Dear Skeptical people...

[Mr. Jon Donnis]

Sometimes things need to be repeated John

[terry]

I accept what you say, what you do is with the best of intentions, all of the points you make are rational. The majority of the people on this site think about life/death more than the average person.
I also agree that the so called top mediums charge a lot of money for what?
But they still fill the halls all over the country, people going back time after time with little chance of a reading??/message.
All over the country they are running courses on all aspects of the paranormal. There is a demand for all of this. Why?

It is also wrong for believers to come on this site and try to convince you that you are wrong, not a snowball in hells chance. (is there a hell?) ;D
But they believe in life after death. I know all of their anecdotal stories are not proof, I have some of my own.
There is nothing personal in my comments, I have no axe to grind. As I have said before. Live and let Live. let them find out for themselves, in their own time.

[antmania]

Nov 11, 2009 9:45:24 GMT Mr. Jon Donnis said:

How can you be a skeptical believer?
That is like saying you are Miaowing dog

Quite simple Jon. Despite everything, I still believe there is a God and an afterlife.
I have looked at everything from both sides and will continue to do so. I am sceptical of most paranormal claims but occasionally, there are things which still convince me even if there can be no scientific proof.
It is faith but IMO , not blind faith.

[asdfg]

Nov 11, 2009 13:34:53 GMT antmania said:

I am sceptical of most paranormal claims

Which doesn't mean you're a skeptic (!)

Nov 11, 2009 13:34:53 GMT antmania said:

there are things which still convince me even if there can be no scientific proof.

Ditto.


If your conclusions on issues are faith-based, even if you're 'sceptical of' others, you are not someone who applies the process of skepticism (i.e. you're not a skeptic).

'Sceptical of' does not equal 'skeptic'.

[Amaris]

Nov 11, 2009 6:15:49 GMT antmania said:

I don't think people should use the word "we" on here as if everyone is reading from the same hymn sheet so to speak.

Sorry I didn't make myself very clear there, I really meant we as in the Admin who do try to point out flaws in believers arguments

[Amaris]

Nov 11, 2009 13:22:59 GMT terry said:

There is nothing personal in my comments, I have no axe to grind.

Nor me Terry, just chatting

[terry]

Apropos, believers coming to this site, I wondered what your opinion is about sceptics joining the forums of believers.

[lovelyyoungman]

let them find out for themselves, in their own time.

How will they find out if no-one tells them?

It is faith but IMO , not blind faith.

I'd love to know the difference between faith and blind faith.

[llamaman]

Hello gang, my first post on the BP forum so I thought Id say hi as well as put my two penneth worth into the pot. I have a similar background to Hayley, ive been interested in the unexplained pretty much all my life, my earliest childhood memory was of conducting my own ghostshunt aged 4 at my local churchyard and scaring myself silly. Ive always been a little sceptical i think and have wanted proof before taking claims at face value. From an early age if i didnt understand something or was sceptical id research a topic and look at the evidence. I decided to take the plunge and form a paranormal investigation group about a year ago and set off to research methods etc... I was amazed at the huge amount of bs spouted by some groups. Im glad to say i managed to steer clear of the woo way of investigating. Ive always approached investigations skeptically but also mindful of ethics too. My group is about to fold however because since meeting Trystan via ASSAP ive banned paranormal 'fishing' and we dont automatically conduct investigations in the dark... My group pretty much all jumped ship when i mentioned that! What ticks me off is when certain groups preaches its bs in a pseudo-scientific way which at face value sounds and look scientific in an attempt to fool people into thinking theyre scientific. I was recently approached by a client scared absolutely crapless by all the info he'd gleaned from groups like these. Basically he contacted one or two of the more professional looking groups because he was convinced that a spirit was trying to communicate with him via his bedframe (i s*it you not) these groups made the situation worse by suggesting all manner of rubbish from holding a seance to using a ouija board to try and communicate with the bed spirit. This actually made him worse because it reinforced an assumption that ghosts and spirits exist. When he contacted me he was at his wits end, scared to sleep in his own bed. Within 30 minutes of visiting him we discovered a loose screw holding his bed together, when he lay on the bed the screw would repeatedly slip a notch back and forth giving the impresssion of random taps. These pseudo-scientific groups had almost caused him to have a break-down. And thats my main point. People think whats the harm? Let them make up their own minds. Frequently our clients seek help from internet groups because wthey appear to them to be knowledgable people however i think its easy to forget that clients are real people with real lives. It only takes one bs spouting group to confirm that ghosts are alive and well and living amongst us to tip them over the edge. I'm giving up investigating and thinking of concentrating on providing information to people like my last client. I really do think woo groups should be regulated in some way or at least exposed as the pseudo scientific charlatans they are. Rant over. Peace out.

[Ma'amJo]

Well said, llamaman.

People might well think 'there's no harm in it' if people go to get 'psychic' readings, or if they choose to turn to people for help when they're scared of something they feel is paranormal, as your past client did, but we forget that in some cases, there are people most definitely being harmed by these con artists.

I personally can't understand how anyone would want to feed a person's fear like that, but sadly it's going on all over the place and this is what most of us here object to - that and the fact that they charge for the privilege.

I wish you every success if you do start anew and begin helping people such as that poor man - you'll be doing a far more important service than any quack medium/ghostbuster or whatever they want to call themselves.

Welcome to the forum, by the way. ;D

[Amaris]

Welcome llamaman Karma for an interesting first post. Very enlightening for those who think it is all harmless fun

[starshine]

Why they spout this crap is because they have been influenced by MH GH etc etc type shows, that in the end their group falls on the bandwagon and reason flys out of the window. Also look at the monetary rewards the presenters of GH etc have accrued, they want all the money, glamour, people saying "thank you, you have saved us !!" their egos get massaged too. So someone who leans towards being narcacisstic or with a superiority complex ends up believing ther own woo, and when one becomes "infected" like this, inevitably the other group members follow, i suspect anyone who does'nt follow the party line so to speak will be removed, we have seen that happen to members of GH and MH have we not ?

[blackadder]

Not a good point. To learn from mistakes yes, but if u quit martial arts or swimming because your coach is a d*ck and doesn't know what he's doing and u assume they all are rubbish your being a d*ck yourself. Get more personal experience and research the places and peoples reps before u go and pay anything etc. Don't assume from one or two experiences you haven't researched etc.

I haven't been here for a while LOVELYYOUNGMAN but thats not the point.
Picking things you want to say and avoiding other points for your/friends/ is self defeating. My points mostly get a balanced answer with no winning or deciding argument and that's difficult on here.

Iv'e never seen a point towards me to sway my opinions because I always have a comeback. So avoiding showing the comebacks if you av seen any is forcing friends to turn rather than allowing them to make rationally decided decisions.

[Mr. Jon Donnis]

Since not one psychic or paranormal investigator has ever spoken to the dead, or proven anything, then they ALL have 0% good reputation, regardless of Phds or wooness

[trystan]

You're 100% right Jon. Look at parapsychologists like Gary Schwarz or Julie Beischel. They may have PhDs but their experimental protocol for testing mediums is as leaky as a net.

[lovelyyoungman]

Hi Blackadder, I'm a little confused by your post and was wondering if you could clarify some parts of it for me so that I can respond appropriately.

Jan 5, 2010 21:30:28 GMT blackadder said:

I haven't been here for a while LOVELYYOUNGMAN but thats not the point.

What isn't the point?

Picking things you want to say and avoiding other points for your/friends/ is self defeating.

I'm not sure what is self defeating about "picking things you want to say" - isn't that what all of us do whenever we open our mouths? And I'm genuinely unclear what "avoiding other points for your friends" means, the syntax makes it unintelligable.

My points mostly get a balanced answer with no winning or deciding argument and that's difficult on here.

I think what you're saying here is that the points you make on this forum don't provoke people into being dogmatic or closed minded, which is fair enough although I'm not sure what it has to do with my original post. I don't say anywhere in my post that I provoked a dogmatic response from anyone. I also think there is a place for being an agent provocateur or playing devil's advocate, provoking a strong response in someone can force you to really examine your own beliefs and have them robustly challenged, always a healthy thing. If we all just agreed and took the middle ground none of us would progress.

Iv'e never seen a point towards me to sway my opinions because I always have a comeback.

So what is the point in debating if you've never had your opinions changed by what the other has said? On the occasion I was referring to in my post I was pleased that I had defended my position and also possibly changed the minds of those I was debating with. However in the past I've had debates where I haven't fared so well and although it doesn't feel great at the time, I've come away with a different perspective on something and have been grateful for it.

So avoiding showing the comebacks if you av seen any is forcing friends to turn rather than allowing them to make rationally decided decisions.

Again the way you've put this is a little unclear so I may be accidentally constructing a straw man here and apologies if that is the case. From what I understand, what you're saying is that being too heavy handed can turn the people you're debating with away from your point without properly considering it. Yes, you're right, however sometimes you're left with no choice than to fight fire with fire. However again I'm not sure what this has to do with my original post, as you weren't there I'm not sure how you can say that I was being heavy handed. All I have written is that I was able to rebut any point they put to me using logic and information, what are you supposed to do in a debate? Say "yes, you're completely right"?