Tarot readers??

[PaliRichard]

How do you define intelligence,you would measure it on academic acchievment i suppose.You have only got to look at some of our politicians to know the answer to that.

 

Arthur Conan Doyle was a physician, and author of the some most famous crime novels ever written,yet he was into Spiritualism.

 

I could give you a long list of notable people with religious beliefs who are regarded as highly intelligent many of them are scientists.

 

I know i'm no intellectual,but i've come across a few thick atheists in my time.

 

.....in addition to truman's post (I have no problem with how the IQ test is run btw) I would suggest a test for intelligence based on common sense criteria rather than logic.

[onewheeldave]

That's just not true at all, emotive language is pretty much the only way you'll ever convince anyone of anything, most people don't respond too well to cold logic. Consequently, logical people often use emotive language when engaging with not-so logical people (for example in discussions with people who believe in Tarot cards).

 

Interesting...

 

Generally I find it quite common that when 'rationalists' debate these issues, they tend to be heavily critical if the other side uses emotive language when trying to make their posts.

 

You're dead right that most people are better swayed by emotive language than straight rational argument, hence the success of propaganda etc.

 

Nevertheless, when it comes to rationalists in debates, the focus shouldn't purely on swaying peoples opinions by any means necessary, but on aspiring to the truth of the matter. And, in that, overly emotive language has no place other than to obscure the truth.

 

If there's a point to be made in a rational debate, it can, and should, be made with a rational argument- using emotive language (while it may indeed sway the easily swayed) is invariably a substitue brought in when the arguer has no rational argument.

 

Consequently, logical people often use emotive language when engaging with not-so logical people (for example in discussions with people who believe in Tarot cards).

 

A strange phrase there- impossible to know what you mean by it.

 

I think if taken literally, everyone 'believes' in Tarot cards, as they are clearly real objects which pretty much everyone has seen actual examples of.

 

So presumably you mean by 'believes in tarot cards' that a person considers they could be useful?

 

In which case, plenty of logical people do so.

 

Me for example-

 

do I believe that the future can be foretold by tarot cards?- no

 

do I believe that tarot cards can be useful for things like spiritual and personal development (e.g. help with understanding the self and it's place in reality)? absolutely, for some people, yes.

 

As do many other logical people (Jung, for one).

[onewheeldave]

Once again you've made this claim, I think it's bunk.

 

If so then it is especially dishonest of you to put that phrase in inverted quote marks as if you're paraphrasing someone.

 

Please can you give an example of someone arguing that "People must be prevented from [going to see mediums] 'for their own good'" ?

 

Not just someone saying it's a bad idea, or that it's stupid, can you find someone on here who says that we must prevent people from doing it and remove their choice?

 

Another strawman, as I've claimed nothing of the kind.

 

I did respond to posts like this-

 

Some people need protecting from themselves. Banks get called to heel for selling the wrong kind of insurance but charlatans can peddle this rubbish with no penalty. Part of me thinks that anyone who is stupid enough to fall for it deserves all they get but why should these ghouls be allowed to feed off of grief?

 

Due to the emotive languge, the fact that it claims all who go to readers must be 'stupid' and in need of "protecting from themselves".

 

It also implies that some kind of state intervention would be desirable to prevent people accessing such services i.e. the phrase "with no penalty". If providers of the service are subjected to 'penalties', clearly that would be an example of the state trying to prevent people using the service.

 

Having said that, Bloomido is clearly a reasonable person willing to consider the points of view and rational arguments of others, which is a noble trait, and one which it would be good to see in many of those who profess to be 'rationalists'-

 

Thanks for taking the time to point out where I am going wrong. I would call it descriptive prose rather than emotive illicitation. Perhaps I am not as rational as I like to think I am.

[onewheeldave]

One of which would be me.

 

I have asked you (Robina) many times to answer a list of questions I have devised to prove to me, and me alone, whether you are genuine or not. I have said I am happy for you to answer in secret and if you 'pass' then I will openly admit it on this forum.

 

The difficulty is you constantly say you don't have to prove anything (and I agree, you don't) but at the same time you always pop up and insist your genuine on these threads before anyone even questions your authenticity, then when they do question you the dummy goes out and you either avoid the questions, ignore them or insist you've nothing to prove. You have adopted each of these tactics with me on a number of occasions.

 

As far as I'm concerned you may believe what you want, it is a subject I am interested in but don't believe in, that is why I developed my questions because they are specifically designed to prove to me alone whether you are genuine. I'm not here like some people to say 'ghosts don't exist, you're talking nonsense and ripping vunerable people off', because I don't know whether they do exist or not. Just like the existance of God I rely on those who do claim there is evidence and test the evidence they give me. No one has ever given me evidence that stands up to scrutiny, but much more telling than that is the fact that the majority of those who claim they have that evidence are reluctant to answer my questions.

 

Of the few who have taken up the challenge (and I have offered them to 'mediums' getting up to triple figures) none have offered evidence that stands up.

 

If you're genuinely interested in this, it would be a good idea to consider posting some of those questions here.

 

I find that, certainly when such questions are posed by 'rationalists' (not saying you're necessarily one) they show a clear lack of understanding of the subject they're supposed to be about.

 

I suspect Robina wouldn't consider herself to be a 'rationalist' or a logic-based person, and, would therefore likely find it difficult to relate to the kind of approach used by rationalists.

 

I, however, am very familiar with that approach, and, though I would dissassociate myself from 'the rationalists', I am very rational, and, simultaneously, very familiar with, and, supportive of, those 'spiritual' fields which the 'rationalists' seem to love attacking.

 

So I may be able to point out certain aspects of your questions which could be the cause of the lack of engagement you seem to be getting from the people you're directing them to.

[janie48]

I know that religious people tend to be less intelligent than non religious people. I don't think as much work has been done looking at those other groups, but I suspect it would be very similar to studies of religiosity and

 

 

And I have come across a few intelligent and educated religious Christians.

 

Yes i was responding to that one comment flaming jimmy posted.

When i saw your comment relating to that i had to read it again to make sure i hadn't imagined it.

I suppose a few is better then none at all, most generous of you to acknowledge that.

 

In answer to other posts,yes i do know what an IQ test is,and no i havn't done one, nor to i wish to. The results may deflate my ego even more,i want my confidence building not decreasing.

[truman]

Yes i was responding to that one comment flaming jimmy posted.

When i saw your comment relating to that i had to read it again to make sure i hadn't imagined it.

I suppose a few is better then none at all, most generous of you to acknowledge that.

 

In answer to other posts,yes i do know what an IQ test is,and no i havn't done one, nor to i wish to. The results may deflate my ego even more,i want my confidence building not decreasing.

 

So you appreciate then that IQ is not necessarily related to academic acheivement..?

[janie48]

Firstly I dont claim to predict the future, I speak to the dead, I dont give ifs buts or maybe, but relevant proof the message is for the people I'm reading, so therefore everyone is entitled to there opinion but don't pull down something you clearly don't understand, I don't know why I was given this gift, but I've used it to help people, I don't need cards to talk to the spirits, but it is a tool I use to help the person I'm reading understand, whether they do or not is down to the individual, I am good at what I do, I've fine it a thousand tims , so I don't let the opinions of anyone bother me, I do agree there a lot of con artist but there also a lot of genuine mediums

I'm not doubting you are genuine because i don't know you I am curious though to understand the connection with the tarot readings and connecting the dead though.

Correct me if i'm wrong but i don't think a medium or tarot reader has to be a religious person.

[janie48]

So you appreciate then that IQ is not necessarily related to academic acheivement..?

 

Well yes,and i wonder if IQ tests have any great value.

[PaliRichard]

If you're genuinely interested in this, it would be a good idea to consider posting some of those questions here.

 

I find that, certainly when such questions are posed by 'rationalists' (not saying you're necessarily one) they show a clear lack of understanding of the subject they're supposed to be about.

 

I suspect Robina wouldn't consider herself to be a 'rationalist' or a logic-based person, and, would therefore likely find it difficult to relate to the kind of approach used by rationalists.

 

I, however, am very familiar with that approach, and, though I would dissassociate myself from 'the rationalists', I am very rational, and, simultaneously, very familiar with, and, supportive of, those 'spiritual' fields which the 'rationalists' seem to love attacking.

 

So I may be able to point out certain aspects of your questions which could be the cause of the lack of engagement you seem to be getting from the people you're directing them to.

 

No I'm not a rationalist, in fact I agree with many of your statements regarding them.

 

I have posted my questions on this forum many times with an open invite to those who believe they can communicate with the dead (that is who they are for). No one has tried answering them (On this forum) who makes those claims. robina hasn't avoided them because they are rationalist, the only reason she has given for avoiding them is that she 'doesn't have to defend herself', I never asked her to, they are, as I stress every time I have posted them to provide me, personally, with proof as to whether 'spirit' exists. I do this by looking at the answers given and asking follow up questions which become subtler and subtler depending on the answers given. Those who have tried answering (external to this forum) trip themselves up when the subtleties 'kick in'. The first set of questions are a bit 'child like', but they are simple on purpose.

 

They are not designed to call the person answering 'fraudulant', in fact they can't detect whether the person answering is lying or genuinely believes what they are saying, what they can ascertain (if followed up) is whether the person is genuinely 'speaking to spirit' or whether they are in some way mistaken. The method I'm afraid will remain 'secret', as explaining it would allow those who take the test to defraud it.

 

Alas unless you claim to be able to communicate with the dead it would be pointless trying to answer them, they are however lurking around this forum somewhere, although I'm not entirely sure where!

[janie48]

:.

 

Alas unless you claim to be able to communicate with the dead it would be pointless trying to answer them, they are however lurking around this forum somewhere, although I'm not entirely sure where!

 

What dead bodies?