| RETURN TO TELEKINESIS PAGE - TELEKINESIS -> Saw something on a TV show About Randi | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: Saw something on a TV show About Randi |
| Posted By: Nick Posted On: Aug 25, 2007 Views: 781 | Saw something on a TV show About Randi After many weeks of computer trouble i am back I was watching "Is it Real: Ghosts,demons and spirits" then a part came p where Randi was talking. Where it shows the perdsons name and occupation, at the bottom of the screen it said James Randi: Psychic Detective Why would it say that if he was such a skeptic. Dont say it means he is trying to debunk it, In America a Psychic Detective goes out and helps cops get criminals , or talks to spirits. Could it be that he is no longer a skeptic about such a thing as Psionics. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Aug 25, 2007 Views: 777 | RE: Saw something on a TV show About Randi No, it doesn't mean that. Randi is a detective in that he will investigate any claims of the paranormal. As we all know, no such claimant has even come close to winning the Randi $1,000,000 and in my opinion, and Randi's, never will. Its like alternative medicine, its called alternative because it isn't medicine. Paranormal is called paranormal because it isn't normal. In other words it doesn't exist. It is strange that in the 21st century we still have people that believe in witches, spells, horroscopes, crystal healing, fortune telling, telekinesis, mind reading,remote viewing etc. etc. It seems to me that people just WANT to believe in this stuff, regardless of the facts. |
| Posted By: Nick Posted On: Aug 25, 2007 Views: 775 | RE: Saw something on a TV show About Randi Ahh. Simple enough...sadly. |
| Posted By: Alan Posted On: Aug 30, 2007 Views: 756 | RE: RE: Saw something on a TV show About Randi 'paranormal' actually means 'beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation', it doesn't mean that an event experienced or apparently instigated by someone didn't happen. Is believing in the possibility of paranormal events, no matter how rare, any stranger than the contra-belief that from the beginning of time until the present day nothing which might ultimately have to be described as 'inexplicable' has ever occurred? Scientists propose theories on the grandest scale imaginable e.g. the 'big bang' theory of creation without being able to offer a vestige of proof to back them up and we are supposed to believe them simply because they are scientists. The implication that people who choose to believe in the possibility of the inexplicable are somehow feeble-minded is the stock defense of the stoically skeptical. God bless them. |