Where can we read about this fantastic event for ourselves? I can’t seem to find a reference using Google; perhaps some more information would help us to locate this article.
These two sentances are contradictory. First it’s wrong to be skeptical, then it’s right to be skeptical? Skepticism is simply the trait of not believing others’ fantastic claims without solid backing. “No fault in that.”
Skeptics have done nothing of the sort, and have not even tried. You still don’t get it, after all of these pages. Nobody is arguing that. Nobody has argued that there is no life after death (etc), merely that there is no proof, either way. You keep using the word “skeptic” like it’s an insult, yet you don’t even understand what the word means.
Skeptics simply don’t believe every random fantastic claim that they are told. They (We) require some evidence to believe fantastic claims. Not anecdotal stories, which can be misleading, incorrect, or simply fictional. Something solid and reasonable. However, and this is the part that you seem to be unable to grasp, not believing something doesn’t mean they’re saying “you’re wrong.” You could be (And even from the skeptical viewpoint, it seems incredibly likely), but since there is no solid evidence whatsoever about life after death, nobody knows for sure.
And I’ll clue you in on something; Being skeptical doesn’t mean you disbelieve all “fantastic” things. There are plenty of skeptics here that have spiritual/religious/whatever beliefs. However, they, unlike you, recognize that without solid evidence, there is no reason to try to persuade others that what they believe is true or false, because they have no evidence to prove so.
I happen to agree with the motto of this place, about fighting ignorance. Amusing that your idea is that I should have just deleted the messages because she was “doing me a favor,” instead of trying to do her a favor by letting her know the truth. Ends up, she didn’t want to know the truth, and was happy to continue in ignorance, spreading the same kind of incorrect information. Like I said before…
Here’s the address and phone # where you can request a muster roll for:
USS Willett DE 354
The relevant dates are September 1956 and June 1957
National Archives
Archives II (Two)
8601 Adelphi Road
College Park, MD 20740-6001
(301) 713-7250
If anyone else sees Leroy Kattein’s name on the muster roll let me know.
BTW,
What insults have been hurled at you?
That should be:
If anyone sees Leroy Kattein’s name on the muster roll please post here.
BTW, Lekatt, what insults have been hurled at you?
Lekatt, is calling someone a fake not an insult, or do you have proof to back up calling Doc Cathode a fake or are you a hypocrite?
I am not familiar with this claim, nor do I have to be to question your conclusion, or perhaps the conclusion of your source.
Computers. Ah, now there is something I know a little about. If any computer claimed that, by comparing the styles of two different literary works, it can tell they were written by the same person(s), it is sticking its byte-sized, transistorized neck out pretty durn far.
Computers are not gods. They are not all-seeing. They have less intelligence than a slice of apple pie. They only do what a human designs them to do. A computer program can be (and has been, some by me) written that compares works, but the only valid conclusion that can be drawn is that the author’s styles are similar or even the same. This does not mean the authors are the same people. Ever heard of plagiarizing? Imitation? Forgery? Even badly written programs?
If you claim that two works have similar characteristics, I do not find that hard to believe, as that is not an unusual claim. But if you claim the dead are talking to us thru channellers, I have every right to require more evidence, as this is a very unusual claim.
Perhaps it does. Perhaps it is 100% fiction. It is more logical to believe it is pious fiction than to believe this one book will overturn the known laws of the universe.
“A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.” (David Hume, ca. 1848)
“No amount of belief makes something a fact.” (James Randi)
Did I quote you accurately this time?
That’s not what I’m saying, and I think you know that.
Science/naturalism/etc. use terms like “evidence”, “reality” and “proof” in a certain way, to mean certain things. You and your ilk also use those words, even though you’re not using them the same way that a scientist or a rationalist would. The reason you do this is to steal science’s credibility. You keep referring to the proof that authors and gods can be channelled by the living, when that proof is not proof, merely a cottage industry for the credulous.
Let’s be clear about this: a bunch of people selling a bunch of books claiming to be channelled from long-dead people is not proof. And when they make arguments like “computer analysis confirms it”, without making that analysis available for review by others, that’s not proof, either.
I’m reminded of Michael Drosnin’s “bible code”, in which his “computer analysis” showed messages hidden in the text. This has created a whole cottage industry. The problem is that it’s crap: the bible code has been thoroughly debunked by reputable statisticians. Drosnin himself said that he would believe that he was mistaken about bible codes when someone found the prediction of a prime minister’s assassination in Moby Dick. Well, someone did. But this hasn’t stopped the people behind the first website, has it?
Papermache Prince, if I put “Afterdeath Journal of William James” (using quotes) in google, I get 4 hits, altho they appear to be closely related, even 4 variations on the same transcript of a channelling session or discussion. I can’t make much sense of it. Maybe I’m just not spiritual enough.
The book appears to be available from Amazon, but I think I’ll wait for the DVD. 
Me and my ilk, yes. I see your words have changed, but not your attitude. We are still the unwashed, the second class. ok, so be it. I have not looked over the “bible code” so I can’t make remarks about it. My ilk usually like to examine ideas before passing judgement.
Love
Leroy
I knew I would catch flak for this, but it was necessary.
I have a brilliant idea – read the books and compare for yourself.
Love
Leroy
You have no clue what my attitude is. I don’t think that you, and those who share your beliefs, are second class, are stupid or unwashed, or are unworthy of my interest.
I do think that you’re a credophile–someone who wants to believe more than they want to be sure that what they believe is justified. For me, scepticism is the opposite: I want to be sure that my beliefs are only as strong as they are justified. Why? Because I’ve seen too many examples, in my own life and in the world, of people who fool themselves because they want to believe. That doesn’t mean I think you’re stupid. It means that I think you have the wrong attitude. When I think of credophiles, I think of my grandmother almost sending a couple thousand dollars to a telephone scam operation; I think of the vast sums of money spent on magnetic bracelets and crystals. In the worst case, I think of Jim Jones.
However, I wouldn’t go out of my way to argue with you or try to change your attitude. But you’ve come to a message board with a decidedly sceptical slant, and put your ideas out there for discussion. You’re getting nothing more here than you asked for.
What would be the point?
If I read James work and become familiar enough with his style to judge whether a particular work is his, I’m familiar enough with his style to write in it.
While we’re on the legal analogies that you are so fond of (this time involving lawyers), perjury is a serious offense. And you should also be aware that a lawyer pointing out an obvious falsity in a witnesses testimony is not “character assasination”.
So if we were in a courtroom, and you were testifying about this very issue, you shouldn’t be suprised when I pull out the muster rolls and look for your name.
Again, I’d like to ask what to do about “too much evidence”? If you profess to see no [internal?] contradictions in this book, what do you do about the contradictions between it and other “channeled” books, such as the competing “autobiographies” of Jesus channeled in the 19th century, which did not all agree by a long shot about the “hidden life” of Jesus (including, according to some, his supposed stint in Tibet), or even better, the accounts channeled in the 19th century, purportedly from the spirits of the early fathers of the Church, “confessing” that they had actually made up the story of Jesus entirely–that he was a fiction they had created based on the mythical story of Apolonius of Tyana. A long version of this message was published in Springfield, Massachusetts in 1883 under the title, “Jesus Christ, a Fiction. Founded upon the Life of Apolonius of Tyana. The Pagan Priests of Rome Originated Christianity; New and Startling Disclosures by Its Founders, and Full Explanations by Ancient Spirits.” This was supposedly dictated by these spirits to the spirit of electrical experimenter and skeptic (of spiritualism) Michael Faraday who had, on this account, changed his tune after death.
None of these channeled texts agree–even on the fact of Jesus’ existence–with “A Course in Miracles.” I’m curious to know on what basis one would decide that the “Jesus” of “A Course in Miracles” was true, but choose to disregard the others.
This is not a court. This is a message board. The subject is not me. We were discussing the credibility of psychics like James Van Praagh. Bringing in personal data for the purpose of character assasination is unacceptable behaviour for this kind of discussion. The story I told was true, but that was not the point of it, the point was the importance of personal experience which it illustrated nicely. Try sticking to the point of the debate.
At the risk of repeating what’s been said before: The point that this is not a court, but a message board, is what your critics have repeatedly said when you have decided to resort to legal and courtroom metaphors to make your case. Also, “The subject is not me” is an odd statement to make: It certainly was not the subject until you decided to insert yourself as the subject by using your personal experience and life story as “evidence” for psychic phenomena that supposedly trumps anything else.
What did you expect?
You’re the one who brought in personal data and tried to make a case for the validity of using careless personal interpretations of experience as proof and/ or evidence. The personal experiences you’ve reported here have tended to highlight the unreliability of using interpretations of personal experience.
( To accept your personal experience as valid, one has to believe that it snowed in New Orleans in July! Think about that for a minute. )
It is understandable why you should want to distance yourself from the use of personal experience as evidence now. Some people have been saying that the careless interpretation of personal experience isn’t acceptable as evidence/ proof since the thread began- since the history of your posting has been tracked.
Yes, it ilustrated nicely how unreliable it is.
Well I don’t know about that, I mean there were a lot of drugs in the 1970’s right?
What?
Um…this whole time YOU have been the one without hard evidence. I find it extremely funny that you are criticizing someone else for that.
Get real.
No you don’t. I think you’ve made that absurdly clear. The more I read from you Lekatt, the more I wonder why you are being so closed minded.