• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

The razor of Hitchens and the Spirits!

Psychography and Mediumistic Experiences: Letters written by mediums such as Chico Xavier are often cited as proof of the existence of spirits. Studies indicate that these messages contained specific and verifiable information about deceased people, later confirmed by their families. A study conducted by Dr. Paulo Rossi revealed that 93% of the people who visited Chico Xavier had not previously known him, and 71% of the messages contained detailed information that was confirmed.
Why should we accept the word of somebody who was probably a fraud?

 
Is it allowed to discuss in this forum using artificial intelligence?
Many have already told you that it is allowed, but you must make it clear that you are doing so.

But a word of warning: ‘Artificial Intelligence’ may sound nice, but though it is artificial, it is not always intelligent, and the samples you have already brought, we’re not good arguments at all. So you should not think that artificial intelligence is in any way an authority.
 
This is a discussion site, not a book club. If YOU believe it contains evidence introduce it, we're not here to do your homework for you.
 
You could read these books! Do you want the link to these books in English?
Again? Have you forgotten that you already supplied that link? Have you forgotten what's in the books? If you want to talk about the things you read in the books then please go ahead.
 
They tell me after I come back that they yawned!

Ooo! Oooooo! That explains it!

And I want to participate in the eggsparamint!

Here goes:

I didn't yawn just now.

Or is that cooking the data? It is, isn't it. Gosh, I'm sorry. I'll try to do better.
 
Is it allowed to discuss in this forum using artificial intelligence?
As you have been told a number of times, you may quote "artificial intelligence" sources as long as you identify them and disclose your prompt. However, you seem to be leaning toward AI chatbots, and you seem to be considering them some sort of oracle or panacea of wisdom. They're just computer programs that can semi-creatively regurgitate transformations of their prior input. That their prior input comprises many volumes gives them a comprehensive scope, but their algorithms do not achieve much insightful depth. As such they cannot think any better or harder about these questions than the philosophers and scientists who have contributed to them. Besides, the question of whether spiritism is supported adequately by empirical evidence does not require a great deal of thought. Insinuating that a computer program can somehow reach a more honest or reliable answer than a simple, "No, there isn't any credible evidence," is fairly disingenuous. Frantically trying to shift the burden of proof doesn't help you either; no one need state any reason to disbelieve a claim for which there is no evidence beyond noting the absence of evidence.
 
Last edited:
You could read these books! Do you want the link to these books in English?
Don't assume your critics are unfamiliar with your sources. Kardec's books have been around for 160 years. They are very well known and much discussed. The flaws in Kardec's reasoning are reasonably well known, such as his inappropriate trust in mediumship and his classist-narcissistic end run around reproducibility (i.e., that only "special" people can understand and appreciate spiritism). These remain problems in modern spirit belief.

If you want to use Kardec as a source, you should present one or two of his arguments that you consider most convincing and be prepared to defend them.
 
If you want to use Kardec as a source, you should present one or two of his arguments that you consider most convincing and be prepared to defend them.
Many people report to feel the presence of spirits through intense emotions, such as a sudden cold or an inexplicable sense of peace when they are in certain places. These perceptions can be seen as an intuitive knowledge about the spiritual presence.
 
Yawning is a unconsious reflex for humans. One yawns and eventually everyone in sight does. Try to resist it if you aren't the first. Or be the first and watch others follow.
It's an experiment anyone can do.

Calderaro, in a brief few lines, in your own words tell us the benefits and improvement in your personal life for belief in spiritism.

How did you choose this particular versión of it? Is there a group of like minds in your community?
 
Many people report to feel the presence of spirits through intense emotions, such as a sudden cold or an inexplicable sense of peace when they are in certain places. These perceptions can be seen as an intuitive knowledge about the spiritual presence.
And this rises no higher on the evidentiary scale than wishy, feely thinking. What people feel or think they feel is not any sort of evidence in favor of some random hypothesis to which they wish to attribute those perceptions.
 
you need to study what pathological skepticism or pseudoskepticism is.
None of that is on display here. What you see here are seasoned, experienced skeptics fending off a fairly standard exercise of begging the question and shifting the burden of proof. Your arguments are neither novel nor convincing enough to support a charge of pseudoskepticism against your critics.
 
And this rises no higher on the evidentiary scale than wishy, feely thinking. What people feel or think they feel is not any sort of evidence in favor of some random hypothesis to which they wish to attribute those perceptions.
why do you only accept empirical evidence?
 
None of that is on display here. What you see here are seasoned, experienced skeptics fending off a fairly standard exercise of begging the question and shifting the burden of proof. Your arguments are neither novel nor convincing enough to support a charge of pseudoskepticism against your critics.
but why?
 
None of that is on display here. What you see here are seasoned, experienced skeptics fending off a fairly standard exercise of begging the question and shifting the burden of proof. Your arguments are neither novel nor convincing enough to support a charge of pseudoskepticism against your critics.
Although there is no concrete evidence for the existence of spirits, this does not mean that they cannot exist. This line of reasoning challenges the idea that science should have all the answers.
 
None of that is on display here. What you see here are seasoned, experienced skeptics fending off a fairly standard exercise of begging the question and shifting the burden of proof. Your arguments are neither novel nor convincing enough to support a charge of pseudoskepticism against your critics.
empirical evidence is not the sole arbiter of truth in discussions about the existence of spirits.
 
And this rises no higher on the evidentiary scale than wishy, feely thinking. What people feel or think they feel is not any sort of evidence in favor of some random hypothesis to which they wish to attribute those perceptions.
empirical evidence is not the sole arbiter of truth in discussions about the existence of spirits.
 
Fringe reset: when an adversary who is taking an... unconventional... argumentative position realizes they have screwed the pooch so badly, they want a do-over. The "fringe" position wants to "reset" the argument clock at zero minutes.

Also: frosted tips never go out of style. Fight me.
 
Back
Top Bottom