Welcome, Tandi

[apoger]

What you say is perfectly true, but my point is that religious belief is treated by others with respect, however ludicrous or otherwise those beliefs may be - normally. Belief in the paranormal, however, as these boards amply demonstrate, meet with not just scepticism, but outright hostility and contempt, accompanied by the incessant background music of "evidence, evidence, evidence".

If a poster declared that their god/religion was the correct/better god/religion, they would be met with the exact same request for evidence to back up their assertion. There is ample evidence of this in the religion forum. Your claim that religious belief gets a free pass, is incorrect.

 

[Jason 1978]

If a poster declared that their god/religion was the correct/better god/religion, they would be met with the exact same request for evidence to back up their assertion. There is ample evidence of this in the religion forum. Your claim that religious belief gets a free pass, is incorrect.

There is precious little counter evidence from sceptics to disprove the existence of the paranormal.

Additionally, some of the insults offered to believers are spiteful and puerile, beyond belief.

 

[Janice]

And your point is.....?

Why the hell shouldn't I post on that forum? I have every right as any other member.
The posts made by Paj and myself are on topic so how is it trolling?

Why should I sit back and let a bunch of ignorant believers gang up on the lone voice of reason?

The point is, you only participated in that particular thread to antagonize people, & I am sure you have done it on other forums, it's one thing to put your beliefs across, but it's the way in which you approach it, it seems a common trait that you always engage in arguments when posting, you don't believe in the afterlife, fair enough, but to join forums, just to hurl insults & get annoyed because you think believers are stupid, in my books is trolling. You have the right to post wherever you choose, but you just get annoyed whenever you engage in debate with people, when they fail to provide you with an answer that you deem satisfactory.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

The point is, you only participated in that particular thread to antagonize people

You know, I'm sure if you gathered up all these psychic claims you could apply for the million.

 

[Janice]

Wow, looney tunes.

I'm sorry if I "caused contentment". That was, er, very wrong of me, but I don't know why.

More examples of name calling & sarcasm.

One thing is obvious. Instead of presenting proof of the paranormal, you prefer to complain about me.

Not complain, point out facts.

Or, as I put it in my previous post:One hundred and three posts so far, and, Janice, you have still posted nothing on this thread which you believe to be evidence for the paranormal. Whining and bitching about the people who don't believe is a poor substitute.

I have put forward my points and beliefs when I first joined, not whining & bitching, just presenting facts.

2246 posts & what's been achieved??? I debate in things that I believe in, which I think is probably the norm for the population.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

In all your posts here, I cannot recall you stating a single fact. Opinions, beliefs, gripes aplenty. But nothing substantial.

 

[Janice]

You suggest that a better initial line would have been for me to say "sorry, I am not related to DS", yet you make no such apology for saying I am.

As for being a prat, "pot, kettle, black" ?

I have already posted what I consider to be a good article about orbs, with a sound technical explanation. If you decide not to acept it, then that's up to you. I'm here to debate reasonably, not constantly provide "proof".

Jason, this is another trait, when someone is not able to provide physical evidence on a forum (how are you supposed to do that anyway?) to then accuse others of being someone else. Along with woo woo, troll, delusional etc. etc. etc. I really thought that some of them would have got bored by now, but the amusing thing is they do it on here and other forums, must spend all their free time doing it. this is not all sceptics, just the few I have already mentioned on previous threads.

Repitition is another factor when conversing with a few of the sceptics on here. Anyway welcome to the forum.

 

[Janice]

In the post you quoted, Dr. A. was not attempting to speak for everyone (or indeed anyone) who believes in an afterlife. He was making an observation about what has been posted in this thread so far by people who are apparently believers. And an accurate observation at that, in my opinion.I can't speak for Dr. A., but I would like to see any evidence at all for an afterlife. Why don't the believers on here just post whatever evidence they have, so that it can be examined to see if it makes their case? Come on, guys, give it your best shot!

Mojo - I have experienced what I believe to be proof of the paranormal, it has been and gone, in the past. Therefore, how can I submit this as evidence. I have put forward my experiences, but it is not possible to converse / debate these points, for reasons I have already covered.

I am not going to waste my effort repeating myself, I put it to any sceptic on this forum, give one example of where I have told you what you should believe or where I have criticised you for not believing.

 

[Soapy Sam]

May I politely ask the main contributors to this thread where they think or hope it is going? I'd like to see if there is a consensus.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Jason said:
There is precious little counter evidence from sceptics to disprove the existence of the paranormal.

I think we've shirked our responsibilities on the Easter Bunny and the invisible pink hamster orbiting Neptune, too.

~~ Paul

 

[The Mighty Thor]

Mojo - I have experienced what I believe to be proof of the paranormal, it has been and gone, in the past. Therefore, how can I submit this as evidence. I have put forward my experiences, but it is not possible to converse / debate these points, for reasons I have already covered.

I am not going to waste my effort repeating myself, I put it to any sceptic on this forum, give one example of where I have told you what you should believe or where I have criticised you for not believing.

Every time you assert that you have proof of the paranormal that you expect others to believe without evidence, you are proselytizing. If you maintain that you did not expect automatic belief, why would you be so offended when questioned by sceptics? Sceptics are right to offer up criticism of your unfounded, unverifiable claims, if only to put their case to the lurkers. You seem to understand this with regard to some paranormal beliefs, but not with others that you subjectively deem to be real.

Winston Churchill said: "I would rather be correct than consistent." You, Janice, appear to be neither.

 

[Janice]

May I politely ask the main contributors to this thread where they think or hope it is going? I'd like to see if there is a consensus.

It is going absolutely no where but round and round in circles, but it seems that a few people like repetition on here.

 

[Janice]

Every time you assert that you have proof of the paranormal that you expect others to believe without evidence, you are proselytizing. If you maintain that you did not expect automatic belief, why would you be so offended when questioned by sceptics? Sceptics are right to offer up criticism of your unfounded, unverifiable claims, if only to put their case to the lurkers. You seem to understand this with regard to some paranormal beliefs, but not with others that you subjectively deem to be real.

Winston Churchill said: "I would rather be correct than consistent." You, Janice, appear to be neither.

Mighty Thor - one thing I am is consistent, I have repeated my thoughts / views / debate points countless times on here, just refer back, and you will see that everything I have posted is consistent.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

Mighty Thor - one thing I am is consistent, I have repeated my thoughts / views / debate points countless times on here, just refer back, and you will see that everything I have posted is consistent.

Yes. You have consistently failed to provide any evidence for any paranormal phenomenon.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

It is going absolutely no where but round and round in circles, but it seems that a few people like repetition on here.

I have repeated my thoughts / views / debate points countless times on here.

 

[Janice]

Yes. You have consistently failed to provide any evidence for any paranormal phenomenon.

I have already explained my experiences, they have happened in the past (must have said this a hundred times already) do you have any other suggestions?

Why not explore further for yourself, if you are so adamant it does not exist, and report your own findings back here. Then we may have something to debate about.

BoyPaj - all you have to go on is your opinion, what research have you done?

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Some. I have a science background.

Do you mean, what research have I done into ghosts? None.
But then, I don't think it's a valuable use of my time and, since I don't believe in it, I don't think I would find it very interesting.

Also, if I did negative results, all believers would dismiss it anyway, coming from a sceptic. (Wiseman suffers from this.)

However, there are thousands of people who DO believe in ghosts. THEY are the ones who would be best to study it, so long as they are rigorous and methodical in their research. And when they produce some evidence, I will be pleased to see it.

 

[Janice]

Some. I have a science background.

Do you mean, what research have I done into ghosts? None.
But then, I don't think it's a valuable use of my time and, since I don't believe in it, I don't think I would find it very interesting.

I do not spend a lot of my time doing research, but I have attended a few demonstrations of trance / sceances with a couple of the most well know mediums in this country, and I saw things that were unexplained (I have excellent eye sight). I'm not saying spend a lot of time doing research, but at least perhaps attend one demonstration with a well known medium and make your own mind up. If you can spend time defending your beliefs surely you can spare a few hours to attend a demonstration?

Also, if I did negative results, all believers would dismiss it anyway, coming from a sceptic. (Wiseman suffers from this.)

However, there are thousands of people who DO believe in ghosts. THEY are the ones who would be best to study it, so long as they are rigorous and methodical in their research. And when they produce some evidence, I will be pleased to see it.

[/b]

I would also like to see more physical evidence, but If I attended a sceance / trance demonstration, and captured some physical phemonena on film, the sceptics would just dismiss it anyway, and say that the evidence had been tampered with. I do not dismiss any negative test results, it is a fact that a lot of physical demonstrations of mediumship have been proven to be fake, but what I saw in the sceance I attended was not faked.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

I do not spend a lot of my time doing research, but I have attended a few demonstrations of trance / sceances with a couple of the most well know mediums in this country, and I saw things that were unexplained (I have excellent eye sight).

Go and see Derren Brown. I guarantee you won't see how he does his tricks, even with binoculars.

I'm not saying spend a lot of time doing research, but at least perhaps attend one demonstration with a well known medium and make your own mind up.

Will she let me perform a controlled test? Otherwise I'll just be another mark, won't I?

I would also like to see more physical evidence, but If I attended a sceance / trance demonstration, and captured some physical phemonena on film, the sceptics would just dismiss it anyway, and say that the evidence had been tampered with.

Possibly. That's why tests must be conducted according to scientific principles. A bit like the test which Mia Dolan said she would take, before predictably backing out.

 

[Janice]

Derren Brown is a brilliant magician, not a medium. As to whether any medium would let you carry out a controlled test, you would firstly have to attend, and secondly ask them. I can't speak for Mia Dolan, as I have never met the women, but if she did agree to take the RANDI test then back out like Sylvia Brown, she obviously does not rate her ability very highly. My interest is in mediumship and not psychics and fortune telling, this has nothing to do with the afterlife.