Can the dead talk to us?

[naomi24]

Something a bit different to talk about. Last night's offering from 4thought TV.

The presenter mentions controlled experiments that suggest it is a reality – personally I don’t know of any experiments that are verified - but he also says he seems to have a faculty of mind that takes his awareness beyond his physical five senses to become aware of things that others simply cannot be aware of. Is that possible?

http://www.4thought.t...dy-byng?autoplay=true

[ShallowQueen]

I don't think it matters if the dead can talk to us or not, it's all to do with religion or with the voice in your head, go with what ever you believe.

[ShallowQueen]

Naomi24, why do you care so much about such things if you're an unbeliever? your arguments need to be questioned!

[jomifl]

By your own admission Khandro, quite simply your dog does not know the time, he just knows when you are going to take him for a walk, hadn't you figured that out yourself? I thought for a while that you were going to tell us that he communicates telepathically telling you the time and not forgetting to allow for summer/winter time. I guess your distrust of thinking and relying only on vision has not helped your intellectual development. It is just as well that others do your thinking for you.

[naomi24]

Birdie, an argument that resorts to a personal attack upon a fellow debater speaks for itself. That was horrible, it was inaccurate, and it was uncalled for. I would have hoped such a deliberate attempt at character assassination would have been beneath you – but apparently not. You’re out of order.

ShallowQueen, we’re not talking about religion here, but as an apparently new member of AB perhaps you are unaware that if you want to question my arguments on that subject elsewhere, you’re perfectly at liberty to do so.

[birdie1971]

Naomi - “... Birdie, an argument that resorts to a personal attack upon a fellow debater speaks for itself... You’re out of order....”

I would suggest that deliberately misrepresenting another person's position also speaks volumes about the person making the false claim wouldn't you? Putting words into the mouth of someone when you know damn well that they would never say such a thing is pretty insulting is it not?

You have now attempted to do exactly that on two separate occasions in a bid to try and shore up your own irrational viewpoint. The first was when you falsely claimed that I was attempting to redefine the word 'supernatural' (Naomi [08:31 Thu 01st Nov 2012], “... I haven’t redefined it – but you have...)”, when I had done nothing of the sort. This was a complete fabrication and not content with making it, you further tried to shore up your position by making one of the most ludicrous arguments that I have ever had the displeasure to read. You basically said that since I didn't believe in the supernatural I was effectively contradicting myself by even talking about it or using the word. Your argument is quite laughable.

The second time was when you claimed that [08:38 Fri 02nd Nov 2012], “... you conclude that it’s impossible for anything to exist that is beyond scientific understanding, which assumes that scientific understanding has reached its apex...”

I conclude no such thing. I have responded to that fatuous accusation in an earlier post.


You believe I am out of order. That is your prerogative. However, I don't believe that I am. In fact I would go so far as to say that it is you who is out of order. You have adopted an illogical position and when challenged, have deliberately made false claims about those challenges in an attempt to discredit me personally.

If you want to look at an insulting person Naomi, look in the mirror.

[naomi24]

Birdie, although, in an effort to support this rambling nonsense, you’ve chosen to edit one of my sentences, my position is not illogical, I do not lie, and I do not make fatuous accusations. In my opinion nothing is ‘supernatural’, and therefore that word, just like the words ‘sin’ and ‘atheism’, is superfluous to requirements. This isn’t the first time your hot head has led you to grab the wrong end of the stick, but I’m not going to join you in your penchant for mud-slinging. It’s unnecessary and it’s silly. I was rather hoping this thread would produce some interesting discussion a little bit different to the norm, which it has done until now. If you can’t discuss a subject without insulting people, I suggest you don’t try.

[Khandro]

If the dead could speak to us, they might show less disharmony than you two, please calm down my screen is melting and consider that we'll all joining them afore long. :-)

[naomi24]

I'm calm.

[birdie1971]

Naomi - “... my position is not illogical, I do not lie, and I do not make fatuous accusations...”

Oh dear. Wrong on all three counts I'm afraid.

Your position on this matter is illogical.
You do make fatuous accusations.
You do lie.

You may not like those words but unfortunately they are the truth.


You're playing the hapless victim here. You make unverifiable claims. When someone questions those claims you create pathetic straw-man arguments. When those arguments are questioned and refuted you claim to be the victim of a terrible personal attack.

[naomi24]

Birdie, stop. You're making a twit of yourself - again.

[Theland]

How would any of you attempt to explain Colin Fry and his apparent ability to obtain information about audience members by claiming contact with the dead?

[LazyGun]

@Theland - I would explain Colin Fry in exactly the same way i would explain any other professional entertainer who claims to be a medium - Sally Morgan and that ludicrous individual Derek Acorah for example - its an act. Its fake. Its not magic, its not contacting the dead. Its cold-reading. Its forms filled out by the audience to give the "medium" valuable information upon which to base his act. Its ringers in the audience listening in to conversations in the run up to the show and passing nuggets of information to the entertainer via microphone.

If you want entertainment of that nature, watch Derren Brown - at least he is honest about the fakery involved.

[naomi24]

Theland, if you notice all those shows have a disclaimer attached to them stating that they are for entertainment purposes only.

[mibn2cweus]

The need for evidence is made redundant by the multitudes willing to pay good money for the privilege of being in the company of others who wave their banner of mutual belief as their standard of proof.

[Khandro]

^ "mutual belief", - I don't think so, more like an entertaining suspension of belief, as happens when watching, say, a horror film.

[birdie1971]

Naomi - “... Birdie, stop. You're making a twit of yourself – again...”

I'm now dropping this line of argument because it is abundantly clear that you have absolutely no intention of even acknowledging that you have said anything illogical or created shockingly transparent straw-men in a desperate attempt to counter my claims. You're quite correct in suspecting that there is a 'twit' on this thread. Unfortunately, you're looking in the wrong direction.

[naomi24]

:o)