All Gods Aside

[nicknack]

I have an interesting story regarding the ouija board. In high school some of my friends got together and did a session. They invited an adept occultist to join in with the event.

Ah, the old urban legend theory. It is true however, the way it morphs into a exaggerating hoax. Such stories are highly incredible and are not trustworthy in anyway unless it is of truthful personal experience perhaps or written down with credibility or recorded down. I have read about FoaF last year and found it to be extremely true. Why, a common cure for nosebleeds (which I frequently have) is to hold ur head up to let the blood clot. We now know we should tilt our head slightly forward, apply direct pressure at the bridge of the nose to stop the bleeding. I argued with my mom over this and tried to explain to her it was an old wives tale. Alas, the power of urban legends dominates homemakers like her. I don't blame her, there are many gullible ones like her too.

 

[trollface]

I really don't think I've got time to do this today. As I've said, I've been working 14 and a half hour days, and this is the first time I've been home in 5 days. I'm sorry if, in this situation I don't find doing 6 hours of maths tuition to be in quite the same league. My work is both physically and mentally demanding, and yet I still manage.

Please answer my questions and comments regarding the second portion of your post, as it is, to me, possibly the most important issues that need addressing. Your refusal to answer sounds more like an excuse than anything else.

 

[nicknack]

I really don't think I've got time to do this today. As I've said, I've been working 14 and a half hour days, and this is the first time I've been home in 5 days. I'm sorry if, in this situation I don't find doing 6 hours of maths tuition to be in quite the same league. My work is both physically and mentally demanding, and yet I still manage.

Please answer my questions and comments regarding the second portion of your post, as it is, to me, possibly the most important issues that need addressing. Your refusal to answer sounds more like an excuse than anything else.

I'm sorry to hear about your work predicament.
It is demanding and a stressful year to me. It is my GCE 'O' levels year and the pressure is immense. I have tons of homework and I have tuition everyday. To satisfy you, I shall answer where I left off.

I didn't say that. I said that you hadn't shown me the basis for your claims, and that I agreed with what you said, but my data was only anecdotal data, and, as such, that I had no real basis for my claims.

Same same I suppose, my data are all based on books and I have not sourced from any websites of late. Therefore, it is up to you to believe me.

What's obvious to one person is not at all obvious to another. We all have personal bias that colours our thinking, no matter how impartial we like to think of ourselves as. This is one of the many reasons why anecdotal data is not, well, it's not actually data, really.

Alright, I have to agree on that. I guess no one ever agress on one thing in this world, sometimes, even facts.

Actually, I think the majority of people aren't skeptical at all. I think they're credulous. People tend to believe things they are told, especially if they're written down or told to them by a trusted authority figure. If I could teach the world one skill, it would be to objectively eveluate the source of everything that they hear, and to be more skeptical.

As for fear, that's an entirely natural emotion. what has changed is how people think the world will end. At this moment in time, people fear that their world will end because of terrorism, not because of a rain of fire.

I would say the people were more gullible back then, they didn't have proof for anything or modern science to back 'ghosts' and the 'supernatural' up, they just knew it was there. Being skeptical is right, anyone has the right to be, it is a good skill.
Here's a nice link for people who are skeptics on the supernatural.
Skeptic Dictionary

Fear was here since the beginning of Man, back as long as the 12th century people believed the world was ending. Whether if it was the sky was falling down or the 12 eagles were a sign of a bad omen, it was the same fear we have today. Constant rife in the world everyday serves as a side dish to our fears. I guess what powers fear is ultimately death.

Done by who and how? The main cause of the spread of Eastern mysticism to the West was the Beatles going to India. At the time they were very anti-establishment, and the establishment were trying to suppress them. Are you trying to say that the Beatles were manipulated into this, or that they were part of the conspiracy themselves?

The Beatles were rather hippy-like, like John Lennon, his wife Yoko Ono, and now his son Sean Lennon. Many people in the world today are unsuspectingly manipulated into spreading the New Age movement. If my memory serves me right, I seem to remember a small passage in the book about the Beatles, but it was rather minor. Yoga teachers, like the many here, used to be the non-believing citizen here but were crossed into the New Age after taking up yoga.

I would say that the use of drugs in spiritualism has gone down massively in recent times. Compare modern LSD usage to that in the 60s. Also note that LSD in the 60s was much, much stronger than what there is today.

But there is still crack and ice going around, although not as strong, but it proved to have the same effect, after all the Red Indians used it themselves. Yes, law enforcement indeed has cut down the rates. But drug trafficking is still rampant in all parts of the world, including Singapore. It is easily available, the sensation of high as described by takers are also similar to the high felt in meditation.

Naturally technology is not the answer to all of mankind's problems. It would be naieve to think that it was. Mankind's problems are down to the fact that, essentially, we are all animals that, while we have a highly developed herd and social instinct, we are still ultimately concerned with our personal dominance over others, and the propogation of our own personal genes. We have enough reason to not act instinctively all the time, but these instincts are undeniably the basis for almost everything that we do.

Ah, but it is an irony yeah? Technology is supposed to help mankind, but yet it seems to create more problems. We have instincts like animals, but we have emotions, bad ones and good ones. It seems that emotions overpower us in no matter what we do, it controls us, and it defiles us. That's what makes Man interesting.

You have absolutely no cause to apologise to me whatsoever.

I am only concerned with people really objectively examining their beliefs and, as I said, evaluating their sources correctly. If you realise that you're trusting your sources without examining them critically enough, then it is my belief that you owe it to yourself to do so. Of course, whether you do or not is entirely up to you. If you're happy with what you believe and the evidence that you feel it is based on, then who am I to argue? All I can do is offer my perspective on issues you bring up, and tell you what level of evidence I would find acceptable.

I may be too trusting, but I do have my limits in trust. I will ask myself to think whether it is really remotely possible. Some facts we cannot face it, some is too extreme but yet if we become too trusting, it becomes disillusional. The element of trust therefore, is up to a person's standard on a believeable basis.

I think you have a very valid point, yes. I'm also of the opinion that a lot of alternative medicines are, at least partially, down to a placebo effect. I'm not sure I'd count massage amongst them, but I'm definately in agreement with you in general.

However, the placebo effect itself is a scientifically proven phenomenon. Even if these things are, then that doesn't completely devalue it.

Valid as it is, it can't be entirely placebo either, although it seems to play a major part in most alternative medicine. It is proven, but it fails too, many a time too major to ignore. I rather base on proven things like drugs and medicine which has a proven and definite way to heal. Phenomenon to me is none other than unsolved things, especially on a theory.

I think it's a very dangerous thing to say that people can be influenced to be gay. It's the age old question, if you believe that it's a choice, then when did you choose to be straight?

Yes it can, it can defile a person's mind and question his mentality or whether in him, he wants to be gay or not. It can deeply affect a person, and make him think so much, he may eventually be gay.

I would suppose that these girls either pretended to be straight, or you didn't notice that they weren't straight, or they themselves didn't know. Teenage years are ones of great upheval and hormonal changes. Just because someone discovered that they were a lesbian after they left school does not in any way indicate that they were straight and have been somehow "corrupted".

They were straight all right, not till they attended a girl's school. Not only that, with hormones raging it is utimately common. In their schools, it is very common to see girl-girl relationships and them being intimate even in public. Just think, if that can happen to them, it can happen to other girls in their school, giving them a gender struggle or choice, especially when they are young.

And maybe this attitude is exactly the reason that they felt they couldn't confide in you in school?

I respect their choice, they are after all my friends. I feel appalled over the masses who have become like this. I do try to persuade them to revert, but it fails. I am still, close accquaintances with them. Furthermore, I know them when they were young but they changed dramatically as they stepped into such an age.

Again, I don't believe the "peer pressure" or the "media influence" theory (in fact, the media influence theory for anything gets my goat. There have been numerous studies, and they have all, without fail, shown that to be a load of nonsense.

As for it being okay for anyone to be gay...sure. Why not? There's nothing wrong with being gay, so why shouldn't people be free to be who they are?

Not accepting homosexuals doesn't make people not be homosexual, it just drives it underground, causes them misery, and leads to discrimination and people getting hurt. I cannot see a single one of those things as being a good thing.

Education here teaches us that peer pressure can make you do stupid things like shoplifting even if you were a person of virtue. Well, based on media here, people start taking up japanese/korean languages lessons because their pop idols speak that. They start having hairstyles based on anime of japan origin. They start dressing up like breakers because hip-hop is big here. They start skating because everyone skates and people who wear that clothes look cool or their friends do it. What is real is the smoking problem here, people smoke because their friends do it, it is often a friend offers them a cigarette before they are hooked. It is not a whole lot of goat. It is real. People take peer and media influence here very seriously.

Okay, would it make you think that my opinion was more informed if I told you that I was friends with Erik "The Lizardman" Sprague's wife? http://bmeworld.com/amago/ I don't get all my information from the TV.

Ultimately a person's choice does not affect everyone, but to me we aren't humans for nothing, not to have your parents painstakingly bring you up so you could be a lizard.

This is your opinion, and in my experience is completely wrong. It's rather closed-minded, in fact.

I wonder what you would make of me? I'm nowhere near as extreme as Erik or Tom, but I've got long, multi-coloured hair, 8 earrings in my left ear, a nose ring, and a labrette (middle of bottom lip) peircing. I also have two tattoos of my own design on my left arm, and have nearly decided on my 3rd.

At what point, I wonder, do you personally believe that normalcy ends?

Culture plays a part in this. It is not weird unless you ultimately decide to make a drastic change to your life and continue living like that. I may be narrow-minded, but I don't see any purpose in that. As for you, you have a job, you work, you think sensibly, you have a future most importantly. I have no reason saying you are a bad-ass punk because you have body art on you.

I'd also be very careful of presuming to know what other people wanted as children. You say that these people didn't have such dreams as children. Do you know this for a fact? Or are you really saying that you didn't have such dreams as a child, and so you presume that everyone else must be of the same mindset?

As a child, no child says I want to be a lizard or gay. I heard of cases however, on the confusion in kids especially boys who think they are girls. But the upbringing of a child, environment and influence affects his development. As for me, since young I have always read about the paranormal and was very interested in it until I discovered the Bible, it changed my life. When I was young, I never imagined myself to do anything like this.

Define what "morals" and "values" are teh correct ones, and which are also so fragile as to be undermined by someone having their tongue split.

No, I don't think it undermines anything, except maybe the irrational xenophobic prejudice of not accepting what is not considered "normal". Especially by people who, themselves, would not be considered "normal" by others. Who decides what is normal? Would you change your lifestyle if you were told it wasn't "normal"? Are non-permanant body-modifications, such as cutting or dying your hair, or having braces to straighten your teeth "normal"? Is dying your hair to a shade of brown "normal", but dying it green abnormal?

If you lived in India, it would be normal for you to have your nose peirced. If you were a memebr of certain African tribes, it would be normal for you to have your face permanantly scarred as you became an adult.

How do you define "normal"?

Morals and values are based on what is right and sensible in society. It is twisted if society accepts immoral concepts to be right or common and ignore it. It is just running away from the problem. I myself am told, am not normal, or my thinking that is. Just because I have deep thinking about the world, I am classified as weird. Or for the fact I do not fancy mainstream. Normalacy is not based on a person's exterior but on how he thinks. Do you call a murderer normal at all? I would say a mad man is more normal than a mass murderer.

And I would rather that people were free to be how they feel comfortable without criticism, as long as they didn't hurt anybody else doing so.

So, altering yourself to look like a lizrd is far, far more acceptable in my book than speeding in your car. For example.

Criticism and discrimination is wrong if it goes too far, but it is human nature. I would rather discourage or have a talk, if it fails, I can't stop them either. It is their choice and I can't do anything about it. Just my best wishes to them.

Or is it that she is attracted to such music because she is depressed for other reasons?

What you're saying here is the old censorship argument. It's alright for you to listen to Linkin Park, as they didn't influence you. It's all of those other people who are succeptible.

Firstly, it is her mindset. She goes to church religiously and knows wrong from right. But why does she indulge in such behaviours, I'm not sure. She has great friends, scores well in school. Secondly, it is the music that also plays a part.

I myself, used to like Linkin Park, I don't find their lyrics alternative just a bit 'trashy'. Anyway, I just got sick of hearing the same songs repeatedly. Sadly, the susceptible ones are many.

I'm enjoying talking to you, too. It's nice to converse with someone who doesn't get defensive or offended if I question their beliefs, rather takes it in the spirit in which it's intended.

Ah, there, finally we are done. I do hope you have time to spare to continue answering. I wish you all the best and God bless. I try to see things in a neutral way, and not to be offending in any way. Hope to hear from you again. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[trollface]

I'm sorry to hear about your work predicament.

It's good work and I enjoy it a lot. I have no problem with it being hard work at times.

Therefore, it is up to you to believe me.

As I've said, I simply cannot take someone's word for something. I need a credible source.

I would say the people were more gullible back then, they didn't have proof for anything or modern science to back 'ghosts' and the 'supernatural' up, they just knew it was there.

The point is that the vast majority of people still believe in those things. And all that the advancement of science has done is allowed pseudo-scientists to muscle in on the whole thing. People make their entire livings based off conning people in this manner. People such as Ed and Lorrain Warren: http://www.warrens.net/ Still getting milage out of the thoroughly debunked Amityville story. The thing is, this has been thoroughly debunked, as have Ed and Lorraine Warren and their "scientific methods" time and again (like here: http://www.ghostresearch.org/articles/amityville.html) since the whole thing started, and there are still more people that believe that the Amityville case was a true, scientifically proven case of ghosts and demons inhabiting a house.

The advancement of science has done absolutely nothing to make people more skeptical in general terms.

Here's a nice link for people who are skeptics on the supernatural.

Yeah, I've been a big fan of SkepDic for ages.

The Beatles were rather hippy-like, like John Lennon, his wife Yoko Ono, and now his son Sean Lennon. Many people in the world today are unsuspectingly manipulated into spreading the New Age movement. If my memory serves me right, I seem to remember a small passage in the book about the Beatles, but it was rather minor. Yoga teachers, like the many here, used to be the non-believing citizen here but were crossed into the New Age after taking up yoga.

All of that completely doesn't answer my questions at all.

Do you think the Beatles were manipulated into facilitating the spread of certain "New Age" beliefs to the West, or do you believe tham to have been part of the conspiracy you mention?

But there is still crack and ice going around, although not as strong, but it proved to have the same effect, after all the Red Indians used it themselves.

I've not seen or heard of those being used for "spiritual" purposes.

Yes, law enforcement indeed has cut down the rates.

It's not the law that has seen the decline in LSD's poularity - it's that people aren't as into that kind of thing as they used to be. People aren't interested in "tripping" and exploring the mind - they're interested in speeding and dancing. Drugs these days are often seen as a means to enhance an experience, not as an experience in and of themselves.

Ah, but it is an irony yeah? Technology is supposed to help mankind, but yet it seems to create more problems.

I wouldn't call it particularly ironic, no. The average lifespan of a human being has more than doubled over the last century, for a start. It's easy to forget how much of the comfortable existance we have today is due to technology and science. We tend to take it for granted, but it's really not doing so badly.

I rather base on proven things like drugs and medicine which has a proven and definite way to heal.

The point is that certain "alternative medicines" are proven to work.

Yes it can, it can defile a person's mind and question his mentality or whether in him, he wants to be gay or not. It can deeply affect a person, and make him think so much, he may eventually be gay.

What is the "it" you're referring to here?

But, no, I still mantain that you're entirely wrong in saying that being gay is a choice. I ask again, if you believe that, then when did you choose not to be gay?

They were straight all right, not till they attended a girl's school. Not only that, with hormones raging it is utimately common. In their schools, it is very common to see girl-girl relationships and them being intimate even in public. Just think, if that can happen to them, it can happen to other girls in their school, giving them a gender struggle or choice, especially when they are young.

You've not showed any reasoning there as to why you think there was "influence" to be gay. You merely repeated what I said (which was a case against outside influence, let us not forget) and added a baseless supposition to the end.

I say again: just because someone discovered that they were a lesbian after they left school does not in any way indicate that they were straight and have been somehow "corrupted". Yet that is all the "evidence" you seem to be offering.

I do try to persuade them to revert, but it fails.

The only thing I'm surprised about here is that if you treat your friends this way that they continue to want to be your friends. You cannot "pursuade" someone to "revert", because it is not a choice. That's why you fail. It would be like trying to pursuade someone not to be black.

Furthermore, I know them when they were young but they changed dramatically as they stepped into such an age.

A person who changed dramatically during their teen years? Who ever would have thought it? Call Ripley's.

It is not a whole lot of goat. It is real. People take peer and media influence here very seriously.

What you're talking about is a very different kettle of fish. There is no such thing as the hypodermic effect. That, in itself, is something of a media-generated myth. Here is an overview of various media effects models. Pay particular attention to the "Uses and Gratifications" model.

Yes, people will copy hairstyles that they believe to be "cool", and people will emulate group behaviour (and do I really have to point out that the two are very different things, and are not relevent to each other?), but they will not be "influenced to be gay".

Ultimately a person's choice does not affect everyone, but to me we aren't humans for nothing, not to have your parents painstakingly bring you up so you could be a lizard.

Again, do you know what Erik and Meghan's parents think, or are you just assuming?

It is not weird unless you ultimately decide to make a drastic change to your life and continue living like that.

"A drastic change" can mean anything. If I suddenly decide to become a Fireman, or to move to Africa and become an Aid worker, that's a drastic change. Would that be "weird"? And would it being "weird" mean that it was bad?

I may be narrow-minded, but I don't see any purpose in that.

I don't see any purpose in people going to the Opera. But I don't think it's a bad thing, or should be stopped.

As for you, you have a job, you work, you think sensibly, you have a future most importantly. I have no reason saying you are a bad-ass punk because you have body art on you.

Ah, interesting. Again, it seems that you're basing your prejudices on misinformation and assumptions, then. Erik has a job, he works, he is a very intelligent and sensible man, he was a doctoral candidate and has a philosophy degree, and he knows full well that his future is continuing to do what he does, and that his choice of career can sustain him (and his wife) until he dies.

As for Tom Leppard, a job and working? He's in his 60s. He was a serving soldier for 28 years, and only started his mods after he retired. He is also very intelligent, well-spoken and well-read. As for his future? He's retired. This is his future. This is how he wants to live. You know how people express the wish to go off and live on a desert island somewhere? Well, that's what he's done, except it's not a desert island on which he lives. It's not substansively different from buying a retirement villa in Spain.

FWIW, he's a devout Catholic who prays for 3 hours a day. You could say that he's devoting his life to God in the same way that a Monk does.

So you have no reason to say that either of them are a "bad-ass punk" because they have body art on them.

This is the point. You cannot judge somoene because of what they look like.

As a child, no child says I want to be a lizard or gay.

Again, you say "no child". Can I assume that you've asked Erik what he wanted when he was a child? Or is it just assumptions and prejudice again?

As for being gay, no I don't think any child says "I want to be gay when I grow up". But I know plenty of children know that they're attracted to the same sex.

But the upbringing of a child, environment and influence affects his development.

To a certain degree. The penalty for being discovered to be a homosexual in Sudan is death. If they discover that you are gay, they will torture you to death. Where's the influence there? All the influence there is to not be gay. And yet, people still get stoned to death and lynched there because they are gay. Why? Because the only thing that is actually affected by this influence is whether you feel that you can be open and honest about who you are, not who you are itself.

Morals and values are based on what is right and sensible in society.

The question I asked was who decides what is right and sensible and what isn't.

It is twisted if society accepts immoral concepts to be right or common and ignore it.

This contradicts your previous sentence. You said that what society found sensible was what was moral. Now you're saying that it's wrong if society accepts the immorral.

And, again, the question is who decides what it "moral"? Why am I moral, and yet Erik is immorral?

I myself am told, am not normal, or my thinking that is. Just because I have deep thinking about the world, I am classified as weird. Or for the fact I do not fancy mainstream. Normalacy is not based on a person's exterior but on how he thinks

This is exactly my point. So why is it okay for you to be how you are, yet it's a bad thing for your friends to be how they are? Why should society be accepting of you, and yet not of them? Why are your moral judgements about Tom and Erik right, and other's moral judgements about you wrong? who gave you the moral high ground?

I would rather discourage or have a talk, if it fails, I can't stop them either.

But why would you try to discourage them? I ask again, what's wrong with being gay? What's wrong with tattooing yourself?

Firstly, it is her mindset.

Yes, excactly.

But why does she indulge in such behaviours, I'm not sure.

That's right, you don't know.

Secondly, it is the music that also plays a part.

Again, you're stating this as fact, yet you offer nothing other than your belief as proof. You are wrong, there are numerous studies that show that the hypodermic model is false. This kind of media effect simply does not happen. It is not true. It is, ironically enough, a myth generated by the media.

I myself, used to like Linkin Park, I don't find their lyrics alternative just a bit 'trashy'. Anyway, I just got sick of hearing the same songs repeatedly. Sadly, the susceptible ones are many.

Exactly as I said, you're alright, becausde you're strong. It's all of them others who aren't as strong as you who shouldn't be allowed to listen to them.

Do you have any idea how hypocritical that is, especially as you're basing your conclusions on no evidence whatsoever?

I'll reply to the other half in a while.

 

[trollface]

I would seperate dreams from memories. They are different.

After the fact, all you have of a dream is a memory.

I have learnt from Discovery channel that the reason we don't remember things is because at the center of our brain, there is filter channelling memories.

The discovery Channel isn't exactly a reliable source of information.

There's a flaw in that reasoning. You see, if he knew Adam and Eve could potentially eat from the Tree of Life, why would he put it there? Doesn't he have absolute control? Didn't he create the world? The Tree of Life was planted to test their faith to him. That was the only absolute way to rebel against him, by eating the Tree of Life. Everything placed on earth at that time had a reason.

Nothing you've said disputes what I've said. The story of the Garden of Eden goes like this: God created Adam and Eve and told them that they could do anything that they wanted to, except eat from The Tree Of Knowledge Of Good And Evil, because if they ate from that tree, they would "surely die" that day. The serpent comes along and says to Eve, "God is lying. Eating the fruit of this tree will not kill you. God is just worried that you will have as much power as he does". Adam and Eve eat from the tree. God finds out. He then says "oh, dear, you ate from the tree, so I'm going to punish you. If I don't throw you out from the garden, you might also eat from the Tree Of Life, and then you'd live forever, and would be as powerful as me". Adam and Eve leave the garden and live for nearly another 1,000 years.

I ask again, who in that story told the truth and who lied?

The bible is already 3000 years old, written by different authors for each book. It is pretty obvious who is bad here, yeah?

Actually, as I've shown, it's ambiguous at best in parts. Especially if you watch the God of the Old Testament.

And I don't see what the book's age or number of authors have to do with it's validity, or how it portrays God.

I don't see it essential why we should pledge allegiance to Satan?

Who said it was?

After all, doesn't Satanism has an anything-goes philsophy?

Satanism also has very little to do with Satan. It's mainly called that to annoy people.

Their ultimate virtue is do anything you desire, murder, slaughter, rape, rob, steal, commit adultery!

Completely wrong. That's half of the creed taken out of context. The actual quote is "An it harm none, 'Do what thou wilt' shall be the whole of the Law". Or, to put it in slightly less pretentious language "As long as you don't hurt anybody, you can do what you want".

So everything you listed there would be disallowed.

There is no right and wrong, no evil, just something created from the mind!

I don't believe in moral absolutes. I think it's easy to say that it's wrong to kill. But if that's the only way to stop somebody from killing a school full of babies, I'd kill someone.

[...]do you think you should believe in a total lawless and absolutely corrupted religion as such?

Well, apart from the fact that you seem to be under some serious misapprehensions about Satanism, I don't think anybody should follow any religion. I think people should live their lives according to what they believe, and not hurt others. Not because they're afraid of getting spanked if they do, but because they think it's the right thing to do.

That is fairly in line with the Satanic beliefs (that's what the "Do what thou wilt" bit is all about, really - taking responsibility for your own actions), but, no I don't think that it's a good religion to follow. Better than some, though.

In Satanism, what does Satan do besides giving in to temptations, promote corruption and evil?

In Satanism, Satan doesn't actually really do anything.

but I told you my beliefs of what I think would have happened, were the Bible stories real. For one thing, Satan would have told Adam and Eve the truth, where their supposedly loving caring God lied to them out of fear. And that's the story told by those who are on his side, writing his propagana for him.

It is obvious who is good or bad.

You're using that word "obvious" again. You agreed that different people interpreted different things differently, and so saying something was "obvious" was not a valid argument for anything.

If this people could do it and yet it wasn't done by them? Then who did?

Nobody, it's a trick. You've provided a link to Skepdic. Read their entry on "Cold Reading". Or this page: http://www.re-quest.net/entertainment/movies-and-tv/tv/john-edward/

I also suggest reading what James Randi has to say on the subject.

Surely something supernatural was involved, there is no better reasoning besides demonic forces.

You claim skepticism, yet you say something like this. Why is it "sure" that something supernatural is involved? That's not critical thinking at all, it's believing the explaination that most closely matches your already-held beliefs. Why is it more likely that something supernatural is involved, than simply that John Edwards uses centuries-old tricks (and new ones, such as editing for TV) to fool people?

Thanks. I can see it now.

So did you watch it? What do you think? Do you think the voodoo doll had powers? Or has Derren shown how much (if not all) of this stuff has it's basis in the human mind, rather than anything supernatural?

Well, they are dead. They belonged in the medieval era.

That doesn't answer my questions. Why does them being dead and in the Medieval era mean that there had to be something supernatural going on? Why is it different from modern-day trepanning and how?

Really? I didn't know that although it doesn't seem as popular as before.

Yes, really. I suggest you need to do research casting a wider net than you have been. Rather than reading just the books that you have, buy some skeptical books, read skeptical sites, and watch skeptical programmes.

It is growing in popularity over there though, soon you will find it all over the States.

I'm English. But you're still not getting what I'm saying. People think they're practicing Feng shui. What they're actually doing is paying people lots of money to move their sofas around. If they were doing Feng Shui, they'd have to be concerned with where their ancestors are buried. They're not. So they're not doing Feng Shui.

Have you heard of Animal Magnetism? It was formed by this guy called Coue. He used the power of magnets to heal, later he found out he didn't need to use magnets anymore, just his mind. He then re-named this to Animal Magnetism.

I have no idea where you got that info from, but that's totally wrong. "Animal Magnetism" is what Franz Mesmer called hypnotism (along with "Mesmerism"), as he thought trances were induced by magnetism. Coue was a pharmacist and hypnotist in the 1920s, who developed the Laws Of Suggestion.

The medicine is the product of the placebo effect, which is nothing more than sugar pills or vitamins that end up deterioating the patient's condition instead of improving it, with the use of placebo effect of course.

Well, no. Not all medicine operates solely on the principal of the placebo effect.

I believe there is an article out there one why some states or possibly the country has banned the use of hypnotism for crime investigation.

My guess that would be because of the tendancy for confabulation. If you can get people to tell you things, but the things you're being told are more likely to be made up than true, then what good is that for investigating crimes?

Hm, it could be the effects of these trance inducing drugs.

I wouldn't call those drugs "trance-inducing" at all.

The one-man rule would have a Cabinet of some kind, but he will be somebody that world can trust and he is the one who has the power to control all, finances etc.

Well, this is one reason that you know it's not going to happen, and that the UM are not complicit, then, isn't it?