Hello from a non-skeptic

[Garrette]

That's what they said on Prison Planet before they banned me.

I stand corrected its not a chapter header but a heading on page 204, one third of the way down.

Ah, I see. As I do not have it in front of me, I cannot disprove this, so I will grant it for now.

That does not change the fact that the book is not in the slightest about debunking except in the sense (and very long stretch) that the authors promote their brand of Wiccan healing above others. Then again, they don't stick to Wicca, going into all manner of alternative styles but not mainstream medicine (though they do discuss some biology at the beginning).

In other words, this book is a debunking book only in the sense that Gorbachev was anti-Communist.

 

[Charles Boden]

Charles, have you read anything at all about the ideomotor effect and experiments done with Ouija boards?

Yes, and you guys ask me how I came to be skeptical in later years despite the experience? It was what came afterwards, together with my memories and what was said to me during the Ouija years before, that eventually took me to believing differently...

 

[Garrette]

You are all too quick in making presumtions...

No. We are quick to present possibilities since you conscientiously avoid discussing anything.

 

[Robert Oz]

That does not change the fact that the book is not in the slightest about debunking <snip>

Not surprising. I found it somewhat odd that someone would use a book on debunking in this way to confirm that a psychic's prediction relating to reincarnation was false.

 

[Agatha]

Goodness...

No, when I got home, I told my wife what had been said to me, and we took the utmost care from then on. The unprotected sex was the result of a good night oot and a fair amount of beer. You are all too quick in making presumtions...

Not about presumptions, you said she was two weeks pregnant. Pregnancies, as I'm sure you know, are dated from the last menstrual period (LMP) so conception takes place at about 2 weeks pregnant and implantation about seven to 10 days (3 weeks to 3+3) after that.

 

[Garrette]

Yes, and you guys ask me how I came to be skeptical in later years despite the experience? It was what came afterwards, together with my memories and what was said to me during the Ouija years before, that eventually took me to believing differently...

Please help me understand: You believed strongly, then stopped believing, then began believing again.

In those intervening, non-believing, years you must have had reason to think that what had happened at the Ouija session was not paranormal. What were those reasons?

 

[Pixel42]

I don't associate default assumptions with critical or skeptical thinking.

Nobody can help making them, anymore than they can help being subject to confirmation bias. Someone who has trained themselves to think critically should be more aware of the danger of making assumptions, and better/quicker at recognising when they have done so incorrectly, but to expect anyone to never make them is unrealistic. We're all human, we all have brains which have evolved to see patterns and take shortcuts because usually that's a good thing to do. It's just that sometimes it's not.

 

[wareagle]

If you can remove the huge boulder about metaphysical practices the author explores rather reasonably why people seem to think they are reincarnated historical figures. You don't have to believe it or embrace it but its a reasonable exploration. Metaphysics does have a certain rationality about it if you can get away from the woo woo new agey books. The entire book may not be reasonable to you but you might take into consideration that particular exploration. It doesn't disprove or argue against reincarnation it simply explores why some people would think they are Cleopatra.

Ah, I see. As I do not have it in front of me, I cannot disprove this, so I will grant it for now.

That does not change the fact that the book is not in the slightest about debunking except in the sense (and very long stretch) that the authors promote their brand of Wiccan healing above others. Then again, they don't stick to Wicca, going into all manner of alternative styles but not mainstream medicine (though they do discuss some biology at the beginning).

In other words, this book is a debunking book only in the sense that Gorbachev was anti-Communist.

 

[Charles Boden]

Not about presumptions, you said she was two weeks pregnant. Pregnancies, as I'm sure you know, are dated from the last menstrual period (LMP) so conception takes place at about 2 weeks pregnant and implantation about seven to 10 days (3 weeks to 3+3) after that.

My wife was still breast feeding and had had no menstruation throughout that period. About two weeks later she took the test and it came out positive within the time of pregnancy I have mentioned.

 

[Charles Boden]

In those intervening, non-believing, years you must have had reason to think that what had happened at the Ouija session was not paranormal. What were those reasons?

The natural disbelief that we all hold, I would say... Or do you think I was that easily persuaded?

 

[Robert Oz]

If you can remove the huge boulder about metaphysical practices the author explores rather reasonably why people seem to think they are reincarnated historical figures. You don't have to believe it or embrace it but its a reasonable exploration. Metaphysics does have a certain rationality about it if you can get away from the woo woo new agey books. The entire book may not be reasonable to you but you might take into consideration that particular exploration. It doesn't disprove or argue against reincarnation it simply explores why some people would think they are Cleopatra.

But why would you describe this book as a book on debunking when it only briefly discusses psychological reasons one might think they are reincarnated, but on the whole is a book about pagan healing practices?

It would be like me saying I have a book on diamonds. Which one, you ask? The Three Musketeers.

 

[wareagle]

Please help me understand: You believed strongly, then stopped believing, then began believing again.

In those intervening, non-believing, years you must have had reason to think that what had happened at the Ouija session was not paranormal. What were those reasons?

Sounds like a typical spiritual journey. The process of learning, disagreeing with what you learned, are confused by what you learned, what you learned is in opposition to what you are experiencing, so you suspend belief in what you learned and then finally forge on.

 

[Garrette]

If you can remove the huge boulder about metaphysical practices the author explores rather reasonably why people seem to think they are reincarnated historical figures. You don't have to believe it or embrace it but its a reasonable exploration. Metaphysics does have a certain rationality about it if you can get away from the woo woo new agey books. The entire book may not be reasonable to you but you might take into consideration that particular exploration. It doesn't disprove or argue against reincarnation it simply explores why some people would think they are Cleopatra.

This by no means makes it a debunking book.

 

[Garrette]

The natural disbelief that we all hold,

You appear not to be reading the posts. We do not have a natural disbelief but a natural belief.

I would say... Or do you think I was that easily persuaded?

Well, if you had no reason to change your mind, then yes.

 

[Garrette]

Sounds like a typical spiritual journey. The process of learning, disagreeing with what you learned, are confused by what you learned, what you learned is in opposition to what you are experiencing, so you suspend belief in what you learned and then finally forge on.

Perhaps the process of learning, but hardly just a spiritual journey. You will find many skeptics, me among them, who traveled such a path to reach where we are. I'll stack my spiritual and mystical experiences up against nearly anyone's.

 

[Charles Boden]

Sounds like a typical spiritual journey. The process of learning, disagreeing with what you learned, are confused by what you learned, what you learned is in opposition to what you are experiencing, so you suspend belief in what you learned and then finally forge on.

Very nicely put, Wareagle...

 

[Charles Boden]

Garrette, I would correct that statement and say that your natural belief is in disbelieving...

Right, I am at home and with some free time, so I'm going to sit my butt here and debate some issues with you all while I can. Fire away at will...

 

[Loss Leader]

Please help me understand: You believed strongly, then stopped believing, then began believing again.

In those intervening, non-believing, years you must have had reason to think that what had happened at the Ouija session was not paranormal. What were those reasons?

The natural disbelief that we all hold, I would say.

Charles, you haven't answered the question. During the years that you stopped believing, the Ouija board experience had already happened to you. So, during those years, what thoughts did you have about the Ouija board session? How did you account for the events of that night when you thought about them? To what did you attribute the movement of the shuttle and the answers that it gave?

I, personally, don't think that there is a "natural disbelief that we all hold." I think that it's very much the opposite, and that there is a natural tendency towards magical thinking. However, none of this matters. What matters is the answer to the question:

How did you explain the Ouija board incident to yourself during your years of disbelief?

 

[Apology]

Another poster on this thread recently assumed (wrongly) that I was a man. It tends to be the default assumption with internet posters, I find, unless it is very clear from the username that it is an incorrect assumption.

Actually it was a figure of speech. Any man would be a better man than me if you want to take the figure of speech literally

I don't mean to detract from your point though, which is a good one.

 

[Garrette]

Garrette, I would correct that statement and say that your natural belief is in disbelieving...

And you would be incorrect, about me specifically and people in general. My belief was quite strong and, I thought, well-founded for many years. Even now I think how comforting and fun it could be to believe again. Then I realize I have comfort and fun without it. Then I realize that neither comfort nor fun have any bearing on what is true, so I go back to evidence and facts.

Right, I am at home and with some free time, so I'm going to sit my butt here and debate some issues with you all while I can. Fire away at will...

Unfortunately, I have to leave the computer soon. I may possibly have time to post sporadically later.


Finally, Loss Leader is correct: You did not answer my question.