Existence of spirits! do not know ..

[Flacus]

Never mind the books and videos for now. Let's speak of your own experiences.

Merely doing unusual things and asserting spirits caused it is not evidence.

I have myself yawned a few times today. That's not even something unusual.

On what basis do you conclude your particular yawns (for example) are caused by spirits?

you being skeptical will find it funny what I'm going to say ... I think it's a smart force because when I start to say prayer or pray yawning or yawning ends or ends in the instant! How does prayer relate to yawning?

[ed]

I channel spirits with great regularity.

[Anaxagoras]

Yawning and chills are evidence of spirits? Come on.

[Rob Lister]

OK. Benefit of the doubt time is over for me.

Diagnosis time: I don't detect any deliberate fakery, but the flavor of woowoo is neither amusing nor ideologically interesting.

Damn I miss Judge Floro.

JFC, more than 15 years here and more elsewhere and you still can't smell a sock even with your nose right in it. You should all have your skeptic cards revoked.

[Rob Lister]

I'm guessing but yea, ed.

[ed]

Not me. Really.

[Rob Lister]

Not me. Really.

Swear on this here stack of bibles

https://i.imgur.com/PYQ5wYM.jpg

[ed]

Bibles??? :twisted:

No prob. I swear.

[sparks]

robinson. This sock would be his brand of humor.

[Rob Lister]

far too subtle for Robinson.

[sparks]

Perhaps you're right. Trembling and yawning doesn't sound like the sort of shit he'd come up with as evidence of teh spiritz in our worldz.

[Anaxagoras]

Definitely Ed.
He even subtly alluded to it earlier.

I channel spirits with great regularity.

Confess!!!!

[asthmatic camel]

Sock or not, it's a very poor quality woo. Remember the greats?

*SIGH*

[Rob Lister]

Yea. There were some great ones on JREF. Saddly, I can't remember any of their names. They actually believed their woo.

[asthmatic camel]

Interesting Ian was one of my favourites. Despite being batshit crazy he was actually quite a likeable bloke. Used to sing to us on Paltalk when he was pissed-up sometimes. :)

[Fid]

Indeed, those were fun times. Interesting Ian, Icantakepicturesofdemons, that cloud buster guy, OneinChrist (aka Oneinch). And those that make me wish spirits were real Mr.Skinny (aka SeniorFlaco), CoolHand, Dr.Matt,Robert Lancaster, DeBunk. Hell even Hal.

[Pyrrho]

What's this about DeBunk? Did I miss something?

[Fid]

Naa, as far as I know he's still impacting testes but it's a dog's age since.

[sparks]

I don't recall DeBunk, Dr. Matt or CoolHand being particularly full of woo. CoolHand had some strange ideas about Von Braun, sure. But that's just a lack of information as opposed to woo which is an active belief in complete bullshit previously debunked in multiple ways at multiple venues.

Blue holes kids! You just know the Atlanteans made 'em. :) From space with their Smirnoff powered laser drills!!11Eleventy

[Flacus]

https://www.netflix.com/br/title/80997400
watch the movie KARDEC on netflix

[Rob Lister]

https://www.netflix.com/br/title/80997400
watch the movie KARDEC on netflix

I thought you were done. If you're going to stay here, you better be in it for the long haul. I don't want to see another <100 post poster. A good sock always does better than 100.

[Flacus]

https://www.netflix.com/br/title/80997400
watch the movie KARDEC on netflix

I thought you were done. If you're going to stay here, you better be in it for the long haul. I don't want to see another <100 post poster. A good sock always does better than 100.

Why don't you believe in spirits? How did you come to the conclusion that this is a groundless belief?

[Anaxagoras]

https://www.netflix.com/br/title/80997400
watch the movie KARDEC on netflix

I thought you were done. If you're going to stay here, you better be in it for the long haul. I don't want to see another <100 post poster. A good sock always does better than 100.

Why don't you believe in spirits? How did you come to the conclusion that this is a groundless belief?

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9213932/

Watched the trailer. Doesn't look like compelling evidence to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardec_(film)

Hippolyte Léon Denizard Rivail, a French educator who, when studying the phenomenon of "Spinning tables ", discovers that there is the possibility of communicating with the spirits. As an encoder of the Spiritism doctrine, Professor Rivail assumes the pseudonym of Allan Kardec and elaborates, under the guidance of the spirits, the five main books that guide Spiritist studies.

Whether this is "based on a true story" or not (and it doesn't even appear to make a claim of being anything other than fiction: it's described as a "drama"), seances basically use parlour tricks to fool the participants.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Séance

You might want to listen to or read this:

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4179

[Witness]

https://i.imgur.com/F88VgWx.jpg

[Witness]

I think I get the rest.

What is ASBL?

I presume it means Association Sans But Lucratif, Non-profit Organization.

[Anaxagoras]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Kardec

Rivail was in his early 50s when he became interested in séances, which were a popular entertainment at the time. Strange phenomena attributed to the action of spirits were considered a novelty, featuring objects that moved or "tapped", purportedly under the control of 'spirits'. In some cases, this was alleged to be a type of communication: the supposed spirits answered questions by controlling the movements of objects so as to pick out letters to form words, or simply indicate "yes" or "no".[9][note 1] At the time, Franz Mesmer's theory of animal magnetism had become popular. When confronted with the phenomena described, some researchers, including Rivail, pointed out that animal magnetism might explain them. Rivail, however, after seeing a demonstration, dismissed animal magnetism as insufficient to explain his observations.[10]

As a result of these influences, Rivail began his own investigation of psychic phenomena, mainly mediumship.[2] During his initial investigation, he stated that before accepting a spiritual or paranormal cause for some phenomena, it would be necessary first to test if ordinary material causes could explain them. He proposed that fraud, hallucination and unconscious mental activity might explain many phenomena regarded as mediumistic, and also proposed that telepathy and clairvoyance may be responsible.[11]

He compiled over one thousand questions concerning the nature and mechanisms of spirit communications, the reasons for human life on earth, and aspects of the spiritual realm. He asked those questions to ten mediums, all purportedly unknown to each other, and documented their responses. From these, he concluded that the best explanation was that personalities that had survived death were the source of at least some mediumistic communications.[12] He became convinced that the mediums:

provided accurate information unknown to themselves or others present (e.g. personal information about deceased individuals);
demonstrated unlearned skills such as writing by illiterate mediums, handwriting similar to the alleged communicating personality, and speaking or writing in a language unknown to the medium (xenoglossy and xenography);
accurately portrayed a range of personality characteristics of deceased individuals.
He compiled the mediums' responses that were consistent and adapted them into a philosophy that he called Spiritism, which he initially defined as "a science that deals with the nature, origin, and destiny of spirits, and their relation with the corporeal world."[13][14][14]

OK, so some 19th century dude was fooled by so-called "mediums".
Seances are really pretty well debunked though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritism

Spiritism is a spiritualistic philosophy started in the 19th century by the French educator Hippolyte Léon Denizard Rivail, who, under the pen name Allan Kardec, wrote books on "the nature, origin, and destiny of spirits, and their relation with the corporeal world".[1][2][3] Spiritists refer to Kardec as the codifier.

Spiritist philosophy postulates that humans, along with all other living beings, are essentially immortal spirits that temporarily inhabit physical bodies for several necessary incarnations to attain moral and intellectual improvement. It also asserts that disembodied spirits, through passive or active mediumship, may have beneficent or malevolent influence on the physical world.[4] Spiritism is an evolution-affirming religion.

The term first appeared in Kardec's book, The Spirits Book, which sought to distinguish Spiritism from spiritualism.[1]

Spiritism is currently represented in 35 countries by the International Spiritist Council.[5] It has influenced a social movement of healing centers, charity institutions and hospitals involving millions of people in dozens of countries, with the greatest number of adherents in Brazil.[1] Spiritism is also very influential in Cao Đài, a Vietnamese religion started in 1926 by three spirit mediums who claimed to have received messages that identified Allan Kardec as a prophet of a new universal religion.[6]

I guess that would explain why this film is made in Brazil. It's like a minor religion I suppose,

[Witness]

Kardec still has some followers: people come to his tomb in Paris to "feel" his spirit (no more delusional than "feeling" the presence of gOD at church, say; and no less).

His period was also the heyday of "spirit photography" (extremely crude fakes by today's slightly more sophisticated standards), mediums vomiting ectoplasms, ouija boards, radiesthesia, "scientific" astrology, esotericism e tutti quanti.


https://i.imgur.com/FUWCyL8.jpg

[Flacus]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Kardec

Rivail was in his early 50s when he became interested in séances, which were a popular entertainment at the time. Strange phenomena attributed to the action of spirits were considered a novelty, featuring objects that moved or "tapped", purportedly under the control of 'spirits'. In some cases, this was alleged to be a type of communication: the supposed spirits answered questions by controlling the movements of objects so as to pick out letters to form words, or simply indicate "yes" or "no".[9][note 1] At the time, Franz Mesmer's theory of animal magnetism had become popular. When confronted with the phenomena described, some researchers, including Rivail, pointed out that animal magnetism might explain them. Rivail, however, after seeing a demonstration, dismissed animal magnetism as insufficient to explain his observations.[10]

As a result of these influences, Rivail began his own investigation of psychic phenomena, mainly mediumship.[2] During his initial investigation, he stated that before accepting a spiritual or paranormal cause for some phenomena, it would be necessary first to test if ordinary material causes could explain them. He proposed that fraud, hallucination and unconscious mental activity might explain many phenomena regarded as mediumistic, and also proposed that telepathy and clairvoyance may be responsible.[11]

He compiled over one thousand questions concerning the nature and mechanisms of spirit communications, the reasons for human life on earth, and aspects of the spiritual realm. He asked those questions to ten mediums, all purportedly unknown to each other, and documented their responses. From these, he concluded that the best explanation was that personalities that had survived death were the source of at least some mediumistic communications.[12] He became convinced that the mediums:

provided accurate information unknown to themselves or others present (e.g. personal information about deceased individuals);
demonstrated unlearned skills such as writing by illiterate mediums, handwriting similar to the alleged communicating personality, and speaking or writing in a language unknown to the medium (xenoglossy and xenography);
accurately portrayed a range of personality characteristics of deceased individuals.
He compiled the mediums' responses that were consistent and adapted them into a philosophy that he called Spiritism, which he initially defined as "a science that deals with the nature, origin, and destiny of spirits, and their relation with the corporeal world."[13][14][14]

OK, so some 19th century dude was fooled by so-called "mediums".
Seances are really pretty well debunked though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritism

Spiritism is a spiritualistic philosophy started in the 19th century by the French educator Hippolyte Léon Denizard Rivail, who, under the pen name Allan Kardec, wrote books on "the nature, origin, and destiny of spirits, and their relation with the corporeal world".[1][2][3] Spiritists refer to Kardec as the codifier.

Spiritist philosophy postulates that humans, along with all other living beings, are essentially immortal spirits that temporarily inhabit physical bodies for several necessary incarnations to attain moral and intellectual improvement. It also asserts that disembodied spirits, through passive or active mediumship, may have beneficent or malevolent influence on the physical world.[4] Spiritism is an evolution-affirming religion.

The term first appeared in Kardec's book, The Spirits Book, which sought to distinguish Spiritism from spiritualism.[1]

Spiritism is currently represented in 35 countries by the International Spiritist Council.[5] It has influenced a social movement of healing centers, charity institutions and hospitals involving millions of people in dozens of countries, with the greatest number of adherents in Brazil.[1] Spiritism is also very influential in Cao Đài, a Vietnamese religion started in 1926 by three spirit mediums who claimed to have received messages that identified Allan Kardec as a prophet of a new universal religion.[6]

I guess that would explain why this film is made in Brazil. It's like a minor religion I suppose,

https://ssbaltimore.org/e-books/
skeptics must know everything! This is the link to download these books!
https://ssbaltimore.org/e-books/

[sparks]

Was it really necessary to post the link twice?

And no, I won't be downloading the books unless and until you convince me with evidences that teh spiritz exist.

But damn, you can't. It's just a bleef you hang on to 'cause it makes you feel better about yourself.

[Anaxagoras]

https://ssbaltimore.org/e-books/
skeptics must know everything! This is the link to download these books!
https://ssbaltimore.org/e-books/

No, not really. I don't need to read the complete works of some 19th Century woo-woo to know that this is bullshit.

BTW, did you read the information I posted above? If you want to know the truth, read it. You probably don't want to know.

[Flacus]

https://ssbaltimore.org/e-books/
skeptics must know everything! This is the link to download these books!
https://ssbaltimore.org/e-books/

No, not really. I don't need to read the complete works of some 19th Century woo-woo to know that this is bullshit.

BTW, did you read the information I posted above? If you want to know the truth, read it. You probably don't want to know.

why do you think this is bullshit? What is your personal empirical evidence that makes you realize that this is bullshit? Have you done a personal research on this belief?

[Anaxagoras]

https://ssbaltimore.org/e-books/
skeptics must know everything! This is the link to download these books!
https://ssbaltimore.org/e-books/

No, not really. I don't need to read the complete works of some 19th Century woo-woo to know that this is bullshit.

BTW, did you read the information I posted above? If you want to know the truth, read it. You probably don't want to know.

why do you think this is bullshit? What is your personal empirical evidence that makes you realize that this is bullshit? Have you done a personal research on this belief?

I refer you to the links I posted earlier:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Séance

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4179

[Flacus]

In a debate each side must prove their assertions. If a skeptic doesn't believe in spirits, he must explain why. Usually his disbelief is based on rejection of the evidence said to demonstrate the existence of spirits. Therefore in a debate, the skeptic is required to justify his position of disbelief by proving that what is asserted to be evidence for the existence of spirits is invalid. He doesn't have to prove spirits don't exist, he only has to prove there is no justification for belief in spirits.

[asthmatic camel]

'Nuff's 'nuff.

https://i.imgur.com/yRJv5Vo.jpg

[sparks]

In a debate each side must prove their assertions.

Wrong son. It is up to the person making the claim to superior knowledge to prove their point. Not up to us to disprove it. Grow a set and learn.


Son.

[Flacus]

In a debate each side must prove their assertions.

Wrong son. It is up to the person making the claim to superior knowledge to prove their point. Not up to us to disprove it. Grow a set and learn.


Son.

But then why don't you believe in spirits?

[Flacus]

:) :guitar:

[ed]

In a debate each side must prove their assertions. If a skeptic doesn't believe in spirits, he must explain why. Usually his disbelief is based on rejection of the evidence said to demonstrate the existence of spirits. Therefore in a debate, the skeptic is required to justify his position of disbelief by proving that what is asserted to be evidence for the existence of spirits is invalid. He doesn't have to prove spirits don't exist, he only has to prove there is no justification for belief in spirits.

No, not really.

You are making an assertion. An assertion for which most disinterested parties would disagree. The onus is on you to provide proof. There is a well known meme that summarizes the logic of this but suffice it to say that if you were accused of something it would decidedly not be up to you to prove anything. It would be up to the state to prove their accusation. Just the way it works.

Let me say first that, having read thru this thread, that you have been sorta sloppy. Sorry old bean but there it is.

What you need to do is to define terms. Very specifically and narrowly. Define "spirit". At the same time you are going to have to show how natural law allows for such things or, if no, how they fit in. Arm waving and rants about "thematic parallel planes of existence" are not acceptable. Neologisms are not acceptable. Made up words and phrases have zero standing as explanations.

n.b. Any appeal to quantum mechanics will result in a snap quiz on integral calculus.

Now define the realms of evidence that might be reliable in terms of proving the existence of the thing that you have defined. Clearly videos from one pov without a sterling provenience and without multiple corroborations are useless. If the "manifestations" are phenomenological then it behooves you to provide some framework for them. If they are reproduceable then we are 80% of the way there. We live in a world where video can be produced for $0.50. Having one shitty camera angle is suggestive of fraud.

As a side note: irreproduceability is a hallmark of these sorts of things. The fact that they cannot be reproduced is NOT proof of their existence.

So, start with definitions. They should be clear enough so that a reasonably clever 8th grader could understand them and play them back accurately in his or her own words.

Then we can get to the nature of acceptable evidence. I am happy to watch anything. Just remember that multiple pov's and corroborations from independent observers are necessary before I will spend time watching amateur sci fi.

OK?

Have at it.

[Flacus]

In a debate each side must prove their assertions. If a skeptic doesn't believe in spirits, he must explain why. Usually his disbelief is based on rejection of the evidence said to demonstrate the existence of spirits. Therefore in a debate, the skeptic is required to justify his position of disbelief by proving that what is asserted to be evidence for the existence of spirits is invalid. He doesn't have to prove spirits don't exist, he only has to prove there is no justification for belief in spirits.

No, not really.

You are making an assertion. An assertion for which most disinterested parties would disagree. The onus is on you to provide proof. There is a well known meme that summarizes the logic of this but suffice it to say that if you were accused of something it would decidedly not be up to you to prove anything. It would be up to the state to prove their accusation. Just the way it works.

Let me say first that, having read thru this thread, that you have been sorta sloppy. Sorry old bean but there it is.

What you need to do is to define terms. Very specifically and narrowly. Define "spirit". At the same time you are going to have to show how natural law allows for such things or, if no, how they fit in. Arm waving and rants about "thematic parallel planes of existence" are not acceptable. Neologisms are not acceptable. Made up words and phrases have zero standing as explanations.

n.b. Any appeal to quantum mechanics will result in a snap quiz on integral calculus.

Now define the realms of evidence that might be reliable in terms of proving the existence of the thing that you have defined. Clearly videos from one pov without a sterling provenience and without multiple corroborations are useless. If the "manifestations" are phenomenological then it behooves you to provide some framework for them. If they are reproduceable then we are 80% of the way there. We live in a world where video can be produced for $0.50. Having one shitty camera angle is suggestive of fraud.

As a side note: irreproduceability is a hallmark of these sorts of things. The fact that they cannot be reproduced is NOT proof of their existence.

So, start with definitions. They should be clear enough so that a reasonably clever 8th grader could understand them and play them back accurately in his or her own words.

Then we can get to the nature of acceptable evidence. I am happy to watch anything. Just remember that multiple pov's and corroborations from independent observers are necessary before I will spend time watching amateur sci fi.

OK?

Have at it.

I want to know how science or scientists came to the conclusion that this is a groundless belief? what's the name of these scientists? Were they physical?

[Flacus]

I am neither a scientist nor a researcher!