Proof of Life After Death!!

[Hellbound]

Originally Posted by Apology

I wonder this too! For my own part, it would take at least six free pina coladas before I found John Edwards convincing

I could do it with one.*




*: If it's served in a 5 gallon bucket. I would probably cross the threshold of belief shortly before alcohol poisoning pushed me into the coma...

[deaman]

Originally Posted by Robin1

Yes I've read the links...tried to watch video but couldn't get it to work yesterday.

Yes, I do think that some of what JE says can appear to be cold reading.

BUT...

The reason I believe it is not cold reading is because he does sometimes (enough times to be significant) get those UUU hits which are directed at specific people not the entire room. Which in turn leads me to believe he is real . Which in turn leads me to believe he is not cold reading.

However, I think the reason parts of what he says can appear to be cold reading has to do with the way messages from the dead come through to JE...and how JE must interpret what he is being shown, feeling, and hearing . Actually, that link to the Larry King transcript has JE describing how messages come through to him:

"What happens is I see, hear and feel energy, so it's kind of like in your mind, it's like a daydream. I pay attention to the pictures that I am seeing, they're like quick flashes. And then I hear thoughts. Not words, not like verbal, out loud voices. And I just interpret the feelings that I'm getting."

So, from what JE says, communication with the dead is not like talking on your iphone and having a crystal clear connection. He must try to interpret what the message is... and indeed sometimes JE can be wrong in his interpretation...take one example from the Michael Prescott article:


Edward: Two people passed with a sudden impact. Might have been shot...

Woman: I had 2 friends in high school who were shot.

Edward: And you moved, around then?

Woman: No.

Edward: You didn't? Because I'm seeing a Mayflower moving van.

Woman: They were shot on Mayflower Avenue.


In the above example, JE was seeing a Mayflower moving van but he was mistakenly concentrating on the moving part, not the Mayflower part. It was only when he then said that he saw a MAYFLOWER moving van to the woman that the message was interpreted correctly and able to be validated. Again, the spirit was trying to get John to say Mayflower by showing him that Mayflower moving van but JE misinterpreted and thought the spirit was trying to get him to talk about a move. And let's remember what a huge hit this really is...JE spoke about 2 people being shot first and then right after that he gets the name of the street those 2 same people were actually shot on!

It's all in the interpretation and the process of trying to decipher the message which is not being delivered crystal clearly...and yes I can see how sometimes that would look like cold reading.

And that is why I have said that if JE did not come up with those startlingly accurate, personal, specific, unknowable hits...directed at specific people NOT the entire room..then I too would believe he was cold reading and a fraud.

But he does come up with them...REPEATEDLY.

I do also believe that some connections to spirits may be more clear than others. I'm not sure if JE has addressed that in detail but I will look. I want to post this fast because I have a feeling I may be getting suspended...

P.S. Definitely read that link...had other info there that pertains to all of this and I have touched on before...like psychic amnesia (which my brother so aptly demonstrated...sorry Occam), and people not coming through that you want (my friend wanted her sister to come through but she didn't) etc.

I must ask, of what use are the messages he recieves? Why don't your dead loved ones just contact you directly, with messages that are of more substantial gravity about your current life, or a life hereafter?

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by deaman

I must ask, of what use are the messages he recieves? Why don't your dead loved ones just contact you directly, with messages that are of more substantial gravity about your current life, or a life hereafter?

Your question is moot, since robin1 bailed out.

Nevertheless, if spirits have nothing better to do than mumble about your new fridge, tickets to a show, etc, yet have nothing to say of more meaningful things, then the only conclusion available is that the spirits are meaningless. And non-existent.

"I have returned from beyond the grave"

"ooo, impressive, what can you tell me?"

"Nice fridge"

Give me a break.

[Garrette]

To be fair, I think that for many if not most believers, the important message is that there is a message at all. In other words, if does not matter if the specific communication is about refrigerators, initials of names, buried treasure, of the meaning of life. The general message, i.e., that we live on and our lives ones are near us, is important enough to override the specific triviality.

[ynot]

Originally Posted by Garrette

To be fair, I think that for many if not most believers, the important message belief is that there is a message at all. In other words, if does not matter if the specific communication is about refrigerators, initials of names, buried treasure, of the meaning of life. The general message, i.e., that we live on and our lives ones are near us, is important enough to override the specific triviality.

Fixed that for you . . .

[ExMinister]

Not exactly "nice fridge."

Let me just point out that most mediums have published several books addressing the larger issues from the point of view of the spirits: what is the meaning of life, what's it like in the afterworld, why is there suffering, why do the spirits give out such seemingly mundane information during personal readings? About the latter, they give out such information to establish that they are really there with knowledge about your day to day life the medium couldn't possibly know. They point out that if they came through expounding on the purpose of existence, why would you believe it's them and not the medium? So they establish this by providing such seemingly small details. There is not usually time, in a reading like those done in a group setting, to get to the big stuff. They also point out that not everyone is able to be as attuned to the spirit world as the medium is.

It occurs to me that as skeptics, though it may seem a huge waste of time, it really can be helpful to read the books, especially when interacting with someone whose beliefs are similar to Robin's, who probably HAS read the books.

Robin has said all along that she was here not to learn, but hoping her experience with JE and other anecdotes might help someone who might find her stories to be proof of life after death. Did she learn or benefit from being here? Hard to know, doesn't seem like it. My impression is that, if she's left, she STILL hopes that maybe somebody learned from her.

[PiscesMercury]

I don't think JE can really communicate with the dead. My home country has a similar celebrity medium and she appears to be a fake as well. The deceased also send messages about inane things like bread crumbs and dripping taps during her shows Of course you know I claim to be highly intuitive / psychic at times. I would thus probably be able to sense if these mediums were genuine if I went near them. They really don't appear to be though.

[ynot]

Originally Posted by PiscesMercury

I don't think JE can really communicate with the dead. My home country has a similar celebrity medium and she appears to be a fake as well. The deceased also send messages about inane things like bread crumbs and dripping taps during her shows Of course you know I claim to be highly intuitive / psychic at times. I would thus probably be able to sense if these mediums were genuine if I went near them. They really don't appear to be though.

So the rest are fake but you're genuine? Now where have I heard that before?

Welcome to the forum. Hope you bought a cut lunch.

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by ExMinister

Not exactly "nice fridge."

Let me just point out that most mediums have published several books addressing the larger issues from the point of view of the spirits: what is the meaning of life, what's it like in the afterworld, why is there suffering, why do the spirits give out such seemingly mundane information during personal readings? About the latter, they give out such information to establish that they are really there with knowledge about your day to day life the medium couldn't possibly know. They point out that if they came through expounding on the purpose of existence, why would you believe it's them and not the medium? So they establish this by providing such seemingly small details. There is not usually time, in a reading like those done in a group setting, to get to the big stuff. They also point out that not everyone is able to be as attuned to the spirit world as the medium is.

It occurs to me that as skeptics, though it may seem a huge waste of time, it really can be helpful to read the books, especially when interacting with someone whose beliefs are similar to Robin's, who probably HAS read the books.

Robin has said all along that she was here not to learn, but hoping her experience with JE and other anecdotes might help someone who might find her stories to be proof of life after death. Did she learn or benefit from being here? Hard to know, doesn't seem like it. My impression is that, if she's left, she STILL hopes that maybe somebody learned from her.

Regarding the highlighted bit (my doing), I agree, but only to a point. I have read JE's Crossing Over and a couple of Sylvia's books, though it has been so long I forget which ones. A couple of others, too. The chrome differs, but they build the same woo.

[ynot]

Originally Posted by ExMinister

Not exactly "nice fridge."

Let me just point out that most mediums have published several books addressing the larger issues from the point of view of the spirits: what is the meaning of life, what's it like in the afterworld, why is there suffering, why do the spirits give out such seemingly mundane information during personal readings? About the latter, they give out such information to establish that they are really there with knowledge about your day to day life the medium couldn't possibly know. They point out that if they came through expounding on the purpose of existence, why would you believe it's them and not the medium? So they establish this by providing such seemingly small details. There is not usually time, in a reading like those done in a group setting, to get to the big stuff. They also point out that not everyone is able to be as attuned to the spirit world as the medium is.

It occurs to me that as skeptics, though it may seem a huge waste of time, it really can be helpful to read the books, especially when interacting with someone whose beliefs are similar to Robin's, who probably HAS read the books.

Robin has said all along that she was here not to learn, but hoping her experience with JE and other anecdotes might help someone who might find her stories to be proof of life after death. Did she learn or benefit from being here? Hard to know, doesn't seem like it. My impression is that, if she's left, she STILL hopes that maybe somebody learned from her.

Rubbish published in books is still rubbish. Reading and believing rubbish doesn’t make it any less rubbish.

So do ”spirits” withhold important information like “what is the meaning of life, what's it like in the afterworld, why is there suffering” and “the purpose of existence” just from their family members, or also from “mediums/psychics” as well? If it includes the latter then who knows this information even exists to be withheld? If “mediums/psychics” do know this important information I wonder why they have such normal lives with such normal problems? And why they have to spend their time doing mundane personal readings and group shows to tell people about mundane fridges or tickets to earn a living?

Personal, one-on-one hour long readings don’t provide any less mundane information than group readings.

“Mediums/psychics” give mundane, catchall information like fridges and tickets because that’s all they can give that they can cold/hot read to con some people in to believing they’re talking to dead people. Trouble is this relatively simple stage trick can be done by many people not claiming to have psychic abilities.

You’re absolutely right however that Robin1 didn’t come here to learn anything, and apparently she didn’t.

[ynot]

Originally Posted by Garrette

Regarding the highlighted bit (my doing), I agree, but only to a point. I have read JE's Crossing Over and a couple of Sylvia's books, though it has been so long I forget which ones. A couple of others, too. The chrome differs, but they build the same woo.

If someone claimed to be able to levitate, but didn’t provide any credible evidence they could, why should anyone waste their money and time buying and reading their book?

[ExMinister]

Originally Posted by Garrette

Regarding the highlighted bit (my doing), I agree, but only to a point. I have read JE's Crossing Over and a couple of Sylvia's books, though it has been so long I forget which ones. A couple of others, too. The chrome differs, but they build the same woo.

Then you have already done this. And in fact they are almost similar enough to be interchangeable, except for Sylvia who differs in some significant ways.

Thus, it wouldn't be difficult to read a few books, as you have, for a general sense of what the mediums claim to be able to do or not do and why, and what the "spirits" have had to say about the bigger issues. All of this would be a helpful backdrop against which to dialogue with someone like Robin.

Originally Posted by ynot

Rubbish published in books is still rubbish. Reading and believing rubbish doesn’t make it any less rubbish.

So do ”spirits” withhold important information like “what is the meaning of life, what's it like in the afterworld, why is there suffering” and “the purpose of existence” just from their family members, or also from “mediums/psychics” as well? If it includes the latter then who knows this information even exists to be withheld? If “mediums/psychics” do know this important information I wonder why they have such normal lives with such normal problems? And why they have to spend their time doing mundane personal readings and group shows to tell people about mundane fridges or tickets to earn a living?

Personal, one-on-one hour long readings don’t provide any less mundane information than group readings.

“Mediums/psychics” give mundane, catchall information like fridges and tickets because that’s all they can give that they can cold/hot read to con some people in to believing they’re talking to dead people. Trouble is this relatively simple stage trick can be done by many people not claiming to have psychic abilities.

You’re absolutely right however that Robin1 didn’t come here to learn anything, and apparently she didn’t.

Well, my point wasn't to promote rubbish as good literature. See above.

As far as what the spirits reveal to the medium, see that is why you must read the books. Just as you might read up on creationism if you expect to have run ins with creationists. It helps to know what they believe. Fortunately, much like creationism, JE, van Praagh, the Long Island medium, Altea, the one in Texas whose name I forget and so on - all teach pretty much the same thing, so one or two used books would probably suffice.

As far as stage tricks. You might enjoy the books from this angle too. Ask yourself, "if I were a cold reading scam artist, what would it be helpful for people to believe to make me seem more credible, excuse my mistakes, justify my limitations, and inspire them to spend money on a reading?"

Voila! The spirits speak.

But skeptics who decide to do this, get them used. Don't put money in their pockets.

[ExMinister]

Originally Posted by ynot

If someone claimed to be able to levitate, but didn’t provide any credible evidence they could, why should anyone waste their money and time buying and reading their book?

Pretend for a minute I'm Robin. I used to be very similar, in fact extremely like Robin. someone a few posts back asked Robin why the spirits can't or don't just communicate with us directly. This is intended to be a rational question that will make Robin think. But it won't.

If I'm Robin, I'm going to do an eye roll to that. Poor skeptics, they just don't get SO much. Should I explain? Should I talk about how lots of people can play the piano but not everyone will be a Beethoven (Sylvia likes that one)? Should I (sigh) remind everyone AGAIN that even so, they DO try to communicate with the rest of us through dreams and signs? Do I discuss the prevailing belief among the JEs and van praagbs etc that we are here to test ourselves and the spirits are limited in what they can tell us - sort of like not being able to help us cheat on a test? Maybe I'm not even sure, as Robin, whether I believe all that, but maybe it seems logical enough and now that I'm really sold on JE, I tend to.

Or do I just let the question pass.

But as I let it pass, do you see how it has not had the intended effect on me?

If you have learned to see the world as I do, whether or not you believe it, this won't happen.

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by ynot

If someone claimed to be able to levitate, but didn’t provide any credible evidence they could, why should anyone waste their money and time buying and reading their book?

Because the book may contain the credible evidence?

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by ynot

If someone claimed to be able to levitate, but didn’t provide any credible evidence they could, why should anyone waste their money and time buying and reading their book?

ExMinister gave a very good answer with which I agree, but I am not advocating that you, personally read any such book. My point is that reading them can help with at least two things, depending on your objective when engaging with believers:

1. Understand better what approaches are more or less likely to have an effect on the believer, as ExMinister has said.

2. Prepare you to better respond to the believers' claims when they mention such books.

Reading those books is neither necessary nor sufficient when confronting paranormal beliefs. That does not mean, however, that it is without value.

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

Because the book may contain the credible evidence?

To be frank, that has not been my motive in reading such books for many, many years. Granted, I have been open to the idea that such evidence would be there, but I have not expected it, and I have not read the books with that hope.

[IXP]

Originally Posted by abaddon

"Nice fridge"

Of course, we have no evidence, except Robin's say so, that that is what Edward said.

I suspect it was more like:

J.E.: You made a major purchase recently, maybe a car, or other vehicle, or an appliance.
Robin: Yes, I just bought a new refrigerator!

And Robin's memory did the rest:

Robin: J.E. Knew that I had just bought a new refrigerator!

IXP

[PiscesMercury]

Originally Posted by ynot

So the rest are fake but you're genuine? Now where have I heard that before?

Welcome to the forum. Hope you bought a cut lunch.

Thanks. I am not saying all of them are fake, however. Also, I had a homemade avocado sandwich for lunch.

[ynot]

I have read some of “the books” and doing so didn’t provide me with any information about the claims or thoughts of “psychics” that I didn’t already know.

I have read many “stage trick” books and have given many non-professional performances. Not on stage as such, but in front of small groups of people and one-to-one. As long as the people haven’t known I’m a sceptic/non-psychic, I’ve quite easily been able to fool most of them that I’ve got some psychic abilities. females are by far the easiest to fool.

When I reply to a “hopeless believer” like Robin1 it’s not so much addressed to her as it is to other members and lurkers that might be “not-so-hopeless believers”.

[ynot]

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

Because the book may contain the credible evidence?

Do you need to read "Aliens Create Crop Circles" books to reasonably conclude they don't?

[ynot]

Originally Posted by PiscesMercury

Thanks. I am not saying all of them are fake, however. Also, I had a homemade avocado sandwich for lunch.

Okay I'll bite . . . Which ones are you saying aren't fake and on what basis do you believe they're genuine?

Of course I don't know (I have no psychic abiliities) . . . but . . . Why do claim and believe you can be highly psychic and why only "at times"?

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by Garrette

To be frank, that has not been my motive in reading such books for many, many years. Granted, I have been open to the idea that such evidence would be there, but I have not expected it, and I have not read the books with that hope.

But I do not think it is a valid argument to say 'I will not read the books because there is no credible evidence'
One can hardly make that judgement without reading the books

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

But I do not think it is a valid argument to say 'I will not read the books because there is no credible evidence'
One can hardly make that judgement without reading the books

Is that an absolute?

Suppose Arthur Conan Doyle's great granddaughter claims to have fairies in her garden, and the proof is in her book of photos. Need I really read the book before I can utter "Pshaw?"

[ynot]

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

But I do not think it is a valid argument to say 'I will not read the books because there is no credible evidence'
One can hardly make that judgement without reading the books

I don't say that and I have read some of the books, but have never found any credible evidence offered in them. Have you ever read a book that provided any credible evidence supporting a paranormal belief/claim? If you've heard and watched the recordings and tapes I don't think reading the books will provide much if anything more in the way of possible credible evidence. Why would their writings be more credible than their actions?

If I read ExMinister correctly I don't think the suggestion to read the books was to find possible credible evidence but more to find out how the minds of believers tick so you can then hopefully speak to them more in their own language. Thing is believers aren't usually the ones that write the books so you're only gaining a possible insight into the minds of the paranormal claimers. In my opinion reading and responding to what believers write on forums such as this gives a far better insight in to the way their minds work (or don’t ).

[ynot]

Originally Posted by Garrette

Is that an absolute?

Suppose Arthur Conan Doyle's great granddaughter claims to have fairies in her garden, and the proof is in her book of photos. Need I really read the book before I can utter "Pshaw?"

And if you've already seen the photos on the internet why do you need to see them again in a book?

[ynot]

Originally Posted by ExMinister

Pretend for a minute I'm Robin. I used to be very similar, in fact extremely like Robin. someone a few posts back asked Robin why the spirits can't or don't just communicate with us directly. This is intended to be a rational question that will make Robin think. But it won't.

If I'm Robin, I'm going to do an eye roll to that. Poor skeptics, they just don't get SO much. Should I explain? Should I talk about how lots of people can play the piano but not everyone will be a Beethoven (Sylvia likes that one)? Should I (sigh) remind everyone AGAIN that even so, they DO try to communicate with the rest of us through dreams and signs? Do I discuss the prevailing belief among the JEs and van praagbs etc that we are here to test ourselves and the spirits are limited in what they can tell us - sort of like not being able to help us cheat on a test? Maybe I'm not even sure, as Robin, whether I believe all that, but maybe it seems logical enough and now that I'm really sold on JE, I tend to.

Or do I just let the question pass.

But as I let it pass, do you see how it has not had the intended effect on me?

If you have learned to see the world as I do, whether or not you believe it, this won't happen.

So rational questioning won’t have the “intended effect” but seeing the world as believers do will? How exactly does that work? Is there a believer-sensitive way of asking – “Why the spirits can't or don't just communicate with us directly?” Or should such rational questions never be asked at all? Should we just encourage them to describe and explain their beliefs in the hope that the might somehow see their own silliness?

Seems you’re not just suggesting we shouldn’t ask rational questions but also that we shouldn’t question irrational beliefs and claims. In other words we should just believe and have faith as they do. Wonder how that would have the “intended effect”.

[ExMinister]

Originally Posted by Garrette

ExMinister gave a very good answer with which I agree, but I am not advocating that you, personally read any such book. My point is that reading them can help with at least two things, depending on your objective when engaging with believers:

1. Understand better what approaches are more or less likely to have an effect on the believer, as ExMinister has said.

2. Prepare you to better respond to the believers' claims when they mention such books.

Reading those books is neither necessary nor sufficient when confronting paranormal beliefs. That does not mean, however, that it is without value.

This is what I was attempting to say, especially #1.

Originally Posted by ynot

So rational questioning won’t have the “intended effect” but seeing the world as believers do will? How exactly does that work? Is there a believer-sensitive way of asking – “Why the spirits can't or don't just communicate with us directly?” Or should such rational questions never be asked at all? Should we just encourage them to describe and explain their beliefs in the hope that the might somehow see their own silliness?

Seems you’re not just suggesting we shouldn’t ask rational questions but also that we shouldn’t question irrational beliefs and claims. In other words we should just believe and have faith as they do. Wonder how that would have the “intended effect”.

I'm all about rational questions. I am ex-all-about-rational-minister, but easier to just shorten it down to exM. I'm all about questioning irrational beliefs and claims too. So basically everything you said in that last paragraph is not true.

Garrette pretty much had it right up there in that quote.

As i said, it provides a good background to identify which questions to ask.

[ynot]

Originally Posted by ExMinister

This is what I was attempting to say, especially #1.



I'm all about rational questions. I am ex-all-about-rational-minister, but easier to just shorten it down to exM. I'm all about questioning irrational beliefs and claims too. So basically everything you said in that last paragraph is not true.

Garrette pretty much had it right up there in that quote.

As i said, it provides a good background to identify which questions to ask.

You say you’re all about rational questions and questioning irrational beliefs and claims but you also say such questions aren’t going to have the desired effect on believers so we need to understand things from their perspective better so we don’t waste or time asking such questions. Seems a bit contradictory to me.

It's one thing to say "Understand better what approaches are more or less likely to have an effect on the believer” and another thing to explain exactly what those approaches actually are in practice. It’s like a politician campaigning on the need to create more jobs but never explaining exactly how the new jobs will actually be created. So can you give an actual example of a "which question to ask"?

I think most “seasoned” sceptics know pretty well how believers see the world and they know equally pretty well that when they ask them a rational question they aren’t going to get a rational answer (if any answer at all). Highlighting that paranormal believers don’t, can’t and won’t give a rational answer is pretty much the purpose for asking the rational question.

[Garrette]

With respect, ynot. I think you are picking nits with the quality of wording as opposed to the intended message. ExMinister's message was clear to me in the post that started this; the subsequent posts have made it even more clear that you two are more in agreement than not.