Your thoughts on ''mediums?''

[Guy Threepwood]

I watched a documentary recently about mediums, and it all seemed very convincing, that there are people out there who can 'channel' the dead, and bring some closure for those of us who have lost loved ones, and maybe are still searching for answers. Some religions teach that mediums are evil, but I happen to think that maybe there are some people who have this special ''gift.'' What do you think? Do you ''believe'' in mediums?

Have you ever hired one to help you communicate with a deceased loved one?

I think that is a really good question Deidre.

I certainly believe that there is an afterlife, I see no reason why God would prefer to discard everything every soul became in life. We sometimes are open to, and wish to communicate, and most of us have some personal experience (the best kind of evidence) that this is not impossible..

But I do believe that it may be, like faith, a personal matter, a private line, for both sides!

 

[soulsurvivor]

Actually the medium did not read anybody's mind. For example, she spoke to a woman in the audience whose son had died of an overdose and gave details about the death. The only way that could have been possible (other than communication with the dead son) was that the woman was a plant. But I really doubt it - the woman seemed too overwhelmed to have been planted in the audience. In any case, there would have been no need to do such an elaborate hoax because the talk was free - there was no money involved at all.

Of course, you don't need to believe the medium or me, it is not that important.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's a good point, if I had this ''gift,'' I'd want to offer it up not charge money.

That wasn't the point I was making.

My point was that even people who sincerely believe that they can communicate with the dead have an ethical responsibility to confirm that they really can do it before they represent themselves publicly as mediums.

This ethical responsibility is there even if no money is changing hands. The ethical responsibility comes from the fact that the "medium" is trying to give themselves a status that will encourage others to rely on what they say.

As an analogy, if someone put themselves out as a structural engineer and told people that buildings were safe or unsafe based only on his intuition, he would be dangerously negligent. Now, mediums aren't dealing in life safety the way that a structural engineer is, but they still have the potential to do harm.

Any person putting themselves out as a medium - paid or unpaid - should be able to unequivocally demonstrate that their supposed gift is real. Any medium who can't do that is acting unethically, even if they sincerely believe that they can communicate with the dead. And AFAIK, no "medium" has ever made this demonstration.

In fact, since it hasn't even been established that these sorts of abilities are even possible, the implication is that every single "medium" who's currently known to researchers hasn't demonstrated their ability to a reasonable standard.

If a single "medium" had demonstrated their abilities to the point where it would be ethical for them to represent themselves as mediums, the question of whether it's even possible to communicate with the dead would be settled.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That's a good point, if I had this ''gift,'' I'd want to offer it up not charge money. Some famous mediums are making some serious money.

You have to admit, if you can make a good living from it all, confortably so.........

Can't blame them for charging.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Actually the medium did not read anybody's mind. For example, she spoke to a woman in the audience whose son had died of an overdose and gave details about the death. The only way that could have been possible (other than communication with the dead son) was that the woman was a plant. But I really doubt it - the woman seemed too overwhelmed to have been planted in the audience. In any case, there would have been no need to do such an elaborate hoax because the talk was free - there was no money involved at all.

Of course, you don't need to believe the medium or me, it is not that important.

The future tells me that, she someday will charge money and hold speaking engaugements. Possibly ticket fees and merchandising as well. It's cloudy now....

The crystal is going dark.....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You have to admit, if you can make a good living from it all, confortably so.........

Can't blame them for charging.

I don't see why this would apply any more to mediums than to any other fraudsters... e.g. people who engage in pyramid schemes.

 

[rusra02]

For mediums to channel dead persons implies that persons are not really dead, but alive in another form. I believe what the Bible says about death; "the dead know nothing at all, nor do they have any more reward, because all memory of them is forgotten. Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they no longer have any share in what is done under the sun.
...Whatever your hand finds to do, do with all your might, for there is no work nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom in the Grave, where you are going." (Ecclesiastes 9:5,6,10)
So, who are mediums channeling? Since the Bible condemns spirit mediums, (Leviticus 19:31), I believe a person is contacting wicked spirits who rebelled against God (2 Peter 2:4); these pretend to be dead persons to buttress the lie Satan told the first woman Eve; "you certainly will not die." (Genesis 3:4)

 

[Mary Blackchurch]

I watched a documentary recently about mediums, and it all seemed very convincing, that there are people out there who can 'channel' the dead, and bring some closure for those of us who have lost loved ones, and maybe are still searching for answers. Some religions teach that mediums are evil, but I happen to think that maybe there are some people who have this special ''gift.'' What do you think? Do you ''believe'' in mediums?

They are convincing because that's their livelihood. You can't be a good sales person without a good pitch. If it's a gift, it's certainly a "gift" that keeps on asking for more money. Charlatans all.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

I watched a documentary recently about mediums, and it all seemed very convincing, that there are people out there who can 'channel' the dead, and bring some closure for those of us who have lost loved ones, and maybe are still searching for answers. Some religions teach that mediums are evil, but I happen to think that maybe there are some people who have this special ''gift.'' What do you think? Do you ''believe'' in mediums?

Have you ever hired one to help you communicate with a deceased loved one?

With communication these days I've seen them fool people and the crime still happen so. Not always; but it can. Watched one television show where suddenly a medium showed up, saying they knew where the missing person was and fooled the cop, the crime still happened, and it happened to be the officers son. And the medium maybe even some believe that they had power in it. But at the same time there was one instance that they attacked a cops son for the stuff he was saying that was going on and even though.

 

[George-ananda]

I hear you. I don't think I'll be meeting with a medium anytime soon if ever, as there is a part of me that believes people could have ''gifts'' but there is also the skeptical part of me, that realizes people will say they have a gift for money. I've never been to a psychic or card reader, either. I like your advice, thank you.

I actually don't have a problem with mediums charging for their services. This can be a full-time job for the truly gifted and they should be able to live at a decent standard of living too.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I actually don't have a problem with mediums charging for their services. This can be a full-time job for the truly gifted and they should be able to live at a decent standard of living too.

If and when an actual verified medium were to present themselves, I would have no problem with them charging for their services.

In the meantime, though, someone - even someone sincere - whose "abilities" are indistinguishable from those of a charlatan shouldn't be regarded any better than as a charlatan.

 

[Koldo]

Actually the medium did not read anybody's mind. For example, she spoke to a woman in the audience whose son had died of an overdose and gave details about the death. The only way that could have been possible (other than communication with the dead son) was that the woman was a plant. But I really doubt it - the woman seemed too overwhelmed to have been planted in the audience. In any case, there would have been no need to do such an elaborate hoax because the talk was free - there was no money involved at all.

Of course, you don't need to believe the medium or me, it is not that important.

As the video shows, sometimes we freely give material that can be used against us. It is always possible that this woman ended up telling someone about what happened to her son. And, well... there are more reasons to deceive than money.

 

[George-ananda]

If and when an actual verified medium were to present themselves, I would have no problem with them charging for their services.

In the meantime, though, someone - even someone sincere - whose "abilities" are indistinguishable from those of a charlatan shouldn't be regarded any better than as a charlatan.

Their abilities can only best be judged subjectively.

I have argued that some very gifted mediums have already been objectively verified under blind experimental conditions. But I know the skeptics will claim the tests have issues so it remains all a matter of opinion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually the medium did not read anybody's mind. For example, she spoke to a woman in the audience whose son had died of an overdose and gave details about the death. The only way that could have been possible (other than communication with the dead son) was that the woman was a plant. But I really doubt it - the woman seemed too overwhelmed to have been planted in the audience.

First off, I have problems with your assumption that the woman being a convincing actor is too unlikely to be considered possible.

That aside, you really can't come up with other ways that this could have happened?

Are you familiar with Peter Popoff? His approach (for faith healing, not communication with the dead, but still relevant) went something like this: his staff would talk to (or listen in on) members of the audience as they talked about why they came. They'd slip this information to Popoff's wife, who would radio the information to a small earpiece that Popoff was wearing on stage, unseen by the audience. The result was that Popoff would have seemingly miraculous information about people with no apparent way to get it by "natural" means.

These days, social media makes things way simpler. It's very common for a purported psychic or medium to use, say, Facebook to find out details about someone. This is especially easy if the person "likes" the person's fan page or has posted that they're going to the event.

In any case, there would have been no need to do such an elaborate hoax because the talk was free - there was no money involved at all.

Just because *you* weren't charged admission doesn't mean money wasn't involved. Does this "medium" sell books? One-on-one readings? Weekend workshops?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Their abilities can only best be judged subjectively.

I have argued that some very gifted mediums have already been objectively verified under blind experimental conditions.

The same could be said about gifted charlatans.

But I know the skeptics will claim the tests have issues so it remains all a matter of opinion.

No, it doesn't. Either the concerns are valid or they aren't.

Why not provide details about how a medium - you pick whichever you want - was "objectively tested" and we'll see for ourselves?

 

[George-ananda]

The same could be said about gifted charlatans.


No, it doesn't. Either the concerns are valid or they aren't.

Why not provide details about how a medium - you pick whichever you want - was "objectively tested" and we'll see for ourselves?

You are really just confirming my point here as we know believers in objective evidence and skeptics will NEVER agree. And some real psychic abilities may not even be testable in controlled laboratory conditions.

I already provided a paper describing the testing I was referring to earlier in this thread. I can find it if you are interested in reading it.

 

[Daisies4me]

I watched a documentary recently about mediums, and it all seemed very convincing, that there are people out there who can 'channel' the dead, and bring some closure for those of us who have lost loved ones, and maybe are still searching for answers. Some religions teach that mediums are evil, but I happen to think that maybe there are some people who have this special ''gift.'' What do you think? Do you ''believe'' in mediums?

Have you ever hired one to help you communicate with a deceased loved one?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Their abilities can only best be judged subjectively.

I have argued that some very gifted mediums have already been objectively verified under blind experimental conditions. But I know the skeptics will claim the tests have issues so it remains all a matter of opinion.

Shame skeptics were not present at those "experiments". But of course the criticism would be a torrential rain on someone's parade when it's consequently picked all apart and examined under scrunity.

 

[Daisies4me]

I watched a documentary recently about mediums, and it all seemed very convincing, that there are people out there who can 'channel' the dead, and bring some closure for those of us who have lost loved ones, and maybe are still searching for answers. Some religions teach that mediums are evil, but I happen to think that maybe there are some people who have this special ''gift.'' What do you think? Do you ''believe'' in mediums?
--------------


Have you ever hired one to help you communicate with a deceased loved one?

----------------


I believe that demons exist and have power, and people are misled by them.
Being a believer of what is written in the INspired Holy writings from God, the Bible, no one communicates with the dead. it is a charade , usually for money. It is also impossible to speak with someone who is no longer alive. Death is the opposite of life, and the Bible tells us the condition of the dead. see Ecclesiastes 9:5, & 10. Then have a look at Ezekiel 18:4, 20. Also, Psalm 146:4.
having said that, ask yourself who it is that is responsible for the lie that the dead live on in another form, or another place---look up Deuteronomy 18:10-12, and Leviticus 19:31 in your Bible, to see how the God of Moses and Abraham felt about spiritism and those who turn away from Him to Satan inspired lies designed to lead to dead. Galatians 5:19-21 offers plain spoken directions--those who practice such things will NOT inherit God's Kingdom , and will llose their lives in eternal death instead. Romans 6:23

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are really just confirming my point here as we know believers in objective evidence and skeptics will NEVER agree.

I see what you did there.

And some real psychic abilities may not even be testable in controlled laboratory conditions.

Nobody said "laboratory"; any valid testing method is fine.

Just keep in mind that "unverifiable" implies "unverified", so if you can't figure out a way to validly test some ability, you can't turn around and act like it's necessarily real.

I already provided a paper describing the testing I was referring to earlier in this thread. I can find it if you are interested in reading it.

By "paper", do you mean that web link on page 1 of the thread that describes an experiment done by someone who doesn't know what "double blind" means?