Cont: Scorpion's Spiritualism, Part Deux

[Darat]

At least you can see from the links that I am not alone in my beliefs.

Which one of the many you have provided provide evidence for karma angels?

 

[Darat]

To be fair, I'm happy to agree with Scorpion that his universe is an illusion.

Sadly we know this to be true.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Scorpion why are you spamming random links again?

 

[JayUtah]

I am building a library of web sites that support my view that so called reality is an illusion.

No, it appears you're just randomly Googling for "psychic phenomena" and posting all the garbage that comes up.

Here is one by a physicist

No, this does not have anything to do with psychic beliefs or karma angels. It simply explains a famous turning point in physics where a certain prediction of quantum mechanics—quantum entanglement—was demonstrated empirically. Here, "locally real" simply means deterministic at the elementary particle level. It's a special term that means something only in quantum mechanics, not what you want it to mean in your preaching. None of this lets you shoehorn your karma angels into it.

At least you can see from the links that I am not alone in my beliefs.

In one sense you're not alone in believing in psychic phenomena, mediumship, and the communion of spirits. Nobody here questions that. But as we've pointed out, it's not the number of people who believe in something that matters, but the reasons why they believe it. You have reasons that convince you, but that's better explained in general by confirmation bias. Your reasons fail to convince others because there are other interpretations for your experiences that are more facially evident. This determination is independent of numbers. That hundreds, dozens, or millions of people exhibit confirmation bias doesn't excuse it.

In another sense, these links you're spamming us with instead of engaging in discussion don't tell a coherent story. This is a problem with spiritual beliefs in general. When you code your beliefs in negative terms—"reality is an illusion"—it masks the problem that nobody seems to be able to agree on what is real instead. This is the chaos that happens when you don't reason positively such that you can devise a test for it.

And further in that same sense, you've told us your religion is cobbled together from bits and pieces of things you've read, things you've heard from lectures, and stuff you've just made up. If that's where it comes from, then it's highly likely you're the only one who believes in your particular brand.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Had you read this article, you would have known that.

Why would he need to read the article? You just read it for him!

 

[arthwollipot]

At least you can see from the links that I am not alone in my beliefs.

You realise that this means nothing, right?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Why would he need to read the article? You just read it for him!

He probably just sensed the content by being in the same room as it.

 

[MBDK]

Since Scorpion loves anecdotal...well...anecdotes, I hereby offer this one, absolutely true, but followed by my analysis.

I slept in, as I usually do, this morning. When I awoke, I recalled a particularly vivid dream, wherein I was aboard a passenger plane struggling to achieve lift off. After a few harrowing maneuvers, it skidded to a crash where the plane was damaged considerably, with gaping openings. In that dream, I was concerned about a fire starting, but noticed nothing immediately ablaze. I shouted for everyone to remain calm, to prevent panic and unnecessary injuries. I then loudly asked if anyone was injured at that time, and there were only a couple of people who affirmed they were. Closer inspection revealed their injuries were not obviously catastrophic, and all passengers appeared to have survived. My dream ended with me outside, examining the wreckage.

So, whadda-ya-know? A couple hours later, I notice there is a news flash/article mentioning the Toronto passenger plane crash. That plane did not burst into flames, everyone survived and most injuries were relatively minor. Oooooooooooo...spooky, right?

Well, I suspect many people, especially those sharing similar beliefs/outlooks as Scorpion, would leave the recollection as is, and allow the mechanisms of time to embellish it. However, a critical inspection revealed several major discrepancies. The plane in my dream was attempting take-off. The Toronto crash was upon arrival (landing). The Toronto plane flipped upside down, which caused the injuries. In my dream, it remained upright the entire time. None of the injuries in my dream looked very serious, but the actual crash had three critically injured people. The Toronto plane crashed under blowing snow and icy ground conditions; whereas, there were green hills and drizzle in my dream. The wreckage in my dream seemed to include a section of the forward fuselage that had broken away from the main body. Nothing of the like occurred in Toronto.

This just goes to show coincidences do happen, and if you only look for things to confirm or aggrandize that event, you will likely have a very distorted recollection of the true event(s). Logical and reasoned examination overwhelmingly reveals that coincidences are just that - coincidences. Finally, I still haven't won the lottery.

ETA: I forgot to mention, according to the information provided, the Toronto plane crashed at least a half hour after my dream event.

 

[Scorpion]

I have just finished reading Nella Jones autobiography. She says that James Randi did not give her enough time to use her psychic senses on the objects he gave her to read. She only had two minutes. The book contains many instances of her helping the police in solving crimes, and letters from police officers confirming it.

Unfortunately for her credibility, in the last chapter ' the road ahead' she attempts predictions for the future. The book was published in 1992 and she says Saddam Hussain will detonate a nuclear bomb. She also says science will provide evidence of the psychic within three years.

 

[Pixel42]

I have just finished reading Nella Jones autobiography. She says that James Randi did not give her enough time to use her psychic senses on the objects he gave her to read. She only had two minutes.

Every MDC test was carefully designed in full consultation with the claimant, is based on their specific claims, and had to be agreed to and signed off on by both parties before it was run. If the test gave her 2 minutes to do the readings, it's because she said that's how long she needed. If she'd said she needed an hour, she would have been given an hour.

The book contains many instances of her helping the police in solving crimes, and letters from police officers confirming it.

Unless she and/or those police officers knew what hit rate could be expected due to intelligent guesswork/research/pure chance, and kept meticulous records which proved that her hit rate was significantly higher, that is utterly meaningless.

Unfortunately for her credibility, in the last chapter ' the road ahead' she attempts predictions for the future. The book was published in 1992 and she says Saddam Hussain will detonate a nuclear bomb. She also says science will provide evidence of the psychic within three years.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

The MDC threads are still available on this very site to show how applicants were helped to design their OWN protocols precisely to give the applicants the best possible chance to do what they claimed to be able to do while attempting to rule out chance or cheating (deliberate or unconscious). One part of the protocol which was always recommended was an unblinded test run so they could confirm everything was 'working' before they started. It also contains a few examples of the Try-Fail-Attempt to Move Goalposts cycle.

 

[Darat]

I have just finished reading Nella Jones autobiography. She says that James Randi did not give her enough time to use her psychic senses on the objects he gave her to read. She only had two minutes. The book contains many instances of her helping the police in solving crimes, and letters from police officers confirming it.

Unfortunately for her credibility, in the last chapter ' the road ahead' she attempts predictions for the future. The book was published in 1992 and she says Saddam Hussain will detonate a nuclear bomb. She also says science will provide evidence of the psychic within three years.

In summary - all her predictions and tests that can be verified are wrong. Why would one assume that her unverifiable anecdotes were right?

Plus can you give us the quotes that support your karma angels?

 

[JayUtah]

I have just finished reading Nella Jones autobiography. She says that James Randi did not give her enough time to use her psychic senses on the objects he gave her to read. She only had two minutes.

No.

The conditions of the test are not imposed on the guest. They are negotiated with the claimant and mutually agreed to. If Jones feared she would not have enough time to read the objects, there was a time and place for her to object—and it wasn't after she failed. Skeptics grow tired of the many excuses for failure.

The book contains many instances of her helping the police in solving crimes, and letters from police officers confirming it.

I've also helped police solve crimes.

Unfortunately for her credibility, in the last chapter ' the road ahead' she attempts predictions for the future. The book was published in 1992 and she says Saddam Hussain will detonate a nuclear bomb. She also says science will provide evidence of the psychic within three years.

Yes, she has a poor history of accurate prediction. That is why we reject her claims.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Scorpion why are you spamming random links again?

Moreover, why is he so reluctant to discuss them? As Jay Utah says, it's fairly obvious that Scorpion has googled up some stuff, and uncritically posted it, very likely without having read a single one of the articles. When we start to examine that evidence, its quality and validity, suddenly Scorpion is either nowhere to be found, or else spamming some new thing he's found. This is weird, because you'd think he'd welcome some critical discussion of the evidence for his claims. In fact, the reverse is true: he's not remotely interested in any kind of evaluation of the evidence. He has decided on his beliefs, will never be shaken in them no matter what the facts say, and seems to think that we can be suckered in to these scams by employing the same uncritical fervour to believe that he has.
Not gonna happen, mate.