mrjonno wrote: (expecially when the odds werent in your favour they should have been 6 to 1 not 5 to 1).

Odds of a win 1/6, odds of a loss 5/6. 5 times more likely to lose than win.

GrahamH wrote:

jamest wrote:
Without wanting to stir up a hornet's nest, I don't think that you can justify that. I like watching his programmes too. They are fascinating, but there's no reason to believe that his abilities are a smack in the face to theism, etc..

Of course this is no logical refutation of god or the spiritual, but it undermines it by explaining a little about ho so many people can be so apparently sure there is a god, even if there is none.

... Not forgetting, too, how so many people can be sure that there IS a reality beyond their minds.

Gullibility is an issue, but that works on many levels.

I'm all for shysters being exposed, too. Apart from the obvious reason, they also contribute to giving 'the spiritual' a bad name.

jamest wrote:I'm all for shysters being exposed, too. Apart from the obvious reason, they also contribute to giving 'the spiritual' a bad name.

Ah yes, but does exposing the shysters ever end? Where is the "authentic spiritual"?
Is Psychic Sally is the real deal, or Jamest? How do you know Sally is any less convinced of her "spiritual nature" than you are of yours?

GrahamH wrote:When DB is asking for a show of hands he is more animated in the awy he says "number four" than he is for the other numbers.
The panelling in the hall has four squares in the four corners of each panel - rather like a dice. Hmmm.
On two and three votes DB says "few more". Could that be "few more"?
There is a possibility of a magnetic die, which could be biassed by an electromagnet under the board, or even under the stage.

There are plenty of possibilities for a dice swap or plant, even months earlier.

The video of the dice in the bowl could have been pre-recorded, and wife Lisa, emotionally invested in a win, might have been influenced to report a four whatever came up, while the video showed a four on screen.

The chute made it all but impossible for anyone to follow the die and check it against the video.

The dice 'danced' oddly on the third roll.

GrahamH wrote:

jamest wrote:I'm all for shysters being exposed, too. Apart from the obvious reason, they also contribute to giving 'the spiritual' a bad name.

Ah yes, but does exposing the shysters ever end? Where is the "authentic spiritual"?
Is Psychic Sally is the real deal, or Jamest? How do you know Sally is any less convinced of her "spiritual nature" than you are of yours?

She might be convinced of her spiritual nature, but calling the physical manipulation of objects 'a ghost' as a ruse to raising money and convincing others that they [also] have a spiritual nature, is not behaviour indicative of authenticity. I don't try to con anyone. I'm not after their money and I use the reason which has convinced me to try and convince them. You can argue that I'm deluded, but you'd have to be disingenuous to call me a shyster.

On another note, regarding using DB to refute theism etc., I remember watching a recent programme of his where he 'persuades' two guys to sit in an ice-cold bath and feel no pain. Imo, this serves to show that 'I' create my own experience, not the environment. So, you see, DB can be used by both sides of the camp. Hence, my initial post, earlier this evening.

jamest wrote:You can argue that I'm deluded, but you'd have to be disingenuous to call me a shyster.

I called you neither. I asked how you could tell Sally was a "shyster",or "disingenuous". We might agree she is at least mistaken.

Bookmarking.