Can the dead contact the living and other related issues

Great Debates
21

Just a couple of quick notes as I really have to get to the work I’ve been putting off all day.

David B - love your site. I’m sure we read some of the same publications. When I read what “mentalists” actually do, heck, given their ability and dedication, I’m not sure they shouldn’t receive MORE compensation. The good ones are fucking amazing!

I guess I’m pretty parsimonious in doling out my personal outrage, and stupid weak people voluntarily throwing away their money to transparent hucksters are pretty low on my list. For personal consistency, however, I strongly support base-level governmental social services to protect these idiots when they exhaust their personal resources.

And Squooshed, I’m not sure I appreciate the value of outrage which doesn’t lead to any action.

I would bet you could craft a disclaimer that would be unitelliglible to the intended target, but that could provide some degree of protection against prosecution. You could post that the seance is for “entertainment purposes only,” but conduct yourself in a manner clearly leading your credulous audience to understand that this was simply a requirement of that bothersome government. Which brings to mind, how bout suppliers to survivalists or conspiracy theorists? Wanna buy some freeze dried food and a slightly used bomb shelter anyone? “Step right up!” (preferably voiced in Tom Waits’ rasp.)

Finally, in the last couple of “gypsy” cases I recall reading about in my area, I believe the authorities had difficulty prosecuting because the victims refused to cooperate. Hard for me to be “outraged” on behalf of a willing victim who refuses to admit they were victimized.

If the mark is mentally incompetent, however, well, string the bastards up.

22

Dinsdale:
My outrage, which is really more of a low-simmering-this-pisses-me-off rather than a white-hot-let’s-storm-the-castles, does have an effect - I don’t watch the damned show. That’s really the only effect that I expect my outrage to have - on my actions.

As far as legally effective disclaimers that are likely practically ineffective, that is definitely a separate issue. As a fellow attorney, I know because I write some of them. That’s a problem relating primarily to fraud and consumer protection laws in general and seems beyond the scope of this particular debate.

23

Dinsdale said:

:slight_smile: Thanks. We probably do. (Incidentally, a recent mini-discussion on a similar topic recently broke out at Skeptic News, http://www.skeptic.com , and you might want to check over there under the news items of a few days ago about psychics.)

Doesn’t it make sense to protect them before the government has to step in and give them welfare and the like?

One thing I’ve learned after talking with cops who investigate scams – it can happen to anybody, especially those who think it will never happen to them. Maybe you won’t be conned by the fake psychic, but you could fall for something else.

Yes, it’s hard to bring up outrage for those we consider stupid, but if they are victims of a fraudulent act, we should still be going after the perpetrator.

Here’s another example: If a lone woman walks through a bad neighborhood and is raped and mugged, do we just shake our heads and talk about how stupid she was and therefore probably deserved it? Or do we try to find and punish the criminal?

Which is precisely what “psychic hotlines” do.

True. But to me that also indicates the extreme nature of their victimization. They were so taken in that they don’t even realize it! Kind of like people who have been brainwashed by a cult.

Usually, though, it has been my experience that those who are unwilling to press charges feel that way because they are embarrassed and feel stupid about having lost $100,000 to a street-corner “psychic.”

24

A pseudoscience show on the Fox network? Gee, they’ve never done that before.

25

I love science fiction. I read it. I’ve worked in the field. I hope to publish more of it if I can ever steal time enough to return to writing.

I will not watch the sc-fi channel for as long as they choose to air John Edwards.

He is a predator, and he makes a living preying upon the hopes and insecuritues of others. He is a con artist and a liar.

I watched 2 of his braoadcasts just to be certain of my judgement (dammit – I miss those reruns of Lost in Space.) He is a cold reader and uses the full stock of leading questions, switching information, etc. that is characteristic of people who know they are deceiving their audience.

I have friends who honestly believe they have psychic abilities. I disagree, but I do not make an issue of it. They might be flakes, but they are honest and straightforward in the use of their “abilities”.

John Edwards is not. He is a parasite. The sci-fi channel is a vector. I just wish there were a cure.

26

Starting with question 2, the intent is an issue for me. There are plenty of ministers (of all varieties) who have lost their faith, yet continue to serve ‘because it helps the faithful,’ even though they do not believe that this faith is the truth anymore. This is an issue in the ministry - my mom and I have discussed it a few times (she’s a retired UU minister - and yes, faith is an issue in the UU ministry). Do you stay because you are ‘doing some good’ or do you go because you aren’t really THERE anymore? It takes some courage to walk out, but there are some major risks of harm if you stay and pretend - how do you appropriately/effectively counsel someone about god/faith if yours isn’t there? You might miss something important. So, I find staying problemantic, if not strictly immoral. However, if you knew to begin with that what you were preaching wasn’t the truth, and/or you are doing it not to serve but to get some income, community standing, perks, etc., dat’s BAD. (And no fair claiming that you are serving ANYWAY… the primary goal has to be service.)

This is why when I read tarot (yep, I’m one of those weirdos), I do it for free, ALWAYS (and no, I don’t think the cards are magic - but it is a good way of smacking yourself with something you already know but were ignoring!). Heck, I won’t dance for tips, either, because dancing (middle-eastern) is a spiritual practice for me. Money should not be involved. But ministry is a major job, and deserves pay - IF you are there because you have ‘no choice’ but to serve. (In my mom’s Seminary, they asked the students why they wanted to be a minister - all the ones who passed the test said something like, “WANT TO??? You’d have to be NUTS to want this job - I’ve been fighting myself for YEARS, trying to do anything BUT this job, but it keeps dragging me back, kicking and screaming!”) I don’t think you can say you have a true calling if you are lying to make money from anyone, whether they ‘know’ you are a huckster or not.

As for question 1, I don’t really think that the living can contact the dead. HOWEVER, I do not have a problem with the idea that the dead can contact the living, for a purpose, if they care, if the living person is listening, if the living person is, perhaps, ABLE. Every credible instance of such ‘contacts’ that I have heard are ENTIRELY a contact at the discretion of the DEAD person, not the living. If Aunt Josie really wanted/needed to contact YOU, she would have shown up at your bedside the night she died (etc.). Why should she fix YOUR problem if YOU need to see HER??? She’s probably busy. Maybe if you are in a crisis, that might give her reason, but then, it is still up to her whether she shows.

I’ve also encountered a ‘presence’ before (non-dreaming, as far as I can tell - that’s MY perception, though) - pretty stunningly, actually - though that was of a technically LIVING being… a child I was then pregnant with, but subsequently miscarried. (I have a hard time describing that adequately - it certainly changed my perspective, and it was so potent that if I’d been standing, it would have taken me to my knees.) Oh, and I saw my son sitting onteh end of my bed when I was 3 months pregnant - and the vision was accurate, including a hair color that isn’t common in either my genetic family or my husband’s (I described it to other people, and wrote it down, so that’s not just creative remembering).

My other personal contact with the non-living was the series of dreams I had of my three sons (of which I now have one… so far). The dreams happened when I was 7 years old, and I KNEW they were my sons-to-be (which ticked me off, because I at that point thought boys were horrible creatures, even if the sons in my dreams were pretty nice). This kind of event is actually not all that uncommon, though far more common after conception than before. My (living) son has asked me if I remember when he used to play with me in the forest, when he was big and I was a little girl. No, I don’t talk about where we used to play in my dreams - I have always shortened it to ‘we rode bikes and hung out’ when it comes up (which is seldom). Not exactly talking to the dead, but he sure as heck wasn’t ALIVE at the time! I’ve also encountered women who said they were visited by children they had miscarried, though I can easily see that as a creative coping mechanism from the deep subconscious (though I won’t lay odds either way - if your own mind is tricking you, that’s not my problem, and heck, being a spiritual person, maybe it WAS the child). I’ve got enough stories of my son contacting people with IMPORTANT info before he was born or knowing things after he was born to weird-out most people - but again, he was/is technically alive for those.

Count me in the ‘not scientifically proven, certainly not currently provable, not very common, but still quite possible’ camp regarding ‘contact with not-currently-alive persons, by some means, under some conditions, if they feel like it.’ How’s that for a string of dependencies? (Am I the only one, so far? Other than the wife noted in the OP.)

27

Nitpick:

Good news. I know. It dissipates as heat, same thing that happens to the energy in a car when you turn it off. What isn’t dissipated is retained in chemical bonds. If you disagree with this statement you are not referring to “energy” which has a very specific meaning in science, you are talking about something else. It’s okay if you ARE talking about something else, call it “life force” or whatever, but be sure to define it carefully. “Energy” is not the term to use.

28

Spiritus said:

Good description: Predator.

29

http://www.johnedward.net/

There is the link to John Edwards site.

I have watched the show many times and I think that Mr. Edwards is doing one of two things. He is talking to dead people or he is reading minds. He does things well beyond cold readings and even though Sherlock Holmes could tell your life story from a loose button on your jacket real people can not.
Many people in this thread have come to the conclusion that because they have not gotten a message from a departed loved one that such messages are impossible. This is bad logic. I have never been to China. I have seen pictures of China and other people have said that have been to China. Of course I have seen pictures of ghosts and other people tell that they have seen or talked ot ghosts. If I didn’t belive in China people would think I am an idiot. But I’ll tell you right now that there is as much evidence for the existance of ghosts as there is for China.
Things can exist that are not expierenced by an person.

There are people who can taste wine and tell you when and where the grapes were grown. Sometimes they are wrong. Do you think they are predators? People through training or natural talent can have greater perception then other in the taste buds. I think most of you will accept that but you won’t accept the idea that maybe he can perceive somethin you can not. I can’t tell you anything about a wine from tasting it but I am willing to believe other people can. Does that make me a fool?

There is a very interesting book by Michael Criton called Travels. It is a non-fiction book. In it he writes about several topics from his days at medical school to making movies and trips to exotic places. He also writes about visiting mind readers and fortune tellers and other wierd wacky stuff. His medical traing included doing cold readings on people. A doctor must be able to look a patient and tell their history. Read the book…it’s interesting.

Now I will admit that there are frauds who do this kind of thing. But there are fraudulent medical doctors. So are all doctors frauds?

No

Watch his show and keep an open mind. When he tells them that the person died from a car accident rather then lung cancer try to see how he looks at the expression on the face of the subject and figures that out. When he tells them something that they don’t know and later they come back and confirm it. (look in that blue shoe box in the bedroom closet…there is someting important in there) When they come back and confirm that there was someting in there tell me how their expression or manner of dress told him that.

30

I’ve been watching him too Zebra because he seems so interesting. He’s also amusing from time to time. I’m not sure what I believe but I try to keep an open mind. As for science, remember great minds were absolutely convinced the world was flat at one time.

Needs2know

31

Zebra—You can get on a plane and visit China. You can NOT visit ghosts, because they do not exist. If you have seen “photos of ghosts,” I’d like to know about it.

It doesn’t pay to keep your mind TOO open. Your brains rolls out and bounces about on the floor.

32

Hey squooshed, you need to grovel at the feet of your beloved wife and beg her forgiveness. She is obviously a wonderful woman who is deeply in touch with her spiritual side. Think about it, no one could cook ribs like that without help from the dead. Yummy!

33

I love watching John Edward, I don’t really believe it, but sometimes he will say the strangest thing imaginable and the person he’s talking to will understand it. The people might be just taking what he says and fitting it to what they know or want to hear, but some stuff just isn’t generic/doesn’t apply to everyone.

Personally I’d love to go be in the gallery on the show, it’s entertaining whether you believe it or not.

34

No, what many people think is that if there is absolutely no physical evidence for something, then it hasn’t been proven.
If in addition, someone is making money out of it, then it’s probably a scam.

Yes, me too.

Stop right there! What do you mean ‘OF COURSE’ you have seen ghosts?
No one has any evidence of ghosts so far. I can make a fortune out of TV, newspapers and books with just one proven ghost.

Ok, let’s make money! What’s the evidence?

Only if they ask for money.
Look, I can play two games of chess simultaneously blindfold. It took me about 3 years to learn how to do it. It looks incredible, but it’s just hard work. It’s not magic or a psychic ability.

No, because some doctors have cured people. No psychic has ever proved anything. James Randi is offering $1,000,000 for any proof of psychic ability. Why doesn’t this TV guy clean up?

35

Glee

Go to any serch engin and type ghost photo or ghost cam.

You will find hundreds of exaples of photos of ‘ghosts’. Some more compelling than others.

I did not say I have seen ghost but rather photo of them.

BTW the amazing Randi tested John Edwards but is too stubborn to admit that he could show any fakery.

Have you watched the show?

36

Glee

Go to any serch engin and type ghost photo or ghost cam.

You will find hundreds of exaples of photos of ‘ghosts’. Some more compelling than others.

I did not say I have seen ghost but rather photo of them.

BTW the amazing Randi tested John Edwards but is too stubborn to admit that he could show any fakery.

Have you watched the show?

37

Sorry for the double post.

But check this out.

http://www.courierpress.com/ghost/
Something that I am courious about is why the antighost people seem so (better choose the right word here)… strongly antighost. What skin is it off your nose if someone else wants to believe in ghosts?

Oh and EVE

I can’t get on a plane and visit China. I don’t have that kind of money.

My point is that there anecdotal evidence and bits of physical evidence for ghosts. There are photos of ghosts all over the web and they have be being taken for quite sometime. There are also various detection devices that record other evidence of ghosts. You may doubt these things but it took a while for germ theory to be accepted even after microscopes.

The only true knowlege is the knowlege that you know nothing.

38

“My point is that there anecdotal evidence and bits of physical evidence for ghosts. There are photos of ghosts all over the web and they have be being taken for quite sometime. There are also various detection devices that record other evidence of ghosts. You may doubt these things but it took a while for germ theory to be accepted even after microscopes.”

—There is also anecdotal evidence and bits of physical evidence for fairies, unicorns and vampires. There are photos of fairies, unicorns and vampires all over the web and they have been being taken for quite sometime. There are also various detection devices that record other evidence of fairies, unicorns and vampires.

Yes, I do doubt these things.

39

Pardon me for jumping in (being a newbie and all) BUT,
Zebra:

May I suggest you next type “dragon”? Hmm. How about “UFO”?.. “Fairy”? Because someone purportedly has a picture of a ghost or a fairy or an Evangelical Baptist aerospace scientist, doesn’t mean that the subject of the picture exists. There are other ways to verify things, and photographic evidence alone is historically rampant with fraud in the area of the supernatural. (In the area of China, however, the evidence appears solid)

Indeed.:rolleyes:

Would you please restate this? It appears that you are saying: “James Randi and Mr. John Edwards entered into a preliminary contract to test Mr. Edwards’ paranormal abilities. Said contract was invalidated by Mr. Randi’s refusal to admit that Mr. Randi could not, in fact, discern any fraud/trickery on the part of Mr. Edwards.” Is this what you meant to say? Your grammar was unclear to me, and for that you have my apologies. I’m interested to know your source for this information.
BTW, you may wish to look at the James Randi Educational Foundation’s website. Particularly, skim the section on claiming the Pigasus prize.

Thank you, and Goodnight.

40

I second Jingo’s call to Zebra for clarification on the Randi claim. Randi’s website states that Edwards won’t agree to be tested.