't agree that mediums can talk to dead peeps.

I'd like to see a medium describe the characteristics of a caterpillar though.;D

[Tin Lizzie]

Are you relating what happened to you when you saw a medium?
Are you saying you think it might be due to telepathy and not communicating with the dead?
Just wondered. I'm not criticising either. I just don't agree that mediums can talk to dead peeps.

I'd like to see a medium describe the characteristics of a caterpillar though.;D

I've not yet been to see a medium as I haven't needed to yet; those are just some of the things that have happened to friends who have.

I believe that telepathy may be one of the means by which we communicate with the dead, but for those who don't believe in such things I wonder thow they can really accept cold reading as the modus operandi here, especially when sittings are done at a distance.

[Admin]

if the medium could tell you of things only you and her knew; if she could tell you exactly how and when your mother died; if she could tell you the name of your first pet when you were a child and all of its' characteristics, if she is picking these up from you, then surely some sunbconscious telepathy is involved?

Let's not forget that it could be the 'medium' using veiled questions and the information is actually volunteered by the sitter (!)

Did you buy that book on Cold Reading that I recommended?

I bet you didn't. ;)

[Tin Lizzie]

Let's not forget that it could be the 'medium' using veiled questions and the information is actually volunteered by the sitter (!)

Did you buy that book on Cold Reading that I recommended?

I bet you didn't. ;)

Okay, but as you know the best mediums don't ask questions, they just give messages.

Assuming this is the case....

[Admin]

Okay, but as you know the best mediums don't ask questions, they just give messages.

Do you want a bet?

One technique is the use of veiled questions.

Medium: I sense that you're worried about the health of someone close to you.

Sitter: Yes, my mother had a stroke recently.

This sort of exchange gets remembered as the medium supplying the information when the sitter later recalls the reading.

Note this:

Direct question: Are you worried about the health of someone close to you?

Veiled question: I sense that you're worried about the health of someone close to you.

See how it works?

[Tin Lizzie]

er, saying 'I sense' and then referring to an emotion felt by the sitter is not a message - indeed, this may well be cold reading.

The best mediums relate the message straight from the spirit, as they interpret it as best as they can of course

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I've not yet been to see a medium as I haven't needed to yet; those are just some of the things that have happened to friends who have.

I believe that telepathy may be one of the means by which we communicate with the dead, but for those who don't believe in such things I wonder thow they can really accept cold reading as the modus operandi here, especially when sittings are done at a distance.

Tim, On the 'other forum' I just read a post of yours :




Thanks for sharing these stories - I've never seen Gordon in action, live or on TV. Today i came across people criticising him for vague readings and 'hidden questioning' style on hayhouse radio.

I am with Gordon - he is, like all of us, only human and stories such as the ones Lee and Cat have shared here are the reason why we know he is the real deal.

Thanks guys


The style of Gordon's readings on Hayhouse radio, fits in exactly with what John is saying.

I wonder how you square that off with your comments about the best mediums not asking questions. Because I feel that you think Gordon is one of the best - however you haven't seen him in action so you are forming an opinion just from what others say. And that is the basis of anecdotal evidence.

When pointed to a source of his cold reading, you instantly dismiss it and fall back to your preferred point of view. But you only base that point of view on what you want to believe I feel.

If you deny that Gordon is doing cold reading on his radio show, you don't yet know enough about what cold reading is yet. He asks plenty of questions.

Again, here is analysis of his readings.

http://badpsychics.com/thefraudfiles/modules/news/article.php?storyid=526

[Tin Lizzie]

Tim, On the 'other forum' I just read a post of yours :

The style of Gordon's readings on Hayhouse radio, fits in exactly with what John is saying.

I wonder how you square that off with your comments about the best mediums not asking questions. Because I feel that you think Gordon is one of the best - however you haven't seen him in action so you are forming an opinion just from what others say. And that is the basis of anecdotal evidence. [quote]

Gordon Smith is one of the best around - he can give outstandingly accurate readings without using cold - reading or hot-reading. This is why he is one of the best and you are conveniently choosing to ignore the amazing readings he has given. I have stated on other posts the reasons why I don't need to see a medium, so what you are saying is hardly sensational. Sorry.

[quote]
When pointed to a source of his cold reading, you instantly dismiss it and fall back to your preferred point of view. But you only base that point of view on what you want to believe I feel.

If you deny that Gordon is doing cold reading on his radio show, you don't yet know enough about what cold reading is yet. He asks plenty of questions.


I fail to see where I deny that he is using cold reading - it is plain to see what is happening. If you think that I am so rigid as to deny this then you are mistaken. My counter-point is similar to the one I made in the Doris Stokes discussion we had, along the lines of:

if you were under extreme pressure to deliver results, whatever your job, might you not bend the rules a little?

So, Gordon Smith in cold-reading shock. Your point, please?

[seren]

Just read that link FarSide and I was wondering...has anyone (skeptic) ever called up a psychic on one of these radio shows and said they'd like to speak to their dead mother, when their mother is actually alive? I mean, wouldn't that prove it was a load of nonsense, if the medium started up with "I sense a maternal presence....I feel you had a close relationship....she's asking about the oven gloves...do you understand that?"

...and then the mother comes on the phone and says "I'm right here, I'm alive and I have no idea what you're talking about!"
(Yes, I know what the reply would be- "It must have been your grandmother!" ::) )

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

[quote=FarSideOfTheMoon;19330]Tim, On the 'other forum' I just read a post of yours :

The style of Gordon's readings on Hayhouse radio, fits in exactly with what John is saying.

I wonder how you square that off with your comments about the best mediums not asking questions. Because I feel that you think Gordon is one of the best - however you haven't seen him in action so you are forming an opinion just from what others say. And that is the basis of anecdotal evidence. [quote]

Gordon Smith is one of the best around - he can give outstandingly accurate readings without using cold - reading or hot-reading. This is why he is one of the best and you are conveniently choosing to ignore the amazing readings he has given. I have stated on other posts the reasons why I don't need to see a medium, so what you are saying is hardly sensational. Sorry.


I fail to see where I deny that he is using cold reading - it is plain to see what is happening. If you think that I am so rigid as to deny this then you are mistaken. My counter-point is similar to the one I made in the Doris Stokes discussion we had, along the lines of:

if you were under extreme pressure to deliver results, whatever your job, might you not bend the rules a little?

So, Gordon Smith in cold-reading shock. Your point, please?

I think we've established that you know that these mediums cheat, yet you are willing to still believe in them.

If you caught one of your pupils cheating, and the next work they submitted was outstanding, would you consider the possibility that they had cheated again, even though you didn't catch them at it? You wouldn't even have a small, tiny sense that they might be cheating?

Because that is precisely what you are doing with the mediums.

I can't think of any other line of work that allows cheating, just because the occasion calls for it. Doctors, Lawyers, Solicitors, Policemen, Soldiers, shop workers, basically any profession - if you cheat you are subject to severe disciplinary action. All those people are under severe pressure in their jobs, but they still aren't allowed to cheat.

But it's ok for psychics, because they don't count as they don't conform to any other conventions of society. Have you never entertained the thought that they are just the same as us.

The title of this thread couldn't be more accurate to be honest.

But I'm no closer to understanding why you believe. Are you naive or prone to wishful thinking? Do you place trust and faith in people who let you down?

I'm still staggered that GS is still rated as the 'best' yet it is so obvious he uses the cold reading tricks which are common knowledge. Remember, you weren't even familiar with the term 'cold reading' when you joined here. How can you be so sure that what you believe in, is not just a fantasy, all-be-it one that there are many willing participants in?

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Just read that link FarSide and I was wondering...has anyone (skeptic) ever called up a psychic on one of these radio shows and said they'd like to speak to their dead mother, when their mother is actually alive? I mean, wouldn't that prove it was a load of nonsense, if the medium started up with "I sense a maternal presence....I feel you had a close relationship....she's asking about the oven gloves...do you understand that?"

...and then the mother comes on the phone and says "I'm right here, I'm alive and I have no idea what you're talking about!"
(Yes, I know what the reply would be- "It must have been your grandmother!" ::) )

I think you'd find that because that breaks the (unwritten) spirit laws, that the medium would be able to produce some sort of lame excuse such as a mischevious spirit or something.

If this did happen, the medium would try to divert attention from the fact they still did a reading and would try to blame the caller for being deceptive.

Plus there is the other aspect, that a reading does not get very far if the caller does not provide any information to help the reading along.

So you would have to provide quite a bit of mis-information to get to this position, which would give the medium much more ammunition to divert attention from their failure.

If you listen closely to the radio shows, you will often hear readings which are going absolutely nowhere. Many times those get cut off pretty much straight away and they move on to the next one. So the lasting impression is maybe of a reading that went quite well.

[Tin Lizzie]

I think we've established that you know that these mediums cheat, yet you are willing to still believe in them.

If you caught one of your pupils cheating, and the next work they submitted was outstanding, would you consider the possibility that they had cheated again, even though you didn't catch them at it? You wouldn't even have a small, tiny sense that they might be cheating?


Like I say, I know that Gordon is capable of astounding accuracy. I have to say I am disappointed to see this. If it was in my power, a gifted pupil who was caught cheating would be disciplined but I wouldn't destroy their future over it - they would have to re-sit.
In this case, I am actually quite ashamed to see cold reading. It still doesn't take away his real gift though....



But it's ok for psychics, because they don't count as they don't conform to any other conventions of society. Have you never entertained the thought that they are just the same as us.


Ask yourself the same question. I think I already have actually.

The title of this thread couldn't be more accurate to be honest.



But I'm no closer to understanding why you believe. Are you naive or prone to wishful thinking? Do you place trust and faith in people who let you down?


Er...it may surprise you, but I do not need the abilities of others, questionable or otherwise, to justify my own experience and knowledge. Whatever happens in the public eye, my own progress will carry on.



I'm still staggered that GS is still rated as the 'best' yet it is so obvious he uses the cold reading tricks which are common knowledge. Remember, you weren't even familiar with the term 'cold reading' when you joined here. How can you be so sure that what you believe in, is not just a fantasy, all-be-it one that there are many willing participants in?

I've already explained that I now understand cold reading. I have already said that this does not explain the astounding accuracy which only spirits can deliver (through mediums of course).

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Like I say, I know that Gordon is capable of astounding accuracy. I have to say I am disappointed to see this. If it was in my power, a gifted pupil who was caught cheating would be disciplined but I wouldn't destroy their future over it - they would have to re-sit.
In this case, I am actually quite ashamed to see cold reading. It still doesn't take away his real gift though....



Ask yourself the same question. I think I already have actually.

The title of this thread couldn't be more accurate to be honest.



Er...it may surprise you, but I do not need the abilities of others, questionable or otherwise, to justify my own experience and knowledge. Whatever happens in the public eye, my own progress will carry on.



I've already explained that I now understand cold reading. I have already said that this does not explain the astounding accuracy which only spirits can deliver (through mediums of course).

Does your belief depend on this "astounding accuracy" only being delivered by spirits?

What if someone employed only cold/hot reading and could deliver the same accuracy?

[Tin Lizzie]

Does your belief depend on this "astounding accuracy" only being delivered by spirits?

What if someone employed only cold/hot reading and could deliver the same accuracy?

My knowledge comes from my own experience.

I find it odd that Gordon is given only two minutes per sitter. He is almost being asked to perform miracles. I can understand him resorting to cold reading if nothing is coming from spirit. No-one is hurt, they don't lose money, and hayhouse get a smooth show.

I am concerned that he is being put into situations where he has to do this.

[wooo_oops]

My knowledge comes from my own experience.

Mine too; Have you ever seen Derren Brown read people?
His results are astounding, and more accurate than many well known psychics I've seen.

I expect you might well ignore this message though.

[Tin Lizzie]

Mine too; Have you ever seen Derren Brown read people?
His results are astounding, and more accurate than many well known psychics I've seen.

I expect you might well ignore this message though.
Nope. why would I ignore it?

I've acknowledged many times, every day almost, that there are peeps who use such methods.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

My knowledge comes from my own experience.

I find it odd that Gordon is given only two minutes per sitter. He is almost being asked to perform miracles. I can understand him resorting to cold reading if nothing is coming from spirit. No-one is hurt, they don't lose money, and hayhouse get a smooth show.

I am concerned that he is being put into situations where he has to do this.

You are being naive if you think Gordon is being forced to do things he doesn't want to.

He gets paid handsomely for his workshops, shows, books and dealings with Hay House. If he felt under such pressure, why would he do the shows. Why would he do something where he is expected 'to perform miracles'?

Do you think it is acceptable that Hay House 'cheat' to get a smooth show? Hay House publish some of Gordon's books. Do you think they might cheat there as well a bit to get a better book?

These are pertinent questions. How can you tell where the falsehoods stop, and the psychic ability starts?

[wooo_oops]

Nope. why would I ignore it?

I've acknowledged many times, every day almost, that there are peeps who use such methods.

In which case, please do share what you think makes the difference.

With respect -what makes you want to come here TL? What do you hope to achieve?

[Tin Lizzie]

You are being naive if you think Gordon is being forced to do things he doesn't want to.

He gets paid handsomely for his workshops, shows, books and dealings with Hay House. If he felt under such pressure, why would he do the shows. Why would he do something where he is expected 'to perform miracles'?

Do you think it is acceptable that Hay House 'cheat' to get a smooth show? Hay House publish some of Gordon's books. Do you think they might cheat there as well a bit to get a better book?

These are pertinent questions. How can you tell where the falsehoods stop, and the psychic ability starts?

Of course I am not condoning cold reading, but as I said already the sitters weren't paying and they weren't hurt - quite the contrary. Much of what Gordon has said in his books is verifiable with the people he mentions.

[Tin Lizzie]

In which case, please do share what you think makes the difference.

With respect -what makes you want to come here TL? What do you hope to achieve?

If you read through the huge amount of (anecdotal) accounts, you will find that some things are just not possible with cold reading.

Cold reading does not make spirits appear to the medium; it does not give the medium the precise names, dates, descriptions etc. which come through in messages. What do I hope to achieve? Well before I answer that I would like to ask you what it is you hope to achieve by ignoring this kind of accuracy.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

If you read through the huge amount of (anecdotal) accounts, you will find that some things are just not possible with cold reading.

Cold reading does not make spirits appear to the medium; it does not give the medium the precise names, dates, descriptions etc. which come through in messages. What do I hope to achieve? Well before I answer that I would like to ask you what it is you hope to achieve by ignoring this kind of accuracy.

Cold reading does give that. The sitter volunteers a lot of that information, and the medium asks a lot of questions. I don't think you've fully accepted the power of the technique yet, or rather it isn't one individual technique as opposed to a number of different methods.

Unfortunately, most readings do not give the precise information when the transcript is analysed that it was believed at the time. Memory is not infallible and the brain can be tricked to make false associations.

If you rely on anecdotal evidence, you are missing the whole point of cold reading. Anecdotes do nothing other than reinforce the effects of cold reading.

You also cannot discount hot reading in some instances.

Here is another detailed transcript analyisis. Ok, it is for Acorah who is a joke, but it shows how in more detail how cold reading works.

http://www.tonyyouens.com/Acorah.htm

[Tin Lizzie]

Cold reading does give that. The sitter volunteers a lot of that information, and the medium asks a lot of questions. I don't think you've fully accepted the power of the technique yet, or rather it isn't one individual technique as opposed to a number of different methods.

Unfortunately, most readings do not give the precise information when the transcript is analysed that it was believed at the time. Memory is not infallible and the brain can be tricked to make false associations.

If you rely on anecdotal evidence, you are missing the whole point of cold reading. Anecdotes do nothing other than reinforce the effects of cold reading.

You also cannot discount hot reading in some instances.

Here is another detailed transcript analyisis. Ok, it is for Acorah who is a joke, but it shows how in more detail how cold reading works.

http://www.tonyyouens.com/Acorah.htm

I refer to instances, including those taking place at a distance, where no information is volunteered by the sitter - I know mediums who before the sitting begins stress the importance of the sitter not volunteering any information whatsoever; they are asked to remain silent where possible. They may only speak to confirm the informaton received.

So, how can it be possible in these instances that the medium relays information from spirit such as the color of their bedside lamp or the name of the street they lived in as a small child?

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I refer to instances, including those taking place at a distance, where no information is volunteered by the sitter - I know mediums who before the sitting begins stress the importance of the sitter not volunteering any information whatsoever; they are asked to remain silent where possible. They may only speak to confirm the informaton received.

So, how can it be possible in these instances that the medium relays information from spirit such as the color of their bedside lamp or the name of the street they lived in as a small child?

Is your bedside lamp cream coloured? Or a colour similar to that such as white? Most are. Or if the lamp isn't, is the lamp shade?

The sitter remembers the hits and discounts the misses.

Why would a spirit want to tell me what colour my bedside lamp was anyway?

[Tin Lizzie]

Is your bedside lamp cream coloured? Or a colour similar to that such as white? Most are. Or if the lamp isn't, is the lamp shade?

The sitter remembers the hits and discounts the misses.

Why would a spirit want to tell me what colour my bedside lamp was anyway?

Mine is canary yellow.
These are things that spirits do to prove they are there. Often that is their only aim, to prove to their loved ones that they are there. So, as for the names of streets, how does cold reading do that one, without any misses?

[wooo_oops]

I refer to instances, including those taking place at a distance, where no information is volunteered by the sitter - I know mediums who before the sitting begins stress the importance of the sitter not volunteering any information whatsoever; they are asked to remain silent where possible. They may only speak to confirm the informaton received.

How can a sitter give no information at a distance? Surely they have to say hello. Oh, don't tell me, the reader just knows that they're there? And why would they have to confirm it if the reader knows it's right? A confirmation is one way of giving the reader the signal to keep going when cold reading. You see how exasperating this can be, going around in circles...which is why I wondered what you hoped to achieve by being here. You don't seem to be learning much other than confirming to yourself that skeptics are immovable, which isn't true!


So, how can it be possible in these instances that the medium relays information from spirit such as the color of their bedside lamp or the name of the street they lived in as a small child?

As I've said before, I've seen similar done by non-psychics.

[Tin Lizzie]

How can a sitter give no information at a distance? Surely they have to say hello. Oh, don't tell me, the reader just knows that they're there? And why would they have to confirm it if the reader knows it's right? A confirmation is one way of giving the reader the signal to keep going when cold reading. You see how exasperating this can be, going around in circles...which is why I wondered what you hoped to achieve by being here. You don't seem to be learning much other than confirming to yourself that skeptics are immovable, which isn't true!



As I've said before, I've seen similar done by non-psychics.

Ah marvellous, we may be getting somewhere here. If someone can tell another person a whole list of precise accurate information that only they or their closest loved ones know about or knew about, how does this happen? I mean, without misses, without questions, only with straight information?

[wooo_oops]

Ah marvellous, we may be getting somewhere here. If someone can tell another person a whole list of precise accurate information that only they or their closest loved ones know about or knew about, how does this happen? I mean, without misses, without questions, only with straight information?

Already told you how it can happen.
That's your intereptation of an event though, which makes it your experience. It might look completely different to someone who uses critical thinking. There may have been signals, questions, misses that weren't spotted at the time, and the brain can be easily fooled. You can't expect me to take your word for it, any more than I can expect you to take mine - that it can be shown to have a more 'mundane' explanation.
(Not that I think it is mundane, I think it's very interesting how our minds work).

*puts on anorak*

[Tin Lizzie]

Already told you how it can happen.
That's your intereptation of an event though, which makes it your experience. It might look completely different to someone who uses critical thinking. There may have been signals, questions, misses that weren't spotted at the time, and the brain can be easily fooled. You can't expect me to take your word for it, any more than I can expect you to take mine - that it can be shown to have a more 'mundane' explanation.
(Not that I think it is mundane, I think it's very interesting how our minds work).

*puts on anorak*


Blimey, that is amazing. So a strange person can tell the 'sitter' the colour on patterns of someone's dead rabbit, or the name of the first street they lived on, or the last thing their partner said before they died, or the fact that your aunt meg once did a wee-wee all over your dad's shoes when they were little?

No, please - I missed the mechanisms here by which you claim it wasn't spirit contact. Could you repeat them again please?

[brianp]

They may only speak to confirm the informaton received.Which is precisely how cold reading works.

[brianp]

No, please - I missed the mechanisms here by which you claim it wasn't spirit contact. Could you repeat them again please?

But what makes you think that it is spirit contact? Even if a "psychic" could demonstrate conclusively that he could provide information known only to the sitter and some deceased person - and it's a huge if - surely the more obvious avenue to explore would be that the information was being provided telepathically by the sitter to the psychic?

Assuming that the information comes from the deceased person requires many, many more assumptions than telepathic communication so, by Occam's Razor, you should use the latter as a working hypothesis for this supposed phenomenon.

Of course I am of the opinion that all supposed psychics use cold-reading and similar psychological tricks, so I don't accept the need for any wooish explanations at all. You believe there are genuine psychics - but why do you take that as evidence of "spirit" rather than telepathy. I know that there's no evidence of either, but the latter is infinitely more plausible than the former.

[Tin Lizzie]

But what makes you think that it is spirit contact? Even if a "psychic" could demonstrate conclusively that he could provide information known only to the sitter and some deceased person - and it's a huge if - surely the more obvious avenue to explore would be that the information was being provided telepathically by the sitter to the psychic?

Assuming that the information comes from the deceased person requires many, many more assumptions than telepathic communication so, by Occam's Razor, you should use the latter as a working hypothesis for this supposed phenomenon.

Of course I am of the opinion that all supposed psychics use cold-reading and similar psychological tricks, so I don't accept the need for any wooish explanations at all. You believe there are genuine psychics - but why do you take that as evidence of "spirit" rather than telepathy. I know that there's no evidence of either, but the latter is infinitely more plausible than the former.

Occam's razor - great for ruling out any possiblity that doesn't fit your own, but bad because it may burn bridges before you've even got to them.

It's odd how mediums see and hear spirits on a daily basis, yet some people are locked away for this kind of thing. At least things have progressed from burning at the stake.

There is no scientific mechanism which can explain the accuracy of our guides' messages. Hence, I don't look to science for an explanation.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Occam's razor - great for ruling out any possiblity that doesn't fit your own, but bad because it may burn bridges before you've even got to them.

What's wrong with burning bridges you don't need? That's the real point of Occam's Razor. Why cross a river 3 times to get from A to B when you can cross once?


It's odd how mediums see and hear spirits on a daily basis, yet some people are locked away for this kind of thing. At least things have progressed from burning at the stake.

There is no scientific mechanism which can explain the accuracy of our guides' messages. Hence, I don't look to science for an explanation.

You need to measure the accuracy of those messages first. And when put under controlled situations, the accuracy disappears. That is fact. You need to invent excuses as to why that happens, but it does.

If all these messages are coming in every day, why is James Randi's million dollars still outstanding? (excuses are debunked here by the way http://www.skepticreport.com/skepticism/topjref.htm)

Where is all the documented evidence of this accuracy? Because despite what we debate what can and can't be measured scientifically, accuracy is one thing that can be defined and measured.

This is where your arguments seriously fall down. We need to have documented proof of the accuracy before we even start looking for explanations.

[Tin Lizzie]

What's wrong with burning bridges you don't need? That's the real point of Occam's Razor. Why cross a river 3 times to get from A to B when you can cross once?



You need to measure the accuracy of those messages first. And when put under controlled situations, the accuracy disappears. That is fact. You need to invent excuses as to why that happens, but it does.

If all these messages are coming in every day, why is James Randi's million dollars still outstanding? (excuses are debunked here by the way http://www.skepticreport.com/skepticism/topjref.htm)

Where is all the documented evidence of this accuracy? Because despite what we debate what can and can't be measured scientifically, accuracy is one thing that can be defined and measured.

This is where your arguments seriously fall down. We need to have documented proof of the accuracy before we even start looking for explanations.

Well I have not seen the details of how these studies were carried out, and how they claim to have a scientific way of validating the presence of spirits.

Documented evidence? You will find that in the journals of individual mediums scattered across the country. I doubt they will have ever heard of James Randi.

Well, I am off to my open circle soon, to see some more examples of spirit messages coming straight from the medium without questioning or cold-reading. Hope you find a way of figuring it out - good luck.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Well I have not seen the details of how these studies were carried out, and how they claim to have a scientific way of validating the presence of spirits.

I'm saying there is a scientific way to validate the accuracy of the messages.


Documented evidence? You will find that in the journals of individual mediums scattered across the country.

Anecdotal again, I'm afraid. The accuracy can be tested under controlled conditions. That is when the accuracy disappears.


I doubt they will have ever heard of James Randi.

The same way that skeptical questions aren't welcome on a believer forum, I suspect they would like to try to imagine that James Randi doesn't exist.

Are you familiar with his organisation, the JREF?


Well, I am off to my open circle soon, to see some more examples of spirit messages coming straight from the medium without questioning or cold-reading.

How about making a recording for us sometime?


Hope you find a way of figuring it out - good luck.

We already have, haven't you been listening? ::)

[Tin Lizzie]

If you could provide a link on how the accuracy of messages is validated thatwould be great.
Cheers.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

If you could provide a link on how the accuracy of messages is validated thatwould be great.
Cheers.

You don't need a link to understand that. It's about defining controls and procedures to avoid the possibility of cold reading and hot reading. Ideally you are trying to achieve double-blind trials.

I assume as a science teacher you understand the concept, but here is a link anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-blind

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

If you could provide a link on how the accuracy of messages is validated thatwould be great.
Cheers.

How about getting us a recording of one of your sessions then?

[Tin Lizzie]

You don't need a link to understand that. It's about defining controls and procedures to avoid the possibility of cold reading and hot reading. Ideally you are trying to achieve double-blind trials.

I assume as a science teacher you understand the concept, but here is a link anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-blind

You shouldn't make assumptions when you have no first-hand experience of what you are trying to mock.

I assume as a so-called skeptic (apologies to genuine skeptics here) you know that the scientific link to spirit hasn't been found yet; once again you have missed my point completely. I'll do the socratic thing and let you think about it yourself....

[Tin Lizzie]

How about getting us a recording of one of your sessions then?

Sure, you provide me with the equipment and I will do that. You may want to provide your own independent observer of course.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

You shouldn't make assumptions when you have no first-hand experience of what you are trying to mock.

I assume as a so-called skeptic (apologies to genuine skeptics here) you know that the scientific link to spirit hasn't been found yet; once again you have missed my point completely. I'll do the socratic thing and let you think about it yourself....

I'm not mocking. I'm surprised though you don't know how to set up a controlled experiment.

I find it hard to take insults from someone who thinks that Doris Stokes' book is an accurate source for the validation of spirit.

You seem to tire of being asked serious questions from the other posters here, and your attitude to others basically stinks at times. This is a skeptical board, you must expect your claims to be scrutinised.

[Tin Lizzie]

I'm not mocking. I'm surprised though you don't know how to set up a controlled experiment.

I find it hard to take insults from someone who thinks that Doris Stokes' book is an accurate source for the validation of spirit.

You seem to tire of being asked serious questions from the other posters here, and your attitude to others basically stinks at times. This is a skeptical board, you must expect your claims to be scrutinised.

A matter of opinions again - I have repeatedly asked you to explain how you can scientifically prove the presence of spirit, and given you examples of astounding accuracy which is not possible by cold reading, as a counter to your examples of cold-reading. In return you have ignored my request and made repeated references to my chosen profession.

Now, I can understand how working in an office may not be the most intellectually and scientifically demanding job in the world but there surely must be more productive ways of trying to make yourself feel better. There are people here who are genuinely interested in finding a scientific way to explain the afterlife, but you are not one of them. It is you who stinks. Poo-ooh!!

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Sure, you provide me with the equipment and I will do that. You may want to provide your own independent observer of course.

I'm happy for you or someone else to do the recording.

I was only asking because I felt you genuinely want to prove to us that spirit messages are possible.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

A matter of opinions again - I have repeatedly asked you to explain how you can scientifically prove the presence of spirit, and given you examples of astounding accuracy which is not possible by cold reading, as a counter to your examples of cold-reading. In return you have ignored my request and made repeated references to my chosen profession.

Now, I can understand how working in an office may not be the most intellectually and scientifically demanding job in the world but there surely must be more productive ways of trying to make yourself feel better. There are people here who are genuinely interested in finding a scientific way to explain the afterlife, but you are not one of them. It is you who stinks. Poo-ooh!!

See my post above.

We need to prove something exists before it can be explained. The colour of a sofa or bedside lamp, or the evidence in a book by Doris Stokes or Gordon Smith, just doesn't count.

However, I really need to stop this now.

Your attitude to people who take you seriously quickly degenerates when you are put on the spot.

You are welcome at this board in a way that a skeptic could only dream of at a believer's board, however the rude way you have behaved to a number of posters on here is just childish to be honest.

[Tin Lizzie]

I'm happy for you or someone else to do the recording.

I was only asking because I felt you genuinely want to prove to us that spirit messages are possible.

I was only asking because I'm skint and don't have proper recording facilities.

It's a shame we couldn't have recorded tonight's circle, there were some very interesting developments, once again people, myself included, were being physically touched by spirit and once again readings were rattled off with an accuracy that pleases me so much.

[bobdezon]

Accurate readings are debatable, people have a habit of making such things fit for themselves. It is a cold reading technique and can create a false positive for the reader. As for being "touched by spirit" I assume you mean physically and not metaphysically (as in it touched your soul etc) It has been proven many times that if you expect a physical response you will no doubt feel one, much like the way a victim of spousal abuse will flinch and cower even if a hand is raised.

I really wish they would finally make some rules about recording of such events, some allow sound/video most do not. This palava about lights harming mediums as well is patently ridiculous too, it would appear these people have no concept of the properties of light.

[Admin]

Yes, an interesting point. I've come across claims before where people claim to have been physically touched during a meeting (one guy on BadPsychics was particularly amazed and convinced by this).

It turned out that such meetings are held in the dark!! ;)

So Tim, are your meetings also held in the dark?

[MRT]

OK it's time for me to come clean (before anyone discovers it!). You'd better look at this http://www.assap.org/newsite/articles/Physical%20mediumship.html

[bobdezon]

I "pity the foo" who doesnt come clean, but praytell, what exactly is it you are "comming clean" over? Was it your disembodied hand? ???

[MRT]

I was coming clean over being touched during a seance in the dark - the sort of thing John thought deserved a wink! ;)

[bobdezon]

Touched in the dark eh? you might have grounds for a criminal offense case ;)

Are you maurice townsend then, or did maurice just gave a similar experience?

[MRT]

Sorry, yeh I'm Maurice ...

[Admin]

I was coming clean over being touched during a seance in the dark - the sort of thing John thought deserved a wink! ;)

A possible explanation:

http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/12/45/23324512.jpg

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

[BillB]

Hi,

Why do 'believers' believe?

My simple answer would be because they choose to believe, based on their experiences and level of understanding. I also think that a paranormal cause lends itself to people, who would otherwise find the concept of death being final, difficult to come to terms with?

BillB

[Zaira]

Well, speaking for myself. My beliefs are all over the place at the moment but one thing I do know - I’m not scared of dying.

[BillB]

Hi,

I’m not scared of dying either and would be pleasantly surprised (being wrong) if there were a life for me after death. :cheesy:

No point coming back to haunt any skeptical members of this forum, because if I came back and I was them I wouldn’t believe myself! :cheesy:

BillB :smiley:

[BillB]

Hi Maurice Townsend (of ASSAP),

MRT
OK it's time for me to come clean (before anyone discovers it!). You'd better look at this http://www.assap.org/newsite/article...ediumship.html (http://www.assap.org/newsite/article...ediumship.html)

I have read your article (most interesting) and it looks like you got somewhat duped back in 1994? 8)

I’m not surprised in the future reluctance of such circles disallowing night vision camcorder recordings! This only adds much doubt to these alleged spiritual activities as being genuine. ;)

BillB

[Zaira]

BillB,

"I’m not scared of dying either and would be pleasantly surprised (being wrong) if there were a life for me after death."

Nothing wrong with hedging your bets.

"No point coming back to haunt any skeptical members of this forum, because if I came back and I was them I wouldn’t believe myself!"

Lol! Lol! ;)

I've already put a word in 'upstrais' I'm not coming back, I didn't think much of it this time around. If I have to come back, I'm going to be really wild, not the little mouse I was this time around. So beware!

(Joke!!!)

[chillzero]

I guess there's nothing wrong with hedging bets, as long as people don't write off this life in expectation of the next.

That's why extremists are so frightening.

[Zaira]

I think that's what I mean by sitting on the fence. I'm hedging my bets a little. I maybe trying to let go of some outdated beliefs but what if I let go of the wrong ones and end up feeling really crummy. Done crummy. Not sure I'm ready for a return visit just yet.

[wooo_oops]

Zaira -

Why believe in anything?

As you're so fond of quotes, here's one for ya:


“Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence.”- Robert Anton Wilson


;)

[Zaira]

wooo_oops,

I’m not particularly talking about something I have chosen to believe. It’s only recently I have began to question what goes on in my head and ask myself why do I think that, and do I believe it.

You say why believe. That’s so Zen! And I understand it. Believe it or not I was into letting go of so much - detachment - when I came across some sites on the net and decided to ask some questions about stuff that used to go on in my life. Unfortunately, I got sucked right back into it and almost forgot everything I had been working on.

I’m getting back on track and I will heed what you said, “Why believe in anything?”

“Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence.” - Robert Anton Wilson

I like that. Thanks. ;)