PseudoSkepticism Is An Organized Act Of Spiritual Terrorism

Lis Correctly Posted

All of us are made of different mindsets and personality types. Regardless none of us, Siritualists or spiritualists, Siritists or spiritists can ever deny that Frontline PseudoSkepticism Is An Organized Act Of Spiritual Terrorism.

Sure, it is easy, and we certainly should, ignore the "forests'" and the Jon Dennis' since their ultimate contributions are to embarass themselves, disparage their own malicious causes and derail their less than moral efforts to persuade. But make no doubt, they are the self-assigned foot soldeirs and the marching, front-line fodder for the Randis', Shermers', Frenchs', Wisemans' and Dawkinns' of the properly organized mainstream pseudoskepticism movement.

Materialistic pseudoskepticism may well be winning the hearts and minds, especially of today's youth, with their materialistic dogma, nonsensical fatalism and survival of robotism nothingness.

Just a reminder. Be ever vigilante.

Hmm not this forums job we will never change those minds. We will always allow debate but if anyone steps over particular lines then the Admin and Moderators of the forum will act. This can mean people are banned and threads removed if not deleted.

Jim

Entire post deleted by Admin behave on this forum Thunders I replied to your email, maybe you had better check whichever of your inboxes relates to the email account you sent it from.

Jim

I think u will be following him thunders once the moderators catch on.

Helo everyone,

Well I don't know if I would call it terrorism, but whatever, we can never in the long run win any of these debates. People are entlitled to be on whatever side of the fence they feel happier being on. My main argument is that many people just will not look at the facts!!.

I have thought long and hard about this for many many years now. I have tried to debunk the whole thing, applied logic, filled myself full of doubts and questions, and indeed I still do. Readers on here will know by now that my interest is in that most 'dubious' of spiritualistic phenomena, physical mediumship. Within this however is a spirtiual gem and truth which blows wide open uneducated and irrational skepticism.

In relation to this I will say the following. I have witnessed a good deal of this phenomena FIRST HAND, and even if at times I may have been deluded or duped this is by no means always the case. I have observed things in front of multiple witnesses, and we were not all mad or deluded.

I have taken great comfort from the physical mediumship of old, and the fantastic evidence and manifestations which litter the annals of spiritualism ( and that is before we get to all the fanatasic mental mediumship there has been ).

Even accepting that part of this 'evidence' may have been the result of delusion and/or fraud it certainly cannot be applied to it all.

I maintain that if any rational, even minded individual takes the time and trouble to examine the phenomena in depth; and with a questioning mind they cannot fail to aknowledge that there is a germ of great truth here. The problem with many of the detractors is that they fail to do this, or at least concentrate on only one facet to strengethen their argument ( ie as per 'forest' ).

I have been on this quest so far over 40 years, and what a lot I don't know and have to learn!!!.

I do get exasperated by the constant arguments ( perhaps I should not have added to this by challenging the recent posts by the likes of 'forest', but I needed to say something!! ). However, here is an interesting web site which some of you may or may not know about regarding the skeptical argument. An iteresting read.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/

All the best

LeroyC

Hi Leroy

I agree, I don't think it constitutes terrorism - it's just ignorant and boorish. The misapplication of the term 'sceptic' to the people you are referring to is unfortunate. Pseudosceptic is much better as the topic suggests. Such people are usually not sceptics in the true sense, they are cynics. Their approach is simply one of denial of reported evidence and their approach is sometimes brutish and counter-productive. They have an agenda, as do some believers, and all's fair in love and war and all that.

What comes out of such approaches is often, from the serious explorers, a reference back to the actual reported details and a closer examination of these (eg the Helen Duncan photographs which has prompted interesting discussions both here and on other forums). If it is possible, I try to look at such challenges as opportunities to learn. I am not interested in combat, as my own position on the matter is not settled and the firing of salvos of assertions back and forth does not seem to help interested observers reach any kind of clarity - of course that isn't the psedosceptics objective, it is simple to win the argument by any means because they have already decided they are correct.

The key, as evinced by your own experience, is knowledge. The way to get a balanced view is to examine as much of the evidence as possible, either way, and reserve judgement until the underlying picture is revealed. This may be a stunning incontrovertible piece of personal evidence, or the reaching of some kind of 'critical mass' of evidence. Pinning one's opinion on the performance of a particular medium's reported doings (one way or the other), or the observation of one particular person, or of a small group seems unwise if our objective is to find the truth of the matter.

Great posts Leroy and Obi totally agree with you. Like you Leroy I still doubt then I do a reading, platform mediumship, bend a spoon or get tables moving and I know there is a psychic energy force which can create telekinesis and also that loved one's can communicate.

Thanks for the link Leroy a number of us who do a lot of research have been discussing this very issue

Hello everyone,

Glad you found the link of use. This topic is a great one for here. In fact I have found the information and posts on this site to be most informative with clear balanced views from contributors and the admin. I only wish I could say that about other sites!!.

I 'post' from the north of England, but thinking about being 'skeptic' makes me think about Spiritualists in general, who quite often I am afraid are willing to accept the most stupid arguments and 'so called evidence'.

We need to be much more critical ourselves, which has made me think of one physical medium, Evan John Powel, the 'preacher' medium.

Powel was active in the 1920's in the Uk, an ex welsh miner. Many researcher held him in great admiration, including the American researcher J. Malcolm Bird who was quite often scathing about mediums.

Powell would strip prior to seances and insisted that he be tied and held by sitters on either side of him. He produced light phenomena, telekenesis and direct voice phenomena; and his guide 'Black Hawk' would be most keen to establish no fraud was taking place.

Indeed he would ask sitters if they were satisfied with the seance, and explain general points and go over issues if sitters had doubts. Black Hawk made a series of statements in which he was quite adamant. He told sitters that there was a memorial to himself in Illinois, USA and that a book had been written about his life.

Some 20 years later these statements were proved correct, and also an American book dealer found the book, written in Boston in 1834 called 'Life of Ma-Ka-Tai-Me-She-Kia-Kiak or Black hawk, dictated by himself.

Interesting medium, and a man I think of integrity.

LeroyC

Wonderful information Leroy thankyou for sharing that. I will look into that medium.

I totally agree with your points again. At times the nonsense people seem willing to accept scares me. Indeed I feel that it is this willingness which has helped to see the standards of mediumship and talks drop away in Spiritualist Centres. I am not sure how many thinking people those centres are likely to convince about our truth and I do not mean convincing pseudo sceptics but those genuinely open minded enquirer's who attend.

And according to Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, a skeptic is:

"One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons."

Of course, this happy position repeats in our lives again and again as we learn that yesterdays 'truth' is quite limited in scope. The glorious world of today is teeming with evidence of this as monuments to permanence crash and crumble all around.
The notion that a Canutean approach can be applied to control evolutionary energy as it unfolds would be quite hilarious, were it not taken seriously.

Violent defined:

1. Marked by, acting with, or resulting from great force: a violent attack.
2. Having or showing great emotional force: violent dislike.
3. Marked by intensity; extreme: violent pain; a violent squall. See Synonyms at intense.
4. Tending to distort or injure meaning, phrasing, or intent.

Terrorism defined:

1. systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal

Spiritual terrorists.

<eom>

I think this devalues the meaning of the word terrorism tbh.

obiwan wrote:I think this devalues the meaning of the word terrorism tbh.

Aye, I would have thought that after the events of September 2011, that the word would only be associated with acts of death and destruction.

Yes I agree with that view.

Leroy, I do not know if you subscribe to psypioneer (the free historical e paper) They have several good articles about Powell, including his effect on Doyle which led to the death of Sherlock Holmes.
http://www.woodlandway.org/PDF/PP7.7July2011.pdf
http://www.woodlandway.org/PDF/PP7.8August2011.pdf
http://www.woodlandway.org/PDF/PP7.10October2011.pdf