• 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.

Merged Edgar Cayce

ruach1

Muse
ruach1
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
561
Any thoughts on Edgar Cayce?

Can anyone here articulate the JREF stance on "the sleeping prophet?"
 
I know my stance is that if I never hear about another goddamn almond again, it'll be too soon!

*cough* Sorry, that was another thread on Cayce...
 
UrsulaV said:
I know my stance is that if I never hear about another goddamn almond again, it'll be too soon!

*cough* Sorry, that was another thread on Cayce...
Click to expand...
Yeah. I read that thread after I posted this. It was kinda' lame, and I'm hoping on getting more opinions. I just saw something on SatTv about him, and it looked pretty good.

I understand well the skeptical standpoint espoused so often by Dr. Michael Shermer that people tend to only view the hits while disregarding the misses in "psychic" stuff. But Cayce seems to be better than the misses he had to have made--probably all that business on Atlantis and unorthodox Jesus stuff.

Hoping for more. Thanks U-Five. :)

(Has anyone ever told you that you look naked without an avatar? :) )
 
The Edgar Cayce Foundation will allow you to view his work in complete form. It's not very impressive. Folks usually concentrate on Atlantis (wrong) and his prediction that World War II would occur (lots of folks knew war was coming - Cayce was hardly alone). What they don't remember is that he was mostly a homeopathic hack giving out health advice from afar, and his "remedies" are hysterically funny.

Cayce was not better "than the misses he made." He had hits, but gave thousands of readings, and you can duplicate his success rate, too, given enough opportunities. There just isn't anything to Cayce.
 
Don't forget his failure to pick up, while conducting a remote "diagnosis," on the fact that the subject had expired between the time the letter was sent and the time Cayce performed the "diagnosis."

As for "articulating the JREF stance," I can at least quote Randi's own words concerning Cayce, from chapter 9 of Flim-flam!:
Put to the test, Cayce is found to be bereft of real powers. His reputation today [1982] rests on poor and deceptive reporting of the claims made by him and his followers, and such claims do not stand up to examination.
Click to expand...
 
Mojo said:
Have you read Deuteronomy 18:10-12 yet? It might help you keep your story straight.
Click to expand...
See, this is what I mean. He was allegedly a devout Protestant in Kentucky. Yet his "abilities" did not make the neighborhood get out their torches and pitchforks. Rather, wherever he went, he was embraced because of them.

Cayce was certain to have known all the Bible directives against divination, and his communities of residence were certain to know them as well. Yet he continued to "diagnose" (however successful), and he wasn't burned at any stake because of it.

Additionally (along the religious line...) I heard that he had a vision of a beautiful woman who inspired him to get involved in "healing." Now as a Protestant, he would have just seen a woman. But if he happened to be Catholic, he would have claimed to have witnessed a Marian apparition.

I respect Westphalia's opinion that "they're just isn't anything to Cayce" but I don't agree with it. Further research will surely show humiliating misses, human foibles, and inconsistencies which aren't going to make a SatTV show about him. However, to say there is nothing to Cayce just can't be true--even in light of the very few things I wrote here.

Even if it is only a legend, then there is something about Cayce worth investigating.

Any more thoughts?

(Oh yeah, hey Westphalia: Go Bucks!)
 
Last edited:
The "something about Cayce" worth studying is how to deceive lots of people, preferably as a lesson how not to be deceived by those methods.
 
ruach1 said:
See, this is what I mean. He was allegedly a devout Protestant in Kentucky. Yet his "abilities" did not make the neighborhood get out their torches and pitchforks. Rather, wherever he went, he was embraced because of them.

Cayce was certain to have known all the Bible directives against divination, and his communities of residence were certain to know them as well. Yet he continued to "diagnose" (however successful), and he wasn't burned at any stake because of it.

Additionally (along the religious line...) I heard that he had a vision of a beautiful woman who inspired him to get involved in "healing." Now as a Protestant, he would have just seen a woman. But if he happened to be Catholic, he would have claimed to have witnessed a Marian apparition.

I respect Westphalia's opinion that "they're just isn't anything to Cayce" but I don't agree with it. Further research will surely show humiliating misses, human foibles, and inconsistencies which aren't going to make a SatTV show about him. However, to say there is nothing to Cayce just can't be true--even in light of the very few things I wrote here.

Even if it is only a legend, then there is something about Cayce worth investigating.

Any more thoughts?

(Oh yeah, hey Westphalia: Go Bucks!)
Click to expand...

You might want to check out these threads:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53937&highlight=cayce

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48731&highlight=cayce

The main problem I see with the "medical treatments" Cayce recommended during his "health readings", is that none of them have stood the test of time to any significant degree, and, in the light of modern medical science, most of them seem downright nutty (examples available upon request).
I have done the research, and I haven't found a single medical treatment or procedure which is currently accepted by modern medical science that was suggested, pioneered, or in any way attributable to Edgar Cayce.
 
Mojo said:
Almonds! :p
Click to expand...
Almonds are downright plausible next to his "electrotherapy" cures for multiple sclerosis.

wetcell.gif
 
I used to have a nice collection of his books back in the day. I read them all.

As long as you are a believer,require no proof, and know in your heart that Cayce had a gift from God - they make sense.

If you read them critically, there can be only two possible conclusions - Cayce was a nut or Cayce was a con. Perhaps a little of both.
 
Trantor said:
I used to have a nice collection of his books back in the day. I read them all.

As long as you are a believer,require no proof, and know in your heart that Cayce had a gift from God - they make sense.

If you read them critically, there can be only two possible conclusions - Cayce was a nut or Cayce was a con. Perhaps a little of both.
Click to expand...
I think Trantor is on to something.

I just read the Wiki article on Cayce. It was very informative; thank you Psiload.

However,
If he were a con, why did he try and give up his "abilities?"

Why did he live in relative poverty in relation to how much money he could have made conning people out of thousands of dollars which today would be like millions?

Why did he have a positive reputation for healing especially when his remedies are nothing more than home remedies and can easily be dismissed by science?

If he were a Christian, why did he follow "the voice" as much if not more than biblical teachings?

There's plenty of substance in his life to conclude he was a nut, and there's plenty of substance in his life to conclue he was a con.

But there is also enough in his life to make the previous conclusions inconclusive.

There just seems to be something about Cayce that makes any final word not so final.
 
ruach1 said:
I think Trantor is on to something.

I just read the Wiki article on Cayce. It was very informative; thank you Psiload.

However,
If he were a con, why did he try and give up his "abilities?"
Click to expand...

When did he try to give up his abilities? Who says he tried to give up his abilities? Far from trying to quit, if you look at Cayce's history, you'll see him incorporating a business in order to cash in on his burgeoning career as a "healer".

Why did he live in relative poverty in relation to how much money he could have made conning people out of thousands of dollars which today would be like millions?
Click to expand...

Poverty? Cayce lived in poverty BEFORE he started accepting cash for his medical "treatments". He was a failed garden variety con man (oil and gold mine schemes) before he was a "healer". A self-admitted con man, I might add. Once he started his "medical treatment" business, his days of poverty were over. He made even enough money from his new business to found the A.R.E.

http://www.are-cayce.com/

Why did he have a positive reputation for healing especially when his remedies are nothing more than home remedies and can easily be dismissed by science?
Click to expand...

Why does this man have a best-selling book, despite the fact that his claims can be easily dismissed by science?

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/09/trudeaucoral.htm

If he were a Christian, why did he follow "the voice" as much if not more than biblical teachings?
Click to expand...

Probably for the same reasons why a whole bunch of others Christians have delved into the world of the paranormal... for fun and profit.

There's plenty of substance in his life to conclude he was a nut, and there's plenty of substance in his life to conclue he was a con.

But there is also enough in his life to make the previous conclusions inconclusive.

There just seems to be something about Cayce that makes any final word not so final.
Click to expand...

Yeah... something. The same something that keeps the facts from getting in the way of a good story. The same something that keeps Bigfoot and Elvis alive. There's never been a shortage of something, that's for sure.
 
ruach1 said:
Why did he have a positive reputation for healing especially when his remedies are nothing more than home remedies and can easily be dismissed by science?
Click to expand...
For the same reason homeopathy "works".

Because the vast majority of people who sought his help were suffering from self-limiting conditions that would have healed anyway, or from chronic conditions that fluctuate between better and worse days. Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Because believers will claim to be better even when they are obviously not.

Because failures are blamed on the victim ...err patient... for not believing enough or failing to follow all directions exactly.
 
Last edited:
Because believers keep promoting the nonsense and ignore all contrary evidence.
 
Last edited:
ruach1 said:
...Why did he have a positive reputation for healing especially when his remedies are nothing more than home remedies and can easily be dismissed by science?.....
Click to expand...

Sort of like making mud of spittle, rubbing it into the eyes of a man born blind, then instructing him to wash in a community bath?

Apparently, even if it works, if you don't heal in accordance with the approval of the AMA or the Scribes and Pharisees, you're a quack.

I'd speculate that those who were healed didn't much care what the skeptics and authorities thought.

At least the testimony of the man born blind indicates that........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom