• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Proof of Life After Death!!

Robin1 said:
Actually I DID refer to this anecdote in the past...you should pay more attention next time.

Seems to me, all my HONEST anecdotes (and I DO have more) are chipping away at your non-belief.

That must be hard for you.

I can see why you, in desperation, and denial, would revert to a fail-safe such as...she's lying...must be....'cause otherwise there really IS life after death!!

Naaaah, she's lying.

I wonder how many other people are feeling their skeptic's armor is chipping away.

Almost makes me want to share some more HONEST anecdotes...thanx, Foolmewunz!
Click to expand...

Hi Robin,

I think a lot of people will see this post as a demonstration of your ability to see exactly what you want to see.

Either that or you're just thumbing your nose.

This post only serves to further distance you from any real dialogue on the subject.


Regards,

Bigface.
 
My fiancee is really into Mediums and pyschics. I'm never going to change her mind, that much I know. But she did get me to go to someone she said was "the best" about a year ago with her. She kept telling me about all of the hits and the things that this person knew that they couldn't possibly know.

I tried to explain to her that this psychic probably wasn't "hitting" things as accurately as my fiancee was remembering. So of course I recorded about 3 minutes of the reading on my phone (secretly) and did not let on to the pyschic that I was skeptical. My fiancee sat there fascinated as this pyschic quite clearly did a cold reading.

As we left in the car, she excitedly went on about how the psychic knew "this" and "that", and what wonderful hits they were. ONce I started playing back the reading, and pointing out that my fiancee, in fact, was supplying most of the information, she just got angry and didn't say another word the whole way home.

My point? What you THINK is a hit, is probably not a hit. Like I said, I'm never changing my fiancee's mind, and no one is probably ever changing Robin's. But the very reaction of my fiancee...she knew I was right. All that meant to her, though, was that THIS one was a fraud. There are other "real" ones out there.
 
If my stories indeed prove nothing, why was Foolmewunz's only (implied) response to the latest...that I MUST be lying?

Here's why...too many convincing stories and they couldn't all be coincidence, or memory fail, or insert your preferred fail-safe, etc.

And no way, no how, there is life after death so it must be:


1st story explained by skeptic's fail-safe = coincidence

2nd story explained by skeptic's fail-safe = memory fail

3rd story explained by skeptic's fail-safe = hot reading...even if the method was unable to be determined.
Just ask James Randi about that one...please see and read entire (to be fair to all parties involved) thread ..."John Edward-Psychic or What?"

4th story explained by skeptic's fail-safe..heck, she's gotta be lying.

And so on and so on....

But yes, all of the above and more DOES need to be considered... Agreed.

But , and a very big BUT, the possibility of life after death needs to be considered as well...add it to the mix then evaluate it ALL.

You will NEVER be able to accurately evaluate possible evidence of life after death if you go in 100% confident there is no life after death.

If you do, your fail-safes will automatically kick in, and prevent you from ever reaching an accurate conclusion.
 
Last edited:
Foolmewunz said:
Yeah, I know... she's suspended. So what? This thread has survived for weeks without her in the past when she took extended sabbaticals. And the thread isn't about Robin, as much as she'd like to have it so. It's about John Edward and fraudulent psychics of all stripes.

So, for lurkers' consideration and for Robin1 to reply to later if she wishes, I offer the following.

1. Robin1, "uuu" is not how you spell "Eew!"
2. I'm not buying the former coworker story. I call b.s. Why have you not remembered to pass on this anecdote prior to now? You put all faith in anecdotal evidence, which we're evidently supposed to clutch to our breasts and believe with all our hearts, but this "reading" with a bunch of clear winners (for people who believe anecdotes on the internet with no supporting evidence) you just sort of forgot about? I don't think so.
Click to expand...
Here's Foolmewunz's comment to consider again...he seems pretty sure to me that I MUST be lying.
 
Last edited:
Robin1 said:
If my stories indeed prove nothing, why was Foolmewunz's only (implied) response to the latest...that I MUST be lying?
Click to expand...
Most of us take you at your word, and work from there. Foolmewunz is right to point out that by doing so we are failing to consider one of the possible explanations.

Here's why...too many convincing stories and they couldn't all be coincidence, or memory fail, or insert your preferred fail-safe, etc.
Click to expand...
None of your stories is remotely convincing, and all have plausible mundane explanations. As long as that is true the null hypothesis stands, and there is no need to posit supernatural ones.

You will NEVER be able to accurately evaluate possible evidence of life after death if you go in 100% confident there is no life after death.

If you do, your fail-safes will prevent you from ever reaching an accurate conclusion.
Click to expand...

You will NEVER be able to accurately evaluate the possible mundane explanations of your experiences if you go in 100% confident there is life after death.

If you do, your desire to believe will prevent you from ever reaching an accurate conclusion.
 
Pixel42 said:
Most of us take you at your word, and work from there. Foolmewunz is right to point out that by doing so we are failing to consider one of the possible explanations.


None of your stories is remotely convincing, and all have plausible mundane explanations. As long as that is true the null hypothesis stands, and there is no need to posit supernatural ones.



You will NEVER be able to accurately evaluate the possible mundane explanations of your experiences if you go in 100% confident there is life after death.

If you do, your desire to believe will prevent you from ever reaching an accurate conclusion.
Click to expand...
I am confident now there is life after death.

But, for years, I really wasn't sure...at all!

However, I remained OPEN to the possibility.

I wanted proof and I got it.

But you won't "get it" if you are 100% closed to it.

P.S. Foolmewunz was not merely helpfully trying to "point out" something for you to remember to consider.

He was trying to call me a liar.

Plain and simple.

P.P.S. I do realize none of my stories are remotely convincing...to YOU.

But, some may think they are convincing.

Which I believe, is one reason Foolmewunz desperately tried to negate their possible effect...by implying I am a liar and therefore my stories are not to be believed.
 
Last edited:
Why do mediums go from "I'm sensing a brother or a father", "I'm seeing the letter O"...

2 minutes later, you've helped establish it's actually your cousin Oscar.

"Oscar is telling me about the time you guys rode the Ferris Wheel in Chicago."

If Oscar can tell him about the Ferris Wheel in Chicago, why couldn't he just say "Yo bro, it's XYZ's cousin Oscar.."?

John Edward does this many times...why is that? Why is it that the spirit can't talk until AFTER the one being read has helped establish who it is they are wanting to speak to?

And why don't we ever hear of spirits who have a message like "I hate you. I've always hated you. You were a b****? (This is an honest question, why do spirits ALWAYS have some positive message?)
 
Robin1 said:
If my stories indeed prove nothing, why was Foolmewunz's only (implied) response to the latest...that I MUST be lying?

Here's why...too many convincing stories and they couldn't all be coincidence, or memory fail, or insert your preferred fail-safe, etc.

And no way, no how, there is life after death so it must be:


1st story explained by skeptic's fail-safe = coincidence

2nd story explained by skeptic's fail-safe = memory fail

3rd story explained by skeptic's fail-safe = hot reading...even if there is no actual evidence of the method used to accomplish it.

4th story explained by skeptic's fail-safe..heck, she's gotta be lying.

And so on and so on....

But yes, all of the above and more DOES need to be considered... Agreed.

But , and a very big BUT, the possibility of life after death needs to be considered as well...add it to the mix then evaluate it ALL.

You will NEVER be able to accurately evaluate possible evidence of life after death if you go in 100% confident there is no life after death.

If you do, your fail-safes will prevent you from ever reaching an accurate conclusion.
Click to expand...
Robin, this does not help your case, nor do your statements in other posts about us being 100% closed to the possibility and not being open to the possibility of life after death.

Many of us are open. I am open. I used to actually believe it. I changed my mind then based on evidence; I can certainly change it back.

But your latest posts indicate that you are not open to the possibility of being wrong. Moreover, they indicate that you do not actually read and digest our posts and reasons. We read yours. We read them in detail, just as some of us read your blog in detail. You know that because we respond in detail. Your comments, though, ignore the details we talk about and ignore the multiple alternative explanations to your experiences.

Please show me wrong. I would love to have the discussion with you. Address the points in the post I linked to earlier. If you have any interest at all in (a) demonstrating to us that there is validity to your position or (b) having an actual discussion, then you will do this.
 
Robin1 said:
P.P.S. I do realize none of my stories are remotely convincing...to YOU.

But, some may think they are convincing.

Which I believe, is one reason Foolmewunz desperately tried to negate their possible effect...by implying I am a liar.
Click to expand...

Your stories are simply stories with no corroboration; they can be rejected as such. You haven't provided any evidence here other than for a person being fooled by a cold reader.

We've seen that before. It's identifiable.
 
Garrette said:
And intellectually honest engagement does not indicate "chipping away."
Click to expand...
Garrette, I had thought recently you and I were trying to wipe the slate clean and converse again.

Unfortunately, it seems you are up to your old tricks.

You fooled me once, you won't fool me again.
 
DuvalHMFIC said:
And why don't we ever hear of spirits who have a message like "I hate you. I've always hated you. You were a b****? (This is an honest question, why do spirits ALWAYS have some positive message?)
Click to expand...

That thought has often occurred to me. The mediums never pass a message on like ''You were a real pain in the bum and I'm glad I'm dead so I won't have to see your face again''
 
Robin1 said:
Garrette, I had thought recently you and I were trying to wipe the slate clean and converse again.

Unfortunately, it seems you are up to your old tricks.

You fooled me once, you won't fool me again.
Click to expand...
I fail to see what offends you about the post of mine you quoted.
 
DuvalHMFIC said:
I see exactly what offends her...you aren't agreeing with her.
Click to expand...
I get the bit of humor, but I don't think so.

I think it's a misreading of what I said. I said that "intellectually honest engagement does not indicate agreement."

What I meant was that Foolmewunz was not exhibiting agreement with Robin simply because he addressed her points directly. Robin seems to have taken it to mean that I was implying she was not being intellectually honest.
 
Robin1 said:
I am confident now there is life after death.
But, for years, I really wasn't sure...at all!
However, I remained OPEN to the possibility.
I wanted proof and I got it.
But you won't "get it" if you are 100% closed to it.
Click to expand...

Enough with the double line spacing, In this ecological, green, environmentally friendly internet, we should conserve pixels and stop wasting space between lines, it takes electricity to light all that blank space up on your screen you know.

Talking of electricity:
I am confident that electricity will electrocute me.
But for years, I really wasn't sure...at all!
However, I remained OPEN to the possibility.
I wanted proof and I got it.
But you won't "get it" if you are 100% closed to it...

... Oh hang on, no, in the real world proof doesn't depend on if you believe in something. You can be 100% closed to any thoughts about electricity but it will still electrocute regardless.
 
Pixel42 said:
I am open to the possibility. I don't even need proof, just evidence. You have not provided any.
Click to expand...

Once upon a time many years ago, I read tarot cards as a teenager. Not only did people believe it, I believed it. Turns out to be all BS of the highest order even though everyone involved thought it was true, including me.

Decades of reality show it to be utterly false.

Robin1 wants it to be true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom