That's probably why we never perceive the Spirtual world.Quote by: barts
That's probably why we never perceive the Spirtual world.
I'm rearing to go on this one - so please hurry up and give me something specific to get my teeth into - thanks.
I don't think it proves anything. I think it clearly supports - particularly with the research that produced recordings and photographs of manifestations that looked, sounded, and responded like persons known to be deceased - that something exists in "reality" that corresponds to spiritual claims of spirits, ghosts, and an afterlife.
I'm not sure how one dismisses recorded evidence as subjective perception.
It follows that (if we never perceive it) nothing speaks for its existence. Correct?
"I wish I was as cocksure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything."
-- Viscount Melbourne
In the course of an extended investigation into Spiritualism I was involved in for several years, off and on, I experienced first-hand some of the phenomena you describe, including 'materialisation' and, repeatedly, so-called 'direct voice' seances... Most of these were meticulously recorded on tape as they took place.
The latter were conducted at the home of the best-known 'voice medium' of the 20th Century (Leslie Flint) here in London, (tapes of whose many seances are now available on the net, often purporting to be the voices of famous deceased people).
I only wish I could say that I was impressed by what I experienced in person.
To give but one example, I was 'told' by these mysterious voices (in a totally darkened room) that my grandfather wished to speak to me. Needless to say, I was intrigued -- until a highly-cultured aristocratic voice started to speak to me at great length in English, seeming to originate a few inches from my ear. . . Now imagine my surprise - neither of my grandfathers spoke a word of English (being a mono-lingual Welsh farmer and coal-miner respectively).
Being polite, and not wishing to disrupt proceedings, I went along with this charade just to see where it would lead to, but after a while my scepticism showed and the seance came to an abrupt halt - the spirits being, so I was told, too perturbed to continue, as I was introducing a negative vibration, or something to that effect.
Draw your own conclusions. . . Flint (now dead himself) appears to have a vigourous following among occultists, and is often cited as the best 'proof' of life after death. Maybe the seances I attended were not representative, but anyone interested can make their own minds up by googling him and listening for themselves.
Since then, (1970s) I have had many similar experiences of many mediums, often with complete conviction themselves, attempting to offer me similar 'proof' - only to disappoint me on all levels, despite their sincerity in most cases, even though I kept an open mind throughout.
That, for what it's worth, is my sad conclusion on Spiritualistic communication with the dead.
added... in the interest of balance, perhaps I should say that I have been inexplicably startled by unexplained noises, as when I was having tea with an old lady who was telling me that her dead husband was still around. For no reason, an extremely loud knock emanated from a nearby piece of furniture - which cased me to spill my tea. Her only comment was - "oh! hello Harold"...
LeslieFlint.com
Last edited by GeminiBrian; 24th July 2009 at 04:24 PM.
When you say "research", is this research of a form that meets generally recognized academic rigor? By asking that question, I'm not implying that if the findings of the research you're relying on for your views doesn't meet that standard that its findings are false.
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd - Voltaire
From what I can tell, it seems to me that everything I've posted so far meets normal standards of scientific rigor, with the qualification that the Scole Experiment was never published to my knowledge in a peer reviewed journal.
Then please offer a link that does meet the normal standards of scientific rigor, ie, one that has been in a peer reviewed journal.
I've already listed several in the opening 2 posts.
You have and the summary is
In the countless number of recorded observations I have read, there appear to be few instances of meetings held for the express purpose of getting the phenomena under test conditions in the presence of persons properly qualified by scientific training to weigh and adjust the value of the evidence which might present itself. The only good series of test experiments I have met with were tried by the Count de Gasparin, and he, whilst admitting the genuineness of the phenomena, came to the conclusion that they were not due to supernatural agency.
- William Crookes -
In other words all you have managed to do is once again prove your own personal claim that if you believe evidence might exist it therefore , somehow , magically, must exist.
You might actually read his whole report, Soylent. There's more than one page. Crookes began his study a biased skeptic against spiritualism; he left thoroughly convinced that at least those he studied were completely genuine.
You might also peruse the other links I've provided, especially the one to the NDE study published in the Lancet.
Knockings are evidence, but of what? Gullibility? There be some good magicians not on stage. I'm talking the big con. Not some little pip-squeak séance that might net the operators thousands of dollars and get them syndicated on TV for more. When all it takes is a little sleight of hand, knockings, and speech from "beyond the grave" to inspire hope, then we are hopeless. Hopelessly incapable of detecting the nationwide con. Unfortunately, the more credentials you have, the easier you are to con. What does it take to catch the con? A person experienced in the ways of the con.
Let's say you knew that horse racing was crooked. What would be the result if you were to publish this info to make some quick money? Dead. What if you used your knowledge of how the con worked to make a fortune at the track? Dead again. Why? Because this con is closely guarded. Its appearance is that of a legitimate game of chance. The best cons are presented as "sure things" beyond reproach, by including the backing of respected authority. Your Mr. Crookes, for example. I've seen nothing to indicate him as a con artist. A dupe, maybe.
I know the spiritual world and I have no stomach for those entities who prey on others' greed, fear, gullibility, and desperation.
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks