Why do some believe easily, others hardly at all?

[George-ananda]

I'm not sure whether you've ever heard of the psychic medium, Tyler Henry. I'm mentioning him because he underwent a brain scan done before a reading and while he was giving a reading during the season 4 finale of his television show, Hollywood Medium with Tyler Henry. I won't reveal the results of his scan, but I'm including the following videos to give you an idea of what transpires in the episode. I recommend watching it, and it's available on Amazon Prime and Google Play (and see here). I recommend watching additional episodes as well as his other show, Life After Death with Tyler Henry, on Netflix.

Yes, I have seen Tyler Henry before on TV and videos and believe he is likely a genuine medium as many others that have undergone scientific investigation.

A brain scan would be interesting if it showed him using different areas of the brain than a person doing a cold reading from physical clues (as skeptics maintain that is how mediums work) would use. I saw a brain scan of medium Teresa Caputo on a show that suggested a different area of the brain was indeed in use during a reading.

 

[Audie]

Yes, I have seen Tyler Henry before on TV and videos and believe he is likely a genuine medium as many others that have undergone scientific investigation.

A brain scan would be interesting if it showed him using different areas of the brain than a person doing a cold reading from physical clues (as skeptics maintain that is how mediums work) would use. I saw a brain scan of medium Teresa Caputo on a show that suggested a different area of the brain was indeed in use during a reading.

Nobody has EVER demonstrated ANY
" Paranormal" event scientifically.

IF they did it would be a sensation of the
highest magnitude, Nobel dipped in gold.
Greater if possible than disproving
evolution.

The excuses and conspiracies and whatever
for why this has not happened are just silliness.

Scientific investigation has found zero.
Claims to the contrary won't change that.

 

[George-ananda]

Nobody has EVER demonstrated ANY
" Paranormal" event scientifically.

IF they did it would be a sensation of the
highest magnitude, Nobel dipped in gold.
Greater if possible than disproving
evolution.

The excuses and conspiracies and whatever
for why this has not happened are just silliness.

Scientific investigation has found zero.
Claims to the contrary won't change that.

IMO, Scientific experiments have shown tremendous odds against chance in controlled experiments. So much so that I consider psi abilities essentially proved. And then there's the investigative and anecdotal material.

I believe determined skeptics have created and spread this false scenario that there is zero evidence as you say. They may take that belief to their grave, but I feel certain they are wrong from the data.

A Nobel Prize is for anyone that can scientifically explain HOW these phenomena work. That may be in the future.

 

[Ella S.]

I think that, most of the time, it's because their emotions have been manipulated.

Many people want to trust their parents and their clergymen that God is real. Many people want to believe that everything bad that happens to them serves some greater good and isn't just senseless misery. Many people want to believe that they will get to see their loved ones again and finally be happy after they die.

They're sold these ideas based on emotional appeals, not reason, usually when they are young and more susceptible to them. Then, as they grow older, they develop mature rationalizations for them in order to continue holding on to them, which is called motivated reasoning.

It has nothing to do with intelligence. I think, many times, people who are YECs are that way because they're loyal to a fault, causing them to internalize falsity upon falsity until the truth seems obviously wrong to them.

But I think these are the same general mistakes that lead people to believe in humanism or the justification of the state's monopoly on violence or even sometimes in science itself, when people only believe things because some scientist says that's the case without looking into whether that scientist is in agreement with their field, has any expertise in that field, has earned any credentials in that field, or is basing their conclusion off of strong studies rather than jumping the gun with a promising study that merely merits further experiment.

I think the other half is learning misinformation before understanding the truth, so that one becomes more emotionally attached to it when they're still too ignorant to know better.

I don't think it's as annoyingly condescending as "they're all just gullible" or "they're all stupid" or "they're all crazy," all of which I think are also beliefs formed based on emotional reasoning. People want to feel inherently intellectually superior to those they disagree with, but that's all these are. They aren't actual explanations, just vanity.

I also notice a lot of people who brag about being "serious skeptics" from a young age, then give anecdotes about normal childhood curiosity or even completely irrational (and borderline pathological) levels of denialism and paranoia. It often makes me wonder why these people didn't grow up to be flat-earthers, with the absurd level of cynicism and mistrust they display from such an early age.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Yes, I have seen Tyler Henry before on TV and videos and believe he is likely a genuine medium as many others that have undergone scientific investigation.

A brain scan would be interesting if it showed him using different areas of the brain than a person doing a cold reading from physical clues (as skeptics maintain that is how mediums work) would use. I saw a brain scan of medium Teresa Caputo on a show that suggested a different area of the brain was indeed in use during a reading.

The results of Tyler's brain scan show a distinct difference between when he does a reading and when he does not. I've considered having a brain scan myself out of curiosity, but I assume the results would be similar to those of Tyler and Teresa Caputo. I have gone into trances (which involved trance writing, known as psychography, and also channeling a spirit), but I don't always remember everything that happens during a trance. I can also touch an object (psychometry) and connect with a spirit, or I will have a psychic vision of a past event involving the spirit or another past event on the property.

Finally, I recommend reading this article for a reference on trance mediumship.

Live Science: How a Medium's Brain Changes in a Trance

IMO, Scientific experiments have shown tremendous odds against chance in controlled experiments. So much so that I consider psi abilities essentially proved. And then there's the investigative and anecdotal material.

I believe determined skeptics have created and spread this false scenario that there is zero evidence as you say. They may take that belief to their grave, but I feel certain they are wrong from the data.

A Nobel Prize is for anyone that can scientifically explain HOW these phenomena work. That may be in the future.

I think that there are skeptics who will go to their grave in determined denial of the paranormal. As I was saying in a related topic (read here), I've met skeptics who were still in denial despite their inability to refute and properly explain a paranormal experience they personally witnessed. I think that it must have something to do with being legitimately afraid of something paranormal that they couldn't rationally explain away with conventional science, the Bible, or some other religious dogmas. However, if a skeptic asks me genuine questions about their experience, I will talk to them about it. If they are rude and obnoxious, I won't bother. It's pointless for me to argue and debate with a skeptic if their mind is already made up not to believe. I also said that some skeptics may be closed-minded, but I still think that fear is a factor in why some skeptics remain in denial while facing overwhelming proof of the paranormal and being unable to rationally explain it away. It's the fear of the unknown, along with the intrinsic uneasiness of not being able to rationally explain a paranormal event that makes absolutely no sense to them. It's the point at which modern science and/or their religious beliefs utterly fail them.

If you could pick one event that made you believe in paranormal.What would it be?

If you could pick one event that made you believe in paranormal.What would it be?:)

www.religiousforums.com

 

[Audie]

IMO, Scientific experiments have shown tremendous odds against chance in controlled experiments. So much so that I consider psi abilities essentially proved. And then there's the investigative and anecdotal material.

I believe determined skeptics have created and spread this false scenario that there is zero evidence as you say. They may take that belief to their grave, but I feel certain they are wrong from the data.

A Nobel Prize is for anyone that can scientifically explain HOW these phenomena work. That may be in the future.

Exactly. "My opinion is...I feel... I believe...".
It's all " feelings". Emotion.

Go on as you like about "odds" in whatever sort
of claimed "science". Badly conducted " science"
will get whatever results anyone wants.

Nobody has demonstrated squat about " psi"
ot any other woo- except that some people
will believe anything.
No reputable journal has ever published a
successful woo woo test. There aren't any.

I see you got in the conspiracy, the blame
someone else for the failure. Like what else
explain the 100 percent failure rate? I mean,
besides people who demand actual scientific rigor.

As for Nobel, you may be right. Explaining how
non existent " phenominons" ( sic) work would
b- yes, miraculous. The Nobel of Nobels.

Greater than the Philosopher Stone and the Fountain
of Youth. Combined. With truffles.

I don't get the appeal of living in a fantasy world.
Can't handle reality, maybe.

 

[Audie]

The results of Tyler's brain scan show a distinct difference between when he does a reading and when he does not. I've considered having a brain scan myself out of curiosity, but I assume the results would be similar to those of Tyler and Teresa Caputo. I have gone into trances (which involved trance writing, known as psychography, and also channeling a spirit), but I don't always remember everything that happens during a trance. I can also touch an object (psychometry) and connect with a spirit, or I will have a psychic vision of a past event involving the spirit or another past event on the property.

Finally, I recommend reading this article for a reference on trance mediumship.

Live Science: How a Medium's Brain Changes in a Trance



I think that there are skeptics who will go to their grave in determined denial of the paranormal. As I was saying in a related topic (read here), I've met skeptics who were still in denial despite their inability to refute and properly explain a paranormal experience they personally witnessed. I think that it must have something to do with being legitimately afraid of something paranormal that they couldn't rationally explain away with conventional science, the Bible, or some other religious dogmas. However, if a skeptic asks me genuine questions about their experience, I will talk to them about it. If they are rude and obnoxious, I won't bother. It's pointless for me to argue and debate with a skeptic if their mind is already made up not to believe. I also said that some skeptics may be closed-minded, but I still think that fear is a factor in why some skeptics remain in denial while facing overwhelming proof of the paranormal and being unable to rationally explain it away. It's the fear of the unknown, along with the intrinsic uneasiness of not being able to rationally explain a paranormal event that makes absolutely no sense to them. It's the point at which modern science and/or their religious beliefs utterly fail them.

If you could pick one event that made you believe in paranormal.What would it be?

If you could pick one event that made you believe in paranormal.What would it be?:)

www.religiousforums.com

Show us the actual scientific demonstration
of something paranormal.

If there's someone " afraid " it's the
beievers whose thin brittle construct of reality
could not survive the shock of realizing
"paranormal" is nothing but a fat nothingburger.

 

[Apostle John]

Yet another post by a member asking whether they believe so-and-so (and of course admitting that they do) led me to ask myself why is it I find it so difficult to believe claims without evidence, while others appear to accept almost any claim absolutely uncritically.

How do you (anyone) dismiss the Bible that today is substantiated by a wealth of extra biblical and archaeological evidence proving its timeline absolutely unless your just plain ignorant of these facts?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How do you (anyone) dismiss the Bible that today is substantiated by a wealth of extra biblical and archaeological evidence proving its timeline absolutely unless your just plain ignorant of these facts?

Do you have any idea how many novels, fanciful, science fiction, terror and many other genres, contain information about real places and real people in the real world? Does that make the fictional stuff likewise real? Heinrich Schliemann found the city of Troy -- just where Homer said he would. Did that make the Cyclops real, or prove that Circe turned men into pigs? Have you seen all the Roman ruins that still exist? Do you think for a moment that proves that Romulus and Remus were raised by a she-wolf -- who somehow taught them Latin?

The Bible is a book. A work, created by and for humans. And THAT IS ALL THAT IT IS. Writers do what writers do -- they include stuff they know about, so it looks real and authentic -- and then they add the stuff that they want their readers to read, either for amusement, or to trick them, or for whatever their motive was.

Or are you just plain ignorant of these facts?

 

[George-ananda]

Exactly. "My opinion is...I feel... I believe...".
It's all " feelings". Emotion.

Go on as you like about "odds" in whatever sort
of claimed "science". Badly conducted " science"
will get whatever results anyone wants.

Nobody has demonstrated squat about " psi"
ot any other woo- except that some people
will believe anything.
No reputable journal has ever published a
successful woo woo test. There aren't any.

I see you got in the conspiracy, the blame
someone else for the failure. Like what else
explain the 100 percent failure rate? I mean,
besides people who demand actual scientific rigor.

As for Nobel, you may be right. Explaining how
non existent " phenominons" ( sic) work would
b- yes, miraculous. The Nobel of Nobels.

Greater than the Philosopher Stone and the Fountain
of Youth. Combined. With truffles.

I don't get the appeal of living in a fantasy world.
Can't handle reality, maybe.

I am sure our debate is hopeless.

What makes you so passionately anti-paranormal that you're so ferociously against the other side? I understand skepticism actually as a fine approach but not what you do. What drives your psychology? Why such hate of claims of the paranormal?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Nobody who has an understanding of scientific thinking
would claim as fact that there IS life out there.

Actually the claim can be made for one instance.

Us!

 

[Apostle John]

Do you have any idea how many novels, fanciful, science fiction, terror and many other genres, contain information about real places and real people in the real world? Does that make the fictional stuff likewise real? Heinrich Schliemann found the city of Troy -- just where Homer said he would. Did that make the Cyclops real, or prove that Circe turned men into pigs? Have you seen all the Roman ruins that still exist? Do you think for a moment that proves that Romulus and Remus were raised by a she-wolf -- who somehow taught them Latin?

The Bible is a book. A work, created by and for humans. And THAT IS ALL THAT IT IS. Writers do what writers do -- they include stuff they know about, so it looks real and authentic -- and then they add the stuff that they want their readers to read, either for amusement, or to trick them, or for whatever their motive was.

Or are you just plain ignorant of these facts?

The Iliad was written by one man inspired by Satan in my opinion. The Bible was written over 1400 years by many authors, 40 in fact. The latter is inspired, breathed into man by God.

 

[Audie]

I am sure our debate is hopeless.

What makes you so passionately anti-paranormal that you're so ferociously against the other side? I understand skepticism actually as a fine approach but not what you do. What drives your psychology? Why such hate of claims of the paranormal?

"Passionately anti- , ferociously, hate".

Such unsophisticated transparent psychological
projection. Your posts are all
about opinion and emotions, so others use be like you.

Look at yourself. Your entire approach is
about how you happen to feel.

You cannot defend your pallid beliefs from the
light of day,. Call on you for facts and
what do you do? Call conspiracy, and then
start in making up issues with my character
and personality.

Your quick resort to conspiracy and personal
attack underlines that your claims are,
yes, indefensible, vacuous, a nothingburger.

 

[Audie]

Actually the claim can be made for one instance.

Us!

From whom's perspective is we
"Out there"?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The Iliad was written by one man inspired by Satan in my opinion. The Bible was written over 1400 years by many authors, 40 in fact. The latter is inspired, breathed into man by God.

Now then, can you tell me this: if you are not impressed by what my opinion is, what is it makes you think I should be impressed by yours? Outside of calling yourself an apostle, what are your credentials that should make me think you so much wiser than me?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I am sure our debate is hopeless.

What makes you so passionately anti-paranormal that you're so ferociously against the other side? I understand skepticism actually as a fine approach but not what you do. What drives your psychology? Why such hate of claims of the paranormal?

It's because of this aggressive attitude toward the paranormal we're seeing in this thread that I don't bother arguing or debating with skeptics. I don't care whether they believe me or not. I have better things to do than waste my time trying to persuade obstinate skeptics when their minds are already made up not to believe in the paranormal, regardless of the evidence offered to them. It makes no difference to me whether they believe me or not, as their denial does not alter the reality of my experiences. I've had these experiences since I was six, and my mediumship has been repeatedly validated over the years.

 

[Audie]

And it's because of this aggressive attitude toward the paranormal that I don't bother arguing and debating with skeptics. I honestly don't care whether they believe me or not. I have better things to do than to waste my time trying to persuade obstinate skeptics when their mind is already made up not to believe in the paranormal regardless of the sufficient evidence offered to them.

Dreadful, yes, to talk straight and ask
for ( shudder ) facts to back up spurious
claims like science confirming the paranormal.

You sure about who it is with the already- made up
mind immune to fact or reason?

Someone who understands the basics of intellectual
integrity, a quality central to any serious research
knows that bitterly clinging to a preconceived idea,
irrespective of evidence is that absolute opposite
of science.
For me to do that is a betrayal of my deepest values

So, imo, a bit of just as rude and unjustified to suggest I am intellectually
dishonest as it was for your friend to claim I have
some sort of disturbed personality.

It's fine to speak of "sufficient evidence" though
not so much to just make things up.

Make up things about me, who knows what else one just makes up,

"Sufficient evidence" ? You saw what I got for asking
about the claimed science.

Mark Twain noted that the difference between a
fact and a miracle is the difference between a mackerel
and a mermaid.

That for a miracle, any kind of evidence will serve.
Or I guess, be sufficient.

But, whatevs. Nothing new.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You sure about who it is with the already- made up
mind immune to fact or reason?

23 "Winner" frubes for you!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It's because of this aggressive attitude toward the paranormal we're seeing in this thread that I don't bother arguing or debating with skeptics. I don't care whether they believe me or not. I have better things to do than waste my time trying to persuade obstinate skeptics when their minds are already made up not to believe in the paranormal, regardless of the evidence offered to them. It makes no difference to me whether they believe me or not, as their denial does not alter the reality of my experiences. I've had these experiences since I was six, and my mediumship has been repeatedly validated over the years.

And, of course, there is no possibility that your experiences are other than you conceive, that they might be products of defects of your own?

I can tell you this -- the medical literature is chock full of such defects causing people to experience all sorts of things that never actually happened.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In my opinion, the stories about Jesus in the Bible are cheap knockoffs of ancient pagan religions, like Greek mythology. I believe that it's very likely that a few stories about Jesus were copied and adapted from Greek mythology and other ancient pagan religions as well, which predate both Christianity and the Bible. For example, the stories of Jesus' crucifixion, death, and resurrection are similar to those of Attis, the Phrygian-Greek god of vegetation (1250 BCE). According to the stories of Attis, he was divinely born of a virgin; he was hung on a pine tree and died; he descended into the underworld after his death; he was resurrected after three days; and he brought salvation with him upon his rebirth. In fact, this article, " Attis: Born of a Virgin on December 25th, Crucified and Resurrected after Three Days" contains several more stories about Attis and Jesus that are similar. If a religious leader named Yehoshua (also Yeshua or Jesus) existed in biblical times, he was most likely just an ordinary man and popular religious teacher whose followers embellished their stories about him, and more embellishment and folklore were later added to these stories to make him appear to be more than he actually was. I think it's probable that Jesus was simply a well-liked religious teacher whose devout followers spread many false stories about him to make him appear godlike.

The truth is that the savior story of Jesus isn't the first of its kind, and in my opinion, it's no more credible than all the other savior stories that predate his, such as "10 Christ-Like Figures that Predate Jesus" and "Other Gods That Rose From the Dead in Spring Before Jesus Christ." In fact, these articles provide several more examples of pagan Christlike figures whose lives parallel the stories of Jesus' life, such as being divinely born of a virgin, being tempted by the devil before beginning a missionary ministry on earth, miraculously healing the sick, raising the dead, dying for the sins of the world and redeeming humanity, descending to the underworld after death, and being raised from the dead after three days. In terms of the Bible, I believe it is riddled with contradictions, not to mention stories of unspeakable violence perpetrated by a deranged, jealous, and vengeful God who has made every blood-thirsty and genocidal tyrant throughout human history look like a holy man worthy of sainthood in comparison to the God of the Bible. In my opinion, the word evil is the perfect word to characterize the God of the Bible. I don't think that the words "love," "mercy, or "just" should be used to describe the God of the Bible.

Violence in the Bible: Greatest Hits

101 Clear Contradictions In The Bible

The Bible is Fiction: A Collection of Evidence

BibViz Project-Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized

It is, in fact, fascinating that you support what is well-known regarding how all this mythology got synthesized into what it is today, but can't talk to whether the things you claim to have "experienced since [you were] six."