Messages

'The Philosopher's Stone' is the first of the series of Harry Potter books.  The stone is prized because it is said that even if you are within a thread of dying the stone will bring you back to life.  It heals, regenerates and provides the possessor with immortality.  The stone was wanted by the evil Lord Voldemort who had killed Harry's parents because he had tried to kill Harry with a curse and it backfired and killed him.  Voldemort however, survived by taking over the bodies of small animals.  The animals didn't live long and he was eager to get the stone because it would bring him back to life.  Harry thwarted the attempt and the stone was destroyed.  

By book five Voldemort, through the aid of a servant, a Death Eater called Wormtail, comes back to life but he isn't exactly human yet.  He is sort of like a cross between a snake and a human being.  

Book 6, comes out in early July and the movie later in the year.  Can't wait!  Grab a copy of the first one and have a read.  I thought it was all hype and I wouldn't read or like it, but I got hooked against my will.  Wonder if there isn't some sorcery going on about the book.

It has happened to me a couple of times, however, it was not something I was trying to do so I can't advise you on that.

What's AP?

Note to self - 'well, dah!'  Hey, my only defence is I am still waking up.

I am not sure why you feel the need to be disrespectful and judgemental towards me or other people.  I don't mind discussing these issues but I don't feel like I ought to have to put myself in a position where I am being disrespected.  I get the impression that you are very set in your thinking about this issue and as such, it would be a waste of my time to try and discuss this with you.  I can answer your statements, its not that I can't debate this, its that I am not sure you are willing to discuss this openly without attacking me in the process.  I don't come here because I have to, I come here because I want to.  I have two small children and two elderly parents to deal with, I simply don't have the energy or time to deal with a closed minded, negative, fundamentalist, even of the atheistic variety.

Good luck and goodbye.

I just returned from hospital where my father had an operation for bladder cancer.  Its been an emotional and exhausting day and I think that caused me to overreact in my statement above which was written while dad was being operated on (I thought that coming here would distract me   ), and which I apologise for.  However, I still think that basically it would be useless to discuss this issue.  Its not the first time I have debated this issue.  In the last couple of months alone I have had this same discussion on about five different threads in two different sites with both atheists and Christian fundamentalists.  I have had this same debate over and over for several years with different people.  You'd think I would have learned by now.      I have yet to see anyone win this debate and at some point it gets frustrating to keep trying to convince someone of your experiences and knowledge when they are determined to negate them.  This is just one more such debate for me and I just don't feel like doing this anymore.  Maybe others will and I will keep a lookout for new posts but right now, it can't be me, perhaps in a few days.   I am just too tired right now.

I am not sure why you feel the need to be disrespectful and judgemental towards me or other people.  I don't mind discussing these issues but I don't feel like I ought to have to put myself in a position where I am being disrespected.  I get the impression that you are very set in your thinking about this issue and as such, it would be a waste of my time to try and discuss this with you.  I can answer your statements, its not that I can't debate this, its that I am not sure you are willing to discuss this openly without attacking me in the process.  I don't come here because I have to, I come here because I want to.  I have two small children and two elderly parents to deal with, I simply don't have the energy or time to deal with a closed minded, negative, fundamentalist, even of the atheistic variety.

Good luck and goodbye.

One of the worst problems I have with religion is that most people choose a religion because their family, friends, or people around them believe it, and say its the best religion.

R = quantity of major religions. Except for one religion having more followers than an other, and other details, on average the chance of a particular religion being the best is 1/R. If people choose arbitrarily by copying those around them, they have only a 1/R chance of being correct, which is a small chance.

How many of you have the same religion of one of your parents? Did you get that religion before you were old enough to understand what it meant? You are a fake believer.

As for experiences, lets say I worship the Butt God, who says bad things will happen if I touch butts. I test his theory and find that the more butts I touch, the more time I spend in jail. Therefore the Butt God is real! And my faith in him dictates he be the only true god.

'I don't believe in a God, I know there is a God', I just don't know what that means

You cant believe something you dont understand. Someone might say "the particle supercollider is operating at maximum quantum coherence", and you dont understand it, but you can only believe the other person is correct. You cant believe anything about the coherence itsself. What would you say if I asked some weird question about the coherence? You'd have to ask that person. You have no knowledge about coherence to say its true or false.

So, are you saying then, that before we can be a 'true believer' instead of a 'fake believer', we must know everything about our own religion and everything about every other religion?  If you were hungry and began a walk to find food and a few minutes into your walk you found some food and filled your belly, would you still be walking looking for food?  For some people, the religion they grew up with sustains them and they don't wish to look further.  It may not be your decision but it is theirs and they are content with it.  My parents are content with the faith they were brought up with, I was not.  I went through several religions and came back to my parent's one, not because mine was better but because I believe all religions have valid experiences and I felt comfort and familiarity in the one I grew up with.  Why are my parent's, by your logic, fake believers and I am a true believer since we both belong to the same faith?

I never said I understood God, in fact I actually said that I don't understand God.  What I said was that there is a kind of knowing that I experience that tells me that something is there.  Have you ever written a scientific paper with statistical analysis and stated that your results are absolutely 100% true?  No.  Why?  Because as any scientist will point out statistics are only pointers to possible truths, yet, there are many things we take for granted as being true based on those statistics.  Every time you get into a plane, you are putting your faith in a science you may not understand.  You don't say that you must know every part of engineering, etc, before you will believe that planes exist and that they fly.  You just know.

I don't understand lots of things, ie, I don't understand how it is that I can describe where a dead body is lying in another country I have never been to, describe her kidnapper, the colour of his car, when the body would be found, etc, all before the police have even figured out if she was kidnapped.  I just know that I know.  I may never understand it, should I not use this ability?  

Sorry, I am being nagged to go to sleep.  Hope it all makes sense.

If you will exist for 70 years, millions of years, or forever, how does that affect the meaning? You should still do what you want to do now.

For the meaning of life, see a dictionary. Its one of the biggest scams people have come to believe, that there is some meaning but nobody knows what it is, except for the preachers. They claim to know it too well. All they want is to conform you to their retarded beliefs. None of them know a meaning other than the one they made up, or took from somebody else who made it up.

If some "god" made up a meaning, its certainly been lost in the translation to your society. Be a good christian/whatever. Have sex with exactly 1 person. Spread the word of the translation of a translation. If thats true, I still reject it. I am nobodys slave.

I agree with Beavis in part because eternity is in the moment, practice mindfulness of each moment and you live an eternal life because there is no past and the future hasn't happened yet.  When you live in the past or the future its as if you also don't exist, but if you focus on the moment in which you are in, you exist in completeness.

I disagree with Beavis's statement about religious beliefs.  Its not the first time I have heard statements about how people are being 'conformed' and I don't get it really.  Perhaps in certain countries where the population is starving and the religious groups enter promising food, etc, then you could use that argument but when you are living in countries like the USA, England, Australia, etc, I don't think you could claim it is conformity.  There simply is so much variety in belief systems and the freedom to pursue any of them that to suggest that these people are being forced to conform by a preacher is plainly false to me.  I think if people are being fooled by preachers, then they are choosing to be fooled, but they are still not being forced to conform.

People make decisions about what they are willing to believe and participate in.  Its also unfair to brush everyone in a religious group as being of the same mind.  I know from my own experience, that I have never met two people in the one religious group who think alike.  I know of people who could be classified as fanatical while in the same group there are people who are so liberal in their thinking to the point of being 'heretical'.

People enter these organisations, judging the information they are given and then they look at the results of that information, experiences.  People make their decisions on confirmed experiences, not on a whim and not because they are forced, at least not where I am from.  They witness changes in their lives, they witness what is to them miracles, evidence of a Higher Power and they choose to enter the group.

To give an analogy, there are some people who would say that the topics that this site covers don't exist, that we are all irrational or even mentally unstable individuals.  They might even consider our Robert Bruce our preacher who has brainwashed us.  That we have to some extent conformed to fit into this group.  They may also claim that we have formed our own meanings about a reality that doesn't really exist.  They may say that OBEs and the like are non-existent, a product of a sick mind and that there is no proof, etc.  Now you may say that there is proof, but they may dismiss it out of hand, not even bother looking at the evidence.  You may give them examples, and they may tell you it was just luck, etc.  

I guess what I am saying is that whatever your arguments may be against religion, they can be used against your beliefs, so before you pick up stones to throw at the glass house across your street, you may want to check if you might not be living in a glass house as well.  Because, as far as I can see, maybe you are on the wrong site if drawing meaning from events offends you.     *I am saying this teasingly.*

Does this make everything that religion says right?  No, of course not.  I think many of the experiences that the religious people have are paranormal experiences which eventually will be explained by the language of science, that at the moment they are disguised in flowery language of religion.  Its like sex and romance.  You can have one or the other or both, but just because sex is more 'solid' an experience, doesn't mean that romance isn't as important or valid.  Just because a paranormal event takes place like the healing of a person, doesn't mean that we can't encase it with meaning, ie, that the person's faith in God had something to do with it, or that the healer is a saint or witch, etc.  The meaning it is encased in, has a life of its own, in the same way that romance takes on a life of its own.

In the Hindu tradition, they use the term Neti Neti, 'what is God?, God is not this, God is not that'.  In other words, once all the meanings that we attribute to God are taken away, what is left is God.  It is paradoxical because we think, at least in the west, that attributing meaning to God is what is important.  We talk about God is Love, God is Justice.  We never say just 'God is' and leave it at that.  This is where religious folk get into trouble because once you attribute a feature to God, you have missed God.  Once you have a sentence like God is Love, you have the opposing folk saying, yeh, but look at all the misery of the world.  So when someone asks me what or who is God, I answer, God is...  When I am asked what does that mean, I tell them that I will let them know when I figure it out but I do know like Jung before me, 'I don't believe in a God, I know there is a God', I just don't know what that means.    

Graelwyn,

The simple truth is that there is a purpose to diagnoses, it helps people distinguish what they are talking about, in this case;

depression is not sadness
social phobia is not the same as just being shy.
agoraphobia is not the same as being a home body.
anxiety is not the same as being a worrier.
eating disorders is not the same as someone wanting to just be slim.

Etc...

Any of these without treatment progressively get worse and can cause death.  In constrast, being sad, shy, a home body, worrier, wanting to be slim, etc, are things any individual can work on by themselves.

I think that in an attempt to not label people and be politically correct sometimes we can end up ignoring people and problems and end up being more cruel.  If a person has a physical disorder, there doesn't seem to be as much controversy about that.  No one says, lets not label the thing in your body as cancer, you just need to figure or work on your problems alone, don't waste your time with doctors...etc.  Why is that?

[Heter,]

Heter,

Please don't feel alone in this.  You can do something about this.  You don't have to suffer it and if you are young doing something sooner than later is vital.  Don't let it become an entrenched behaviour because then it becomes part of your psyche, it sort of becomes your personality and it is harder to treat.

I don't know where you are from, but if you check out hospitals they usually have outpatient clinics where they run individual and group therapies for disorders like these.  Universities also have clinics.  Apart from this, you can also see your local doctor who can refer you to such a clinic.  If the short term behavioural treatments don't work, don't get phased because there are other treatments which may suit you better, its just that they tend to be longer term.  

In Australia we have a service called Lifeline which is a phone service for people who are in crisis, however, they also have a great knowledge of free available services.  I am sure that wherever you are there will be a service like that.  Also, since you are 15, hospitals and other organisations tend to take that into account and offer free services.

Honestly, I think your parents would prefer to be poor and know that their son is alive and well.  Don't let the disorder twist your thinking around and make you think otherwise.  No parent would prefer to go to their child's funeral than pay for a therapist!

I do believe in you and your ability to heal and it will begin with you doing a search of the services available.  If this is too hard, then write to me privately and I will do a search for you.

Please believe me it will get better and that it is not how you look but what you think about how you look.

Hi,

I have had medication, cognitive behavioural therapy and psychoanalysis for the anxiety.  The medication was hopeless or horrible for me.  The cog behav I can separate into two because I have actually done a short term group program and I also saw a couple of psychiatrists years ago who called themselves cog behavs but were happy to see me once a week doing nothing more than having a chat.  Either way it was useless or I found it patronising because they weren't listening to me the person, I may as well have been one of their lab rats.  Psychoanalysis for me has been the most successful not only in terms of my anxiety levels but it has helped me in a sense to grow.  

There is often a misconception that all psychotherapists, including cog behavs who do 'talking therapies' are the same.  They aren't.  There are things which all my previous therapists missed which my psychoanalyst has not, questions I wish I had been asked which they never did, etc.  I believe that psychoanalysis and probably Jung's analytical psychology work best for me but they are not the same as cog behavs doing counselling.

Now I agree with you about the fact that all the various psycho-treatments/therapists/scientists are not working cohesively to offer the best treatments for people and because of that there are many who are falling through the cracks and becoming revolvind door patients.  I also have longed to see a central entry point for people who consider themselves to have a problem where they can come and their situation will be looked over by several professionals including naturapaths, dieticians, social workers, etc, so the person is treated as a whole and from every angle.  Not only this but that the agreed plan is seen through from start to finish without the threat of government slashing services or funding.  I mean, some people may turn up with a simple phobia which can be successfully treated with short term cog behav, others may need only to be monitored for medication levels and may need more living skills support, yet others may need long term, frequent, depth psych treatments.  One shouldn't be punished for needing more or less and each should have their needs met because only that way will they stop coming back into the system and wasting taxpayer's money.

I am not sure what you mean by some cases being left to neuroscience and not psychiatrists.  Neuroscience is a study on which psychiatrists depend.  I mean, its like saying that marriages should be celebrated by theologians rather than priests.  I studied basic neuroscience on my way to becoming a psychologist (I am not a psychologist, it was what I was planning).  Psychiatrists treat people because they are medical doctors who are able to advise on chemical treatments.  A neuroscientist is not a medical doctor so they couldn't recommend chemical intervention.  Perhaps I have misunderstood what you meant.

I am not supporting psychiatrists because I think that a lot of them stink as therapists and they treat their patients as money making machines.  For those who need long term treatment, finding a psychiatrist is next to impossible because why should they put up with a difficult long term case when they can see a schizophrenic or manic depressive whom they don't have to really deal with, they can just give them pills.  I am not saying that schizophrenics don't have their share of complications but patients who are anorexics or self mutilate or are borderlines, etc, need constant monitoring as they are constantly in one crisis or another.

I think the whole system stinks and needs to be overhauled.  The first thing that needs to happen is that the therapists and scientists need to stop using patients as pawns in their 'chicken and egg' arguments as to what comes first, the chemical imbalance, the childhood trauma, the maladaptive learned behaviour, etc.  They need to sit down and recognise that they are dealing with real people who need real help and that it may be help on several levels.  In that sense I think we are in total agreement.

I think we already have very good treatments but people are being denied them because of incompetence, lack of vision, ie, a cog behav won't send a patient to a psychoanalyst when they are unsuccessful, lack of funding, a corrupt system and a system where people just getting referred.

I guess when I was asking you what alternatives did you perceive, I meant do you have alternative treatments or ways of thinking of mental illnesses and disorders to the ones being recommended at this time.  The fact that the system sucks at the moment, well you would have to be blind not to see that.  I only read today that two community mental health services are about to shut in the Chatswood area in Sydney.

Okay, now I feel like I am hijacking the thread - can't half tell I have an interest in this!    

Okay, well, I don't have this disorder but I have suffered from panic attacks, anxiety and depression.  I have also studied psychology, the various forms of it.  I can understand some people getting defensive about having their belief system described as pathological.  I don't think though that is what the psychologists who wrote the DSM-3 had in mind.  I think what they can be blamed for is not describing the disorder in a more clear way so that it doesn't include the entire human race, since we all have some level of belief in God, Gods, paranormal abilities, etc.

I went to a couple of sites last night to look the disorder up.  I think the type of person they are referring to is someone who was probably neglected emotionally as a child, who spends their ENTIRE time in some sort of fantasy believing that they are surrounded by conspiracies, aliens, etc.  That they are sooooo overcome by these fantasies that they can't work, create or maintain relationships, or basically have closed themselves off from the rest of the world.  Maybe they are the type of fellows who sit in dark rooms in front of the computer 24/7, looking up conspiracy theories, while their mums beg them to come down to tea and as they decide to go down, they kiss their cut-out supermodel poster and tell her that they won't be long and how happy he is now that they found a real woman.    

It is not about the functioning person who believes in ufos or other similar things but does go out with friends, enjoys life, is functioning fairly well in society, not that life is perfect and that they are always functioning perfectly but overall they are pretty okay.  They have some level of grip on reality.

I think that on some level it is true that there will be some of us who may have leanings towards this sort of personality but that it isn't a disorder.  Maybe because of our experiences it has made us more wary of people, but we can still interact.  In these cases, we can look at our own behaviour and if we want to change it we can do that ourselves or with the help of friends or family.

However, there are some people where its not just a personality trait but has become a disorder, that is, it has become disabling.  In that case it may require intervention.  Maybe they aren't even aware of it and the family have asked for medical intervention.  I mean look at drug addicts and alcoholics who often find it so hard to believe that their behaviour is having any sort of effect on other people, that their habit is destroying their bodies and minds, its only when they get clean that they can see things like this.

Every now and then I hear a statement about 'how its all in the mind (well, dah!) and its just a matter of getting yourself together and not being such baby.  If theres a problem just do what you need to do to get yourself out of it.'  Its not that easy.  When I was very depressed, no amount of my trying to cheer myself up was going to fix the problem.  When I have a panic attack, no amount of telling myself I shouldn't feel this way is going to make me feel calm.  Its as if there is a cliff, where up to the edge you can say, yeh, I can fix this myself, but once you are over that edge, you are on a very different level and without intervention, there just isn't a way you can get back up by yourself.  Depression is not just feeling very very sad.  Its on a whole different level.  People with schizoid personality disorders are not just loners who believe in ufos, they are also on a whole different level.

Look, I am not saying that we should get stuck on diagnoses because I think that people are too quickly placed into pigeonholes.  However, on the other hand the idea that all psychology is wrong, I think is faulty as well, because for those who do present with problems, a very large number find relief if not cures.  I think there is a place for medications, for behavioural therapies, psychotherapies, as well as, spiritual healing, the healing found in friendships and family.  I don't see why it has to be one or the other.  Yes medication doesn't cure everyone, but it does help a lot of people.  Its true that the other therapies also don't cure everyone but you can't discount the fact that there are a large number of people who do get better.  

I am curious, for those who believe that psychology is faulty or evil, what would you do if someone came to you with the symptoms described as a schizoid or schizophrenic or any of the other disorders in the DSMs?  Do you have specific alternatives which are going to be 100% cures?  I know that sounds smart but I am actually asking genuinely, do you know of alternatives?

I have asked Victor to have a look at this site and what I have written, so that I also know if I have represented the situation correctly.

I hope he won't mind me saying this.  I really like the bloke, he is sincere in his efforts to bring about the truth, however, that doesn't make him perfect.  I have had debates with Victor about many of his statements.  Some things I find contradictory, many things are written in an emotionally charged way and lets say the guy is 'enthusiastic'.  However, I don't doubt his sincerity, his knowledge of the area and his tireless efforts to bring the truth into the open and thereby challenge Randi and others like him.  Unlike many of us who only get to see Randi occasionally on the tv, Victor has had direct dealings with him and others like him, perhaps after meeting people like this, our language would become rather emotive as well.

The Spiritualist church is one which combines religion and parapsychology.  I don't know much about it but I have been to a couple of their services to see what it is like.  They actively encourage psychic participation, they give readings during their services and even hold seances and the such.  Unlike other religious traditions which would consider this the devil's activities, the Spiritualists incorporate psychic experiences into their spirituality and believe that we are called by Higher Power to do so.  You may see then that Charles having a positive word for the Spiritualists when there is a lot of censoring and negative media going on in England about psychics, is a big deal for Victor.  Victor believes that the traditional religions have had there day and that they are based on falsehoods and that Transpersonal psychology and Spiritualists are the new traditions.  I don't agree with this, but he has a right to his opinions.  This doesn't take away from the fact that Randi has a bogus contract up, which he has explicitly stated that he always has a way out of paying the million dollar prize.

I forgot to add, I only found out this past week that Randi was the person behind the shutting down of a legitimate scientific lab that was studying paranormal events.  Apparently, he worked behind the scenes to shut down the funding to the university study.

He is a nasty piece of work.

And so say all of us, and so say all of us...

[Hi everyone,There have been a couple of posts about James Randi and his challenge here lately so I thought I would copy Victor Zammit's counter challenge. The challenge has been available for eight years and has yet to be collected. James Randi and CSICOP as well as other well known skeptics know of the challenge and have refused to take it up. This contract is from my understanding a mirror copy of the one that Randi has. It is Victor's claim that Randi's contract is a bogus one, because a) he has given himself legal right to not reply or deal with a psychic even if the psychic passes the first test, b) demands absolute rather than scientific evidence, c) he controls what happens with the methods and results, ie, he althers the method and he controls whether the media gets to hear about successful results, d) it requires that the psychic agree to not challenge him legally, so no matter how Randi treats the psychic or how he cheats, he can't be taken to court over it. These are the ones I am aware of, although Victor will know and have experience of more. It is Victor's claim that the test is set up for no real purpose except to lure psychics into a situation where they can be taken advantage of and ridiculed.Victor is requesting psychics to please not take up Randi's challenge because he is not able to legally stop this bogus contract and the only way to stop it is for psychics to stop attempting it. He hopes that if psychics stop paying it the attention that it currently gets, the publicity will die out and the challenge as well as Randi will fade into history. Randi is not interested in fairness, truth, evidence, etc, he has one interest only and that is to debunk psychics, he has made a career and a mission out of it. So please don't be fooled into thinking that he will stop being a vulture because you are the genuine thing and the others must have been fakes. No matter how good you are at what you do, you will simply not get that prize money, you will only be providing him with ammunition to denigrade yourself, the truth and psychics.]

Hi everyone,

There have been a couple of posts about James Randi and his challenge here lately so I thought I would copy Victor Zammit's counter challenge.  The challenge has been available for eight years and has yet to be collected.  James Randi and CSICOP as well as other well known skeptics know of the challenge and have refused to take it up.  This contract is from my understanding a mirror copy of the one that Randi has.  It is Victor's claim that Randi's contract is a bogus one, because a) he has given himself legal right to not reply or deal with a psychic even if the psychic passes the first test, b) demands absolute rather than scientific evidence, c) he controls what happens with the methods and results, ie, he althers the method and he controls whether the media gets to hear about successful results, d) it requires that the psychic agree to not challenge him legally, so no matter how Randi treats the psychic or how he cheats, he can't be taken to court over it.  These are the ones I am aware of, although Victor will know and have experience of more.  It is Victor's claim that the test is set up for no real purpose except to lure psychics into a situation where they can be taken advantage of and ridiculed.

Victor is requesting psychics to please not take up Randi's challenge because he is not able to legally stop this bogus contract and the only way to stop it is for psychics to stop attempting it.  He hopes that if psychics stop paying it the attention that it currently gets, the publicity will die out and the challenge as well as Randi will fade into history.  Randi is not interested in fairness, truth, evidence, etc, he has one interest only and that is to debunk psychics, he has made a career and a mission out of it.  So please don't be fooled into thinking that he will stop being a vulture because you are the genuine thing and the others must have been fakes.  No matter how good you are at what you do, you will simply not get that prize money, you will only be providing him with ammunition to denigrade yourself, the truth and psychics.


A LAWYER ON THE SKEPTICS
by Victor Zammit
Retired Lawyer of the Supreme Court of New South Wales,
and the High Court of Australia  


$1 Million Challenge
Preface and Conditions
Preface

One million dollars is offered to any skeptic who can rebut the evidence for the existence of the afterlife.

The afterlife is not just a speculative claim like there may be unicorns or there may be green cheese on the other side of the moon. There have been top scientists, genuine mediums, and thousands of others including empirical investigators like myself, who experienced psi and afterlife communication.(See Chapter 2 of my book on the Net)

It is claimed that there is now a substantial body of evidence which supports the existence of the afterlife and which taken as a whole cannot be satisfactorily accounted for except by the existence of the afterlife.

I have had complaints from genuine psychics and those who support the validity of psychic phenomena that those who reject the existence of the afterlife have never really examined the evidence.

Psychics claim they experienced a great deal of frustration when they tried to apply for a highly publicised skeptics' one million dollar challenge. It was put to me that the skeptics' offer is not genuine. Also, it was suggested that the psychics ought to put up a similar challenge reflecting the skeptics' own conditions for the stated prize.

This is how this challenge originated. Naturally, the effort has to be commensurate with the very high cash reward.

The applicant has to rebut the substantive objective evidence presented in Victor Zammit's A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife (http://www.victorzammit.com/book/) (see chapters 3 to 24) which includes: Materialisation, Electronic Voice Phenomena, Instrumental Transcommunication, the Scole Experiments, Professor Gary Schwartz' Experiments, Mediumship - Mental, Physical and Direct Voice, Xenoglossy, the Cross-Correspondences, Proxy Sittings, Automatic Etheric Writing, Laboratory Experiments, Poltergeists, Apparitions together with the evidence provided by Near Death Experiences and Out of Body Experiences which psychics claim are supportive of and are directly linked with the afterlife.

Further, the applicant has to rebut the technical afterlife evidence presented by the following: Arthur Findlay's On the Edge of the Etheric, Sir William Crookes' On Human Personality and Researches in the Phenomena of Spiritualism; Sir Oliver Lodge's Raymond and Geraldine Cummins' Swan on a Black Sea and the evidence provided by the Inner Peace Movement.

Here is the challenge for those skeptics who have been continuously campaigning in the media that there is no afterlife: those closed-minded skeptics who have been crusading around the world denigrating, destroying and demeaning the credibility of gifted psychics, trying to dismiss the positive evidence being produced for the afterlife; those skeptics who have been cruelly twisting and manipulating psychic truth to reduce its effect; those who unconscionably have tried to destroy the reputations of some of the greatest and most brilliant 'classical' scientists and psychic writers who ever walked this planet earth like Sir William Crookes, Sir Oliver Lodge, Sir William Barrett, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Arthur Findlay and so many others!

I concede that the skeptics' offer has been used very successfully and has provided huge propaganda against psychics. It has misled journalists, radio and TV interviewers. It has been a powerful tool for the dissemination of global darkness. The media's pet rent-a-skeptic vociferates on behalf of some 2% of the population who are closed minded skeptics yet these skeptics have been given exaggerated time and space in the media.

Although there is sponsorship for the offer, I am fully and solely responsible for the said offer.

Given the circumstances it is only reasonable, fair and equitable to match and to mirror as far as possible the skeptics' fundamental conditions one by one as the skeptics have had them on the Internet for a number of years now. It is reiterated that these conditions are based on the skeptics' own conditions.

Conditions

'The challenge' refers to the offer of one million dollars. The 'offeror' refers to Victor Zammit who is making the challenge. 'The Committee' refers to a group of people expert in afterlife evidence. The 'afterlife evidence' refers to the evidence mentioned above in the Preface. 'Applicant' refers to a person applying to meet 'the challenge.' Stage One refers to the first stage of the challenge where the applicant explains in clear terms how the applicant is intending to rebut the evidence. Stage Two, is the stage where the applicant (as in the skeptics' offer) becomes the claimant and clearly explains in the English language in academically acceptable format his rebuttal of the evidence.

1. Stage One- Initial submission.

Because there have been applicants who wasted a great deal of our precious time and money who had not examined the evidence in detail it has become essential and a pre-requisite that prior to any actual submission of any rebuttals of the evidence in Stage Two of the Challenge, a potential applicant must initially submit to the offeror a detailed exposition of how the applicant is going to rebut the evidence outlined in the above Preface.

2. The offeror and the applicant will agree that the applicant has demonstrated the technical skills to rebut the evidence. This is a fundamental and most important condition.

3. In relation to 2 above the decision of the offeror or his appointed representative will be absolute, irrevocable and final.

4. The applicant agrees that all data of any sort gathered as a result of the application may be used freely by Mr Zammit or the Committee in any way they choose.

5. Stage Two- Rebutting the evidence

Once agreement on condition 2 above has been reached the claimant will prepare his submissions to be placed before the Committee.

6. The applicant and the offeror accept that the decision of the Committee in relation to the submissions will be absolute, irrevocable and final.

7. The applicant agrees that the level of proof required to rebut the evidence will be the Cartesian test, "beyond any doubt". This means that there has to be absolutely no doubt at all in the minds of the Committee that the 'evidence' has been rebutted.

8. All correspondence in this challenge must be communicated in the English language and sent to: The Challenge, P.O. Box 1810 Dee Why, Northern Beaches, NSW Australia 2099 by registered mail.

9. All costs incurred by an applicant in relation to this challenge will be borne by the applicant.

10. The applicant agrees that in this challenge he or she is not a commercial consumer and agrees with the offeror that nothing connected to this offer herein expressly stated or imputed will be subject to legal enforceability - to the jurisdiction of any tribunal or court of law or equity.

11. Upon successfully proceeding to Stage Two the claimant will be given all other relevant details.

12. Before the applicant makes a first submission (see paragraph 1 above) he/she must submit a document properly witnessed by a litigation lawyer that the litigation lawyer has explained to the applicant the preface and the conditions and that these have been understood and accepted by the applicant. This submission is to be forwarded to THE CHALLENGE, PO Box 1810, Dee Why, Northern Beaches, NSW AUSTRALIA 2099 by registered mail. Staff check mailbox and vet all mail everyday.

-- Victor Zammit (18th November 2001)

<< Return to A Lawyer on The Skeptics



Copyright © 2001 Victor Zammit.  All rights reserved.  --   Last modified 01/04/2005 10:08:18

Please don't be fooled.  You will not succeed no matter how perfect your score is in the preliminary.  The moment you show any signs of succeeding, you will not be contacted again by Randi for the follow-up test.  Its in his contract that he has a right to not contact you again.

Victor Zammit has a mirror $1 million contract of Randi's, only asking debunkers like him to disprove the scientifically available evidence for the afterlife and paranormal abilities.  Its been available for several years and Randi is aware of it.  Its yet to be claimed because like Randi's there is no way of winning it.  Like previous advisors, please check out Victor's site who is a lawyer and has direct experience of Randi and CSICOP.

If you want a nonsensical challenge, then by all means take up Victors challenge to debunk your own abilities, because you have just as much chance of claiming that reward as claiming Randis.  At least with Victor you will be treated with more respect.

You're not going to listen are you?  Too dazzled by the money.  Ever thought of playing at the casino's?  I've been told that some psychics have made a bundle of money that way.

I have had recent discussions with Victor Zammit about Randi's challenge.  Victor is a Sydney retired lawyer.  He has a $1 million challenge to Randi and other debunkers to disprove the available scientific evidence on paranormal abilities/afterlife.  Its been up for grabs for several years now and CSICOP, Randi and others know about it, they haven't bothered to try.  Victor has a mirror copy of the contract that Randi has.  In other words, the challenge that Randi has up is a fraudulent one.  Victor has warned psychics to stay away from it because the structure of the contract is such that Randi can and will take advantage of the situation and the psychic.

I wrote to Victor asking for clarification.  He told me the following, psychics are meant to do a preliminary test, assuming they pass this test they then advance to the second test.  To date no one has advanced to the second test, but that is not because there haven't been psychics who have been successful but because if they are successful, Randi will not contact them any further.  According to Victor's experience, the complaint that the psychics who have had the misfortune of signing up for this test have had, is that once they pass the preliminary, Randi drops all communication.  It is in the contract that if he wishes he can do that.

Another complaint is that the test is not independent, the test is done by associatives of Randi who hold the same views as him and negatively bias the tests.  In one situation, they brought out a young Russian woman who claimed to be a medical intuitive.  They treated her so poorly, separating her from her support person and translator, changing pre-arranged conditions, etc, all in an attempt to negatively influence her.  Despite all this, she still did very well and definitely within scientifically acceptable statistical levels.  Did she claim her money, no, because she had agreed to almost perfect scores rather than statistically acceptable scores.  She is a naive 17 year old who unfortunately did not receive legal or scientific advice.  Had she been left alone and not treated so badly, she may well have scored those perfect scores, but Randi always has a way out.  She was so poorly treated, that from my understanding, an academic skeptic from a major university was fired over this scandal.

Before anyone goes signing up for his challenge, please visit Victor Zammit's site.  www.victorzammit.com  

Also, have a look at www.skepticalinvestigations.org.  They have a list of profiles of people from CSICOP, Randi included which briefly describe their history and motives.

Allison Dubois, whose story has been replicated in a series called Medium also has something to say about Randi.  She calls him a irritating little man and describes him as a dishonorable man who would be out of a job if he allowed the truth to prevail and she warns psychics to avoid his challenge.  www.alisondubois.com

Personally, I couldn't do the test.  The slightest sense that there is something negative in the air and I go from being above average in my hits to being below even chance.  I don't know how people could even contemplate to being tested by someone who is standing near them expecting them to fail and treating them like a con or a fool.  Got to have King Kong ... you know what to do that.  Good luck to you.    

My sister just sent this to me from her work.  She doesn't know about the discussion we have been having so I thought it was a nice bit of synchronicity for her to send me this.  I think it is hilarious but Republicans may not think so.

http://www.imgag.com/product/full/ap/3067907/graphic1.swf

And nay is right in saying there has been bloodshed in that part of the world for hundreds of years. The Shites and the Sunnis started going at it right after Mohammed's death and have rarely stopped since.

Most Iraqi's, like most people anywhere, want peace and prosperity. If they would make peace with each other, they can very likely have it.

This sounds contradictory, they have been at war for hundreds of years and in the second paragraph, they want peace and prosperity.  Maybe they don't want peace, maybe they like their way of dealing with disputes and they don't like the kind of peace and life that Westerners have decided for them.  There is only so much Jerry Springer type freedom and morality that the world can take.  Maybe they prefer the devil they know than the devil that they don't.  There are great things about America, but there is also things like high rates of violence, sexual promiscuity, psychological problems, such as drugs and alcoholism, anxiety, depression, eating disorders, not to mention suicide.  I don't have any stats but what is the bet that many of those problems don't exist or are very minor in these Muslim countries.  If America wants to hold itself up as the jewel of democracy, then it needs to show the world that it is successful in ways other than monetary.  It needs to show the world that it has compassion, is honesty and has high standards of ethics, morality and spirituality.  Otherwise, all is doing is offering one devil for another.

Apart from this, it still doesn't answer why the American government thinks it has a reason to go in there.  Let me put it to you another way, the Saudi Arabians believe in stoning women to death for the slightest misdemeanor, they also behead a number of people each week in a market place atmosphere, women are not allowed to drive or go into certain shops, etc.  At the same time, the Saudi's are linked to several organisations who are financially supporting terrorism and in fact Osama and many of the terrorists stem from that country.  It would make sense then to stem the flow of money from that country and to seek the terrorist training schools and terrorists in that country.  There are desperate people in that country who are losing their lives as well, why doesn't the American government get serious with that country since its all about compassion, self protection and not about oil?

I did have not heard anyone in our government address the issue of where are we going and what kind of nation do we want to become in the future. We lack a vision. We lack a direction. In some ways we lack a frontier and an American without a frontier or the idea of one seems not quite whole.

Well said.  I think both America and Australia have lost their vision of who they are and who they should be serving.

Israel did not require that Muslims leave. Many did and became the Palestinian refugees - the same refugees that the rest of the Arab world refused to take in ever since.

Israel did require Muslims to leave.  I am not justifying the terrorist acts of the Palestinians, however, there is an expansionist vision that the Jews have which does not include Muslims or any other religious groups.  There are many right wing Orthodox Jews who do not want Christians there but who tolerate them only slightly better than Muslims.  Many Muslims left under threat and duress and many were forced off their land into these refugee camps.  As for other Arab countries taking them in, why should they?  They didn't create the problem and they are poor, resource deprived countries, why should they take in these people.  In my rich country and state, despite being rich, we lack water, if these people had turned up on our door, we would have to turn them away.  There is a certain tone in what you are saying here, is it that you think that these people are not worthy or rejects and that is the reason other countries aren't taking them in.  I am not presuming anything, just asking for clarity.

As for the oil thing -- where is it? We don't have it as my last visit to the gas pump proved. We do not have to invade any country to get oil. We just have to be willing to buy it at whatever they decide to charge. So the oil argument doesn't hold up.

Environmentally our world is beginning to run out of oil.  From memory of scientific documentaries, it is only a matter of decades before this happens.  Therefore, whoever positions themselves to control this oil will not only have resources, but will also control other countries.  No one to my knowledge said that the day America steps into the country will be the day that America became flooded with free oil.  This is a longterm strategic step which is going to occur over the next couple of decades.  Its the American government making its presence known in the Middle East.

Just as an example of the type of things that are going on, as we all know many buildings were destroyed when America dropped bombs on Iraq.  The Iraqi people have been rebuilding.  However, they have been forced to use American contractors who are incredibly expensive instead of their own people.  The American government forbids them to use anyone other than their own contractors.  So the Iraqi people are forced to pay American builders higher amounts of money, to build buildings that American planes brought down.

I am curious, what are Americans paying for their petrol these days?  In Sydney we are currently paying $1.10 per litre and its expected to rise to $1.50 by sometime next year.

Nay, the idea that what happens to America and what America chooses doesn't effect the rest of the world is a myth.  The reason Americans need to think about the rest of the world's opinions is because we are all living on one planet and we depend on each other.  When one country has such power to control, manipulate other communities, there is going to be a problem.  America has a right to determine its own path, but unfortunately, it is also determining the path of other countries with it.  I find it curious that you are on a site which I think aims to make people aware of our interdependence and relatedness, our Oness, etc, and yet you think somehow America does not need to bother with how it effects the rest of the world.  I think it is this attitude which is causing the rest of the world to effect America now.  This is the very seed of every destructive act including war, the belief that we can do what we want and to hell with everyone else.  In psychological terms it is called Narcissism.

Please don't think I am angry about this, I am not, I am concerned, alarmed at times but not angry.  I also don't hate America or Americans.  There is a great deal of things to be proud of in America and Americans.  My concern is centred mainly around the political system it has which I consider is corrupt and its corporations which includes the media.  I believe the reports that suggest that the Saudi Arabian royal family has bought George Bush's soul.  I believe that the media is extremely biased presenting a positive picture of the war when that is not the case.  We know its not the case because even today there were new bombings in Baghdad.  It is a fallacy to think that Iraq is going to become this wonderful new Democracy and that all the other Muslim countries will follow.  You can't force Democracy on people, they have to want it and the simple fact is that most of them don't.  The simple fact is that in order to make any dent in the Middle East, that America is going to have to spend decades in this country to try and turn it towards its way of thinking.  It cannot just recreate one country overnight, nor can it allow it to be the only one recreated.  In order to have any lasting cultural change, it will have to 'introduce' its ideology to surrounding countries as well.  This is going to make Vietnam look like a short tour of duty.  And after all this, will it stop the suicide bombers, etc.  The answer is no.  

I find it bizarre that on this site, some people are willing to believe the most twisted and weird conspiracy theories, but can't see what is staring them in the face.   They are willing to believe aliens crashed into the pentagon, the president is a reptile, but not that their government may be corrupt and doing things that may bring the entire world to the brink of destruction.

As for the idea of my staying away from American products and culture, I don't mind small doses of it, but we are awash with it here and that is difficult.  Its a bit like GM foods.  You can avoid buying Canola for example, but it is hard to avoid it when other foods have traces of the stuff in it and 80% of products in stores have traces of GM foods.  Luckily here it isn't so bad, yet.  Its not that I don't like American things, so I don't feel like I need to avoid American things, its that it is becoming disporpotionate to our own stuff.  Its like, I love milkshakes, but if I went into a store and that is all they sold, it would be a problem.

Nay, you are obviously selective in what you hear and remember.  

Firstly, any link to the Telegraph newspaper says it all.  I buy that newspaper and in my country just before the Howard elections, one of the things I noticed was how many pro-Howard people seemed to be suddenly writing to the newspaper.  Of course I knew not to believe everything I read in newspapers, but I was delusional enough to believe that there would be at least even space given to both parties.  No, it wasn't, almost all stories of Howard were positive and almost all reader's letters were pro-Howard, I am talking about about 80%.  It really made me realise how powerful Murdoch and the media is and how easily people could be manipulated.

Secondly, although I am no great historian, I believe that the Israel/Palestinian problem is a creation of the UK and USA.  It was at their instigation and with their military support that these two groups were separated thus causing the current problems.  America chose to support Jews over Moslem's because of its Judeo-Christian outlook and in doing so has turned a blind eye to the murder and starvation of the Palestine people.  In general, America creates problems and then blames them on others.  There would be no terrorism if it wasn't for the fact that America finds it acceptable to destroy lives and countries through unfair trade agreements.  If people in these countries had the things that most Americans take for granted, ie, food, medicine, education, work, there wouldn't be such hatred of this country.  All these people have wanted is an even go at having a chance at life and the American government does all it can to make sure it doesn't happen and then has the cheek to turn around and accuse these people of being jealous, fanatical, etc.  The American government is in Iraq for two reasons only.  Firstly, oil, it wants to position itself to make sure that as world supply runs out which from memory will be happening over the next 50 years, it can get as much as it wants.

Third, you obviously haven't seen the programs we have in Australia of soldiers and their families demanding to come home, of soldiers and journalists saying that the people do not want America there any more, of the Iraqi people who wanted to be saved from Saddam and who consider themselves moderate, saying they now feel like they have not been saved but invaded by another Saddam, of soldiers mistreating and torturing civilians and Iraqi military personnel.  Etc...  I don't know how anyone can watch the bodies of children and say that a war is an acceptable form of debate.

I have American friends, I don't hate Americans or America, I would love to travel there, etc.  However, even in my country, I and many others are starting to feel like just another state of America.  We are shown American TV, eat American foods, we are becoming obese like Americans, our government seeks American approval and backing, etc.  I don't hate Americans but I hate that I am slowly being forced to become American.

Didn't need to be psychic to see that result coming.  Still, it begs the question, what on earth is going on in our world when we elect people who are pro-war and anti-freedom, women, gays, etc?  

I swear, I think John Howard and Bush are using the same PR people, and they in turn have been selected by Murdoch/Fox.

I use to love the forties and fifties, but suddenly, I feel like I am actually living them, nice Christian folk, women at home, men ruling the house and finances, gays don't exist, when did we suddenly agree to step into this time warp.

Damn, I am in desperate need of some laughing gas.     How else did women survive in the forties and fifties.    

My friend is about to go in to get his test results tomorrow (Monday).  The doctor is suspecting Lupus.  His name is Dean.  Good thoughts and prayers needed.  

Also a prayer for my nephew Bernard who finally got his visa and is on his way to live with us in Australia, from Ghana.  He is on the plane right now.

In Australia, Bush is seen as a very bad joke by the media.  Kerry is seen as a more honest, peaceful and caring choice.  Our embarrassing joke John Howard is seen as Bush's puppy.  That didn't stop us from voting for John Howard.  The problem is that once someone is threatened we have a tendency to freeze up and protect ourselves.  I think in an 'unconscious collective' way the world is doing that right now.  That is why Howard came into power yet again, despite the fact that the poor and middle-lower classes are struggling and people are paying record taxes with nothing to show for it.

Its the same with Bush, there have been several documentaries here in Australia showing how Bush has clear links to the Saudi Arabian Royal family.  That the very day of 9/11 Bin Ladens family members were in a meeting with major banking officials and investors in NY and that the only plane allowed to leave that day was the one that got the Bin Ladens out of New York.  That many of the major buildings in NY and others have been built by the Bin Ladens and all thanks to Bush and his father.  There are connections that clearly indicate that the Saudi Arabians finance Bush and his family and basically have bought their souls.

Apart from this, there are documentaries here also showing that Bush has involvement in cheating the ballot box.  For example, in Florida in the last election, a list had been made up of thousands of names of people who are supposedly criminals or ex-criminals, stopping them from voting.  However, a large proportion of those names belongs to people who are not criminals or have ever committed a crime.  'Somehow' their name ended on the list and they were not allowed to vote.  These names belonged to blacks in Florida who overall tend to vote for Democrats.  Not only this, but now they have introduced electronic voting which has been shown to be easy to hack.  Hackers and computer experts said that the box containing the computer only requires a pen lid to open it and once inside it needs no password to enter the computer system and change the votes.  Anyone can do it.  The other fault with the system is if you accidentally press two numbers, ie, 1 and 3, then nominee 2 is selected.  It doesn't read it as an error.  When the creator or administrator of the system, who is Republican was asked about this, she said that there was no problem eventhough she was directly shown the problem and then turned around and said that the nominee who lost the last election was basically just being a sore loser and his friends didn't really vote for him but they don't to tell him the truth because they don't want to hurt his feelings.  

As late as last night, I was watching a show where the host was saying that even if you put all of the war issue aside, Bush has taken an economy which was strong and stable and brought it into deficit, so for economic reasons alone he should not be voted for.  

Having said all this, that they lied about the war, that Bush and his family are in bed with the very people that attacked on 9/11, that they put the USA and the world in greater peril by terrorists, that they have the blood of their own young soldiers on their hands, that the economy of the country is going backwards, that they are censoring people and on the verge of turning the USA into a dictatorship, etc, will it make any difference.  I don't think so.  I think they will vote Bush back in again, irrespective if whether the people voted for him or not.  They will cheat their way back in, the way they did with the war.  Even if they don't cheat, so much fear has been created that people are too scared to vote for someone who is for peace.   Afterall, if you have been convinced that you are under threat, who do you vote for, Arnie types or Brad Pitt types.  Personally, I'd rather be in bed with Brad Pitt.  

Hi,

My eight year old niece told me last night she has had a floating/flying dream.  She said that she sort of holds her breath and then she begins to float upwards.  I have had the exact same dreams since I was her age.

I sort of felt wow and at the same time a bit concerned.  I told her how I had the same dreams and eventually over time she will learn to do loops and lots of other fun things.

Any guidance would be appreciated.  I don't want her to grow up fearing her spiritual/psychic experiences like I was made to feel.

Hi everyone,

Had another flying dream last night.  I find them a bitter-sweet experience.  I feel so free in those dreams, so light, fast, etc, and then I have to wake up and come back to this reality.  I spend the rest of the day/s trying to adjust to a heavy, slow body and reality.  I remember one time actually waking up and trying to allow myself to float like I do in the dreams because my brain just couldn't believe it wasn't a real experience.  Of course, my flying dream hit a metaphorical wall.  Must remember, flying in this reality does not work without the use of devices such as planes, parachutes, etc! []

How do people cope with coming back to earth?