majinrevan666 if you take the first definition of skepticism which you provide then I personally feel you do not satisfy this definition. You appear to willing to believe.
1. A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety. See Synonyms at uncertainty.
To put it simply there is too much uncertainty with regards to leslie flint. I can not see anything more than an impressionist. I mean which is more logical that he is talking to dead people or he is passing off voices of people (which isn't difficult with practice)?
Willing to believe? If by that you mean predisposed to believe then I assure you I'm not. I just find this particular case to be a compelling one, I don't find any t.v medium to be genuine.(that's not to say they are not, I just haven't seen anything to suggest they are)
I'm not sure how it's more "logical" without a prior set of beliefs already in place, but I get what you mean.
As for impersonation, I don't think he had ever been in contact or heard the ones he supposedly channeled.
If you had attended a seance with him to conjure someone whose voice you knew had been heard by the medium wouldn't you have thought that the medium would by default be imitating the voice rather than conjuring its owner?
It would take a lot more to convince someone in this case.
Yes, I do agree that the sitters being uneducated in the art of trickery does make them less reliable witnesses.
They are not actually witnesses as they didnt see anything, which makes them even less credible, dont you agree?
However, if you had attended such a meeting would not the verification of at least some crucial facts be needed to convince you that it was the deceased person whom you had known, rather then some psychopathic ventriloquist or whomever else?
But these people are desperate for anything to confirm their beliefs, they will make fit things that are said, excuse inconsistancies, and ignore anything that doesnt fit their expectations, afterall they already believe it is real.
And as for the infra red, I just don't know enough on this subject to render a judgment yet
It is without doubt the biggest hole in their argument and one they simply cannot explain
It's just that I am more inclined to believe that he was telling the truth than that he didn't.
And this is what i cant understand, why are you inclined to believe the words of someone who offers no proof, no evidence, no credible witnesses, nothing at all?
Are you inclined to believe David Icke when he says the Royal Family are reptilians? Its as credible as claim you must agree as Flints
Skepticism does not have a "Whatever I don't believe in and consider delusional doesn't exist" clause as far as I know.
All skepticism ever wants is proof, do you agree that Flint has offered absolutely zero evidence of any kind of any of his claims?
Why would anyone be inclined to believe his claims?
You say you dont believe in TV mediums, at least they are doing what they do in full light, their act can be examined and analysed
A bad ass who will beat you like he's using the fists of god.
"They are not actually witnesses as they didnt see anything, which makes them even less credible, dont you agree?"
I already took that under consideration, but the phenomenon was not based on seeing anything, we've already been through this. But these are more litigation tactics than anything else.
"But these people are desperate for anything to confirm their beliefs"
You can't know this for sure, if it had been me I know that I would have expected at least some concrete detail which the medium could not have known to believe what was being said.
"Are you inclined to believe David Icke when he says the Royal Family are reptilians? Its as credible as claim you must agree as Flints"
David Icke has never seen a reptilian. He does not seem to have anything to gain by lying though. Nor does he seem insane. I believe that he believes it, but that's just my personal belief. So, no I don't believe the royal family are reptilians but that's more of a "you have to see it to believe it" thing.
"It is without doubt the biggest hole in their argument and one they simply cannot explain"
I think one of you should go undercover with a hidden infrared camera to dispel all doubts, have you ever considered doing something like that?( You did say something about seances filmed)
"do you agree that Flint has offered absolutely zero evidence of any kind of any of his claims?"
I don't know what he provided as evidence, I was not there at the time and wasn't the one studying what he did, so no I do not agree with that, although I do concede that it is a possibility.
I already took that under consideration, but the phenomenon was not based on seeing anything, we've already been through this.
So why is what people "felt" or "heard" in teh dark be classed as credible or compelling? We all know how easy it is to mistake things in the dark, thats why kids see monsters on coat stands, or why i see faces in my curtains at night,
You can't know this for sure, if it had been me I know that I would have expected at least some concrete detail which the medium could not have known to believe what was being said.
But how would you know what the medium was able to know or not? believers in general do not understand what cold reading is, they also have no idea how much hot reading went on in those days. Lemar Keene talked about how during seances confederates would go through peoples bags, building up information about the sitters which could be used later, as well as stealling small items which would then appear as apports a few months later.
The Blue Book was a book that was full of info on the regular sitters and passed around the mediums. Many spiritualist churches have a version of this book in this country.
Sometimes such info is compiled through hidden microphones, or even reading what people have written in the rememberence books.
"Are you inclined to believe David Icke when he says the Royal Family are reptilians? Its as credible as claim you must agree as Flints"
David Icke has never seen a reptilian.
How do you know? No one who has ever been to a seance has ever legitimately seen a spirit have they?
He does not seem to have anything to gain by lying though. Nor does he seem insane.
Sales of his books are in the 10s of millions, he makes a fortune giving his lectures, he seems to have a lot to gain. Although I personally believe he is driven by insanity, remember he once claimed to be Jesus Christ
I believe that he believes it, but that's just my personal belief. So, no I don't believe the royal family are reptilians but that's more of a "you have to see it to believe it" thing.
Let me quote you "YOU HAVE TO SEE IT TO BELIEVE IT" Yet EVERYONE who visits these seances do not see anything do they. So why do you find their testimonies credible and compelling? By your own words you have to see it to believe it, yet these people see nothing.
"It is without doubt the biggest hole in their argument and one they simply cannot explain"
I think one of you should go undercover with a hidden infrared camera to dispel all doubts, have you ever considered doing something like that?( You did say something about seances filmed)
Unfortunately these mediums are so paranoid about people doing just this and exposing their fraud that the security is higher than T5 at Heathrow.
We are talking metal detectors, frisk downs, and so on.
It is near impossible to sneak such a camera into a seance.
"do you agree that Flint has offered absolutely zero evidence of any kind of any of his claims?"
I don't know what he provided as evidence, I was not there at the time and wasn't the one studying what he did, so no I do not agree with that, although I do concede that it is a possibility.
So i ask again, why do you find Flint compelling and his witnesses credible, when they offer no evidence.
Flint has never given any evidence that anything he did was legitimate, so why are you inclined to believe him?
I dont understand
A bad ass who will beat you like he's using the fists of god.
Darkness: it is easy to make a mistake in the dark but what does this have to do with hearing voices? Darkness directly relates to vision not hearing.
Hot reading:Yes, I think that's a very good possibility, I did not know about the blue book thing.
Icke:He claims to have never seen one, do you think he's lying and he has seen one? I don't think that he makes a "fortune" and he probably would have made more if he had just continued to do what he was doing. He never claimed to be Jesus, he had had a mystical experience and made the mistake of relating it on national t.v, for that reason maybe he is a bit crazy...
Reptilians: Again this involves seeing whereas voice mediumship does not.
Security: Seriously? That does make me very suspicious, have you tried the one Victor Zammit goes to?
Evidence: Because not everything revolves around evidence, I have not personally seen anything to suggest that he was a fraud.
I am only a little inclined to believe his claims it's more like 51 to 49 percent that he told the truth.
I think we are ignoring a very important matter though, if he was a fraud what did he gain from it?
Sometimes fraudulent mediums hide under the whole label of "I'm not making any money from this so what would I gain from lying?"
The answer is quite simply some of them love the attention and the ego that comes with it, not to mention the superiority they are given above their believers, fans and followers.
It seems to me what you are saying is that you are willing to believe with no evidence, just hearsay and possibilities that it might be true. That doesn't make it true though, in fact it makes it extremely unlikely to be so. A sceptic requires tangible evidence and Leslie Flint has not shown any.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Christopher Hitchens
Darkness: it is easy to make a mistake in the dark but what does this have to do with hearing voices? Darkness directly relates to vision not hearing.
You brain knows what something is by looking at it, remove sight and you need to rely on your other senses, senses you are simply not that used to relying on.
This along with your imagination, expectation and interpretation means that without sight you are much more susseptable to being fooled.
Hot reading:Yes, I think that's a very good possibility, I did not know about the blue book thing.
Sometimes it has different names, sometimes it is not needed, for example it would be pointless Derek Acorah keeping such records as he sees so many people, so cold reading does the job for him.
Where as in spiritualist church they seem the same 80% of people week in and week out, so naturally it is easy to build up profiles on people.
Icke:He claims to have never seen one, do you think he's lying and he has seen one?
I dont know what goes on his mind, he is certifiable in my opinion./
He has released 12 DVDs that i know of, and about 20 books.
his videos on youtube get 100s of thousands of views, he sells out his lectures which arent cheap.
It is safe to assume he makes millions from all of this.
I don't think that he makes a "fortune" and he probably would have made more if he had just continued to do what he was doing.
he was just a reporter and television presenter, i doubt he would have made anywhere near what he does today do you?
He never claimed to be Jesus, he had had a mystical experience and made the mistake of relating it on national t.v, for that reason maybe he is a bit crazy...
He quite clearly states he is the son of god, only after the fact he was derided in the media, and called insane did he try and claim he meant something else.
Security: Seriously? That does make me very suspicious, have you tried the one Victor Zammit goes to?
That is in Australia so bit far for me. As for Zammitt, he tried to sue me recently, he backed down. Zammitt isnt a real lawyer i heard. As for David Thompson the media he loves, check our site for our opinion on him and he he does things
Evidence: Because not everything revolves around evidence, I have not personally seen anything to suggest that he was a fraud.
But you have not seen anything that backs up his claims.
You are blindly believing the claims of a man as credible as someone like David Icke.
Why?
Do you know what critical thinking is? What about common sense?
Does common sense tell you that Flint was really ressurecting the dead out of ectoplasm that came out of his body?
I am only a little inclined to believe his claims it's more like 51 to 49 percent that he told the truth.
But why? I simply cannot uderstand this blind belief in someone you never knew, only what you have read on the net?
I think we are ignoring a very important matter though, if he was a fraud what did he gain from it?
His name in the history books for one.
Did you know that at Camp Chesterfield in the States in the 70's some unscroupolous mediums would have sex with the relatives of the dead they were supposedly bring through! This is spiritualism for you. One of the sickest, most evil religions in the history of the planet. Some of the things done by spiritualst mediums makes me sick.
They pretended to be the dead so they could have sex with people.
Go buy yourself a copy of The Psychic Maffia, to find out what spiritualism is really all about.
Only Paganism as a worse history (Beastiality, human sacrifice and so on)
A bad ass who will beat you like he's using the fists of god.
Yes, but not Jesus. When one has a mystical experience it is more often than not that one feels as though he/she is, in a sense at least, a child of god.
"As for Zammitt, he tried to sue me recently, he backed down"
That guy brings indignation to a whole new level. Why did he try to sue you? And for what?
"But you have not seen anything that backs up his claims"
I have seen more things which back them up than things which refute them, it's quite a simple course of logic, not flawless, but it makes sense to me.
"Does common sense tell you that Flint was really ressurecting the dead out of ectoplasm that came out of his body?"
No, common sense tells me that I don't know enough about him to know for sure, and neither do you for that matter.
We can only speculate as to what transpired there.
That's primarily why I'm here talking to you about this, to get a different perspective.
"His name in the history books for one"
That's a ridicules statement, what on earth could he possibly do with his name in the history books? It would be one thing to seek glory while living, but to disgrace yourself so others could think highly of you when you're dead is absurd.
"...most evil religions..."
You should read the bible, it makes everything you just said look like nothing in comparison.
Some dentists have had sex with clients under anesthetics. Some (many?) catholic priests have raped children. Some politicians have used their status for the same purpose.
Some humans are sick wanton idiots.
What does that have to do with the practice itself? (Although I do think that Christianity is loathsome and am not too fond of politics )
I think one attraction people have to these long dead mediums is that none of their claims can be tested or examined today and so there's the lure of arguments like "we don't know enough" or "they were never disproved at the time" etc. In other words, we don't know they weren't a genuine medium, therefore it's plausible to assume they were or might have been.
The time interval between their lives and today creates a convenient buffer that renders all of their claims (and claims about them) untestable; and non-testable claims thrive on the Argument to Ignorance.
The difference is that I don't claim that it's true. Saying you don't accept something as true is fine, saying that it is false shifts the burden of proof instantly.
The difference is that I don't claim that it's true.
Perhaps not, but you do seem to be using ignorance (lack of knowledge) as the rationale for thinking it might be true.
The claims of, or appertaining to, Flint are incredibly unlikely to be true; so with a lack of tangible quality evidence, it's a sound conclusion to consider the claims as false - or if you want to be a little more wishy washy, unproven.
Yes, but not Jesus. When one has a mystical experience it is more often than not that one feels as though he/she is, in a sense at least, a child of god.
That sounds like finding an excuse after the event.
That guy brings indignation to a whole new level. Why did he try to sue you? And for what?
He was working on behalf of Ezio De Angelis, a psychic we looked at on the Australian BadPsychics site
I have seen more things which back them up than things which refute them, it's quite a simple course of logic, not flawless, but it makes sense to me.
What have you seen that backs them up? No such evidence exists. And i dontunderstand what is logical about his claims?
"Does common sense tell you that Flint was really ressurecting the dead out of ectoplasm that came out of his body?"
No, common sense tells me that I don't know enough about him to know for sure, and neither do you for that matter.
Do you know what "common sense" means?
Common sense (or, when used attributively as an adjective, commonsense, common-sense, or commonsensical), based on a strict construction of the term, consists of what people in common would agree on: that which they "sense" (in common) as their common natural understanding. Some people (such as the authors of Merriam-Webster Online) use the phrase to refer to beliefs or propositions that — in their opinion — most people would consider prudent and of sound judgment, without reliance on esoteric knowledge or study or research, but based upon what they see as knowledge held by people "in common".
We can only speculate as to what transpired there.
We can use critical thinking and common sense to know what happened there,
That's primarily why I'm here talking to you about this, to get a different perspective.
And i am happy you are here, as i hope you will understand in the end that there exists no evidence for any claims of physical mediumship.
"His name in the history books for one"
That's a ridicules statement, what on earth could he possibly do with his name in the history books? It would be one thing to seek glory while living, but to disgrace yourself so others could think highly of you when you're dead is absurd.
People do it throught history. Various murderers kill do get a place in history. Now imagine you are a spiritualist medium, what better act than to be seen as the best medium in history. He may very well have believed in life after death, so what better thing for him in his death than to be considered the best.
"...most evil religions..."
You should read the bible, it makes everything you just said look like nothing in comparison.
Christianity is pretty bad I agree. but then we have Christian Spiritualists as well.
Some dentists have had sex with clients under anesthetics. Some (many?) catholic priests have raped children. Some politicians have used their status for the same purpose.
Some humans are sick wanton idiots.
Agreed, it is about using a position of power, but in the case of these mediums, they did not force anyone to perform these sexual acts, instead they did it through brain washing and fraud. Its just a slightly higher level of evil to me.
A bad ass who will beat you like he's using the fists of god.
"That sounds like finding an excuse after the event"
Well, that's what happens regardless. It was by no means unprecedented, just misconstrued, by all parties involved.
"Do you know what "common sense" means?"
I now know what your definition of it entails. According to your definition it was common sense to think that the earth was flat, that slavery was acceptable and so on. Common sense sounds a lot like collective solipsism.
"He may very well have believed in life after death, so what better thing for him in his death than to be considered the best"
I don't think I've ever heard of a hereafter where one gets rewarded for deceiving others, so if that was the case he was either deluded or masochistic.
"Its just a slightly higher level of evil to me"
Yes, I see what you mean. At the very least it's a far more effective method.
Anyway I think we've exhausted the physical/vocal mediumship issue. I now understand why you treat it as being fraud by default. So if I find more substantial evidence on this matter I'll address the issue again, but until then I'll just look into it more.
According to your definition it was common sense to think that the earth was flat, that slavery was acceptable and so on. Common sense sounds a lot like collective solipsism.
No society ever thought the earth was flat, this is a myth. www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm Slavery was never aceptable, infact it was the BLACK man who started slavery by SELLING black people to White people in the first place.
I do not think anyone ever thought that slavery was acceptable, instead certain people believed they were superior to other races due to ignorance.
Gandhi used to see the black race as sub-human, did you know that!?
I don't think I've ever heard of a hereafter where one gets rewarded for deceiving others, so if that was the case he was either deluded or masochistic.
Perhaps he was unaware of the fraud, maybe his associates were behind all of the trickery, and he was as convinced as the people present! Just an idea, i dont believe it, but you never know.
Anyway I think we've exhausted the physical/vocal mediumship issue. I now understand why you treat it as being fraud by default. So if I find more substantial evidence on this matter I'll address the issue again, but until then I'll just look into it more.
Until someone in the world can prove just an ounce of paranormal ability, it would be foolish to take anyones claims at face value of such abilities.
Would you believe the claims in certain African cultures that having sex with a new born baby will cure you of aids, purely at face value? Or would you look at such claims as ridiculous, and downright evil?
A bad ass who will beat you like he's using the fists of god.
"No society ever thought the earth was flat, this is a myth" No society ever?
"I do not think anyone ever thought that slavery was acceptable"
I disagree, even today we treat other creatures as slaves. And if we are to believe the bible, slavery was common practice once, divinely inspired even.
"instead certain people believed they were superior to other races due to ignorance"
Ignorance to you, common sense to them. Besides what if they had been superior? Would it have been fine then?
"maybe his associates were behind all of the trickery"
You've apparently forgotten what the question was in the first place:Why would someone have the motive to do what was done? You just switched the person committing the fraud for another.
"Until someone in the world can prove just an ounce of paranormal ability, it would be foolish to take anyones claims at face value of such abilities."
Of course it's imprudent to take unproven things at face value.
"Would you believe the claims in certain African cultures that having sex with a new born baby will cure you of aids, purely at face value? Or would you look at such claims as ridiculous, and downright evil"
There's a difference between these claims. One causes direct harm to another no matter its validity. While the other causes lesser harm (but harm just the same) to another, assuming its validity is false.
"No society ever thought the earth was flat, this is a myth" No society ever?
Not that i know of. I know there are groups today that follow the flat earth theory but they are obviously idiots. In history the Ancient Greeks were well aware the Earth was round, all you had to do was look at the horizon and see the curve.
"I do not think anyone ever thought that slavery was acceptable"
I disagree, even today we treat other creatures as slaves. And if we are to believe the bible, slavery was common practice once, divinely inspired even.
I know Slavery is common place, but i suppose it is all how you look at it. We treat horses as slaves as we see them as lower forms of life than us. This is exactly how certain white people saw black people hundreds of years ago.
"instead certain people believed they were superior to other races due to ignorance"
Ignorance to you, common sense to them. Besides what if they had been superior? Would it have been fine then?
I personally would never use anyone or any creature as a slave. Whether it is deemed fine or not depends on the society you live in, and their morals, ethics etc.
"maybe his associates were behind all of the trickery"
You've apparently forgotten what the question was in the first place:Why would someone have the motive to do what was done?
To make money, to feed ego, and to gain fame, i already answered that.
"Until someone in the world can prove just an ounce of paranormal ability, it would be foolish to take anyones claims at face value of such abilities."
Of course it's imprudent to take unproven things at face value.
Yet millions do.
"Would you believe the claims in certain African cultures that having sex with a new born baby will cure you of aids, purely at face value? Or would you look at such claims as ridiculous, and downright evil"
There's a difference between these claims. One causes direct harm to another no matter its validity. While the other causes lesser harm (but harm just the same) to another, assuming its validity is false.
The difference is there, but the claim and belief is basically the same, even if the outcome is slightly different.
And however sick and twisted the act of raping a baby is, it is something they will have no memory of.
A bad ass who will beat you like he's using the fists of god.
