Char Margolis the proof of an afterlife?

[Ecclesiastes]

For those who don't know her:

Char Margolis (born 1951) is an American spiritualist who claims to be able to contact or "channel" the souls of the deceased. Her books include Questions from Earth, Answers from Heaven and Life: A Spiritual Intuitive’s Collection of Inspirational Thoughts. She is a frequent guest on Larry King Live.Char Margolis (born 1951) is an American spiritualist who claims to be able to contact or "channel" the souls of the deceased. Her books include Questions from Earth, Answers from Heaven and Life: A Spiritual Intuitive’s Collection of Inspirational Thoughts. She is a frequent guest on Larry King Live.

In a 1999 interview with the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Margolis claimed that no special talent is required to be psychic. She declines to set up pay telephone lines like other psychics, but sells personal telephone psychic readings on her website, for which there is a waiting list. She says she became aware of her perceived abilities at the age of 8, when a figure appeared in her room one night and sprinkled her with twinkling lights. On the November 1, 2000 edition of Live with Regis and Kelly, Margolis declared on the show that host Kelly Ripa was pregnant. Ripa was pregnant but a spokesperson for ABC stated that only a small circle of people, and not Margolis or the public, knew.

Like contemporary James van Praagh and other alleged psychics, Margolis has been often criticized by James Randi and other skeptics of psychic power.

Her website

I was watching Char last night. She was speaking to random strangers on the street and telling them stuff she couldn't possibly know. I was thinking that she could very well be proof of an afterlife. She speaks to spirits who are around her or the person she speaks to. This way she gets to know things she could only know if she was told before the show. Seeing that she talks to random strangers she couldn't have been told information before.

Or is this all a big hoax?

What do you think of Char Margolis? Do you think she really has "powers" to contact the world of the deceased? Do you think she is proof of an afterlife?

[Darth Wong]

If it weren't a hoax, she would subject herself to controlled testing instead of doing staged publicity stunts on TV.

[CaptainCernick]

I can't help but being very sceptic about these things. I won't say it's all nonsense, but I sure would like to talk to one of these psychics and see if they could convince me that they truly have supernatural senses.

[Ecclesiastes]

If it weren't a hoax, she would subject herself to controlled testing instead of doing staged publicity stunts on TV.

How can you test something she can only hear or see? I don't think there is a test for that.

[Darth Wong]

How can you test something she can only hear or see? I don't think there is a test for that.

Bring in a randomly selected person who you are certain has never had any contact with this individual and forbid the person from giving any positive or negative feedback to any of her probing questions or guesses. Not even facial expressions, and certainly no verbal contact. Just stare straight ahead and say nothing while she attempts to do a "reading". Most "psychics" are just very perceptive and are good at asking leading questions and paying attention to your feedback as they fish around. Also get rid of obvious visual cues such as wedding rings and fashion choices by making the test subject wear nothing but a set of overalls.

Seriously, you seem rather gullible about this sort of thing.

[katsusand]

Well those kind of people are really jokes ... pretending to have psychics powers is really old there are many people who did the same thing and were detected that they were punks trying to get money and fame...

Only god can talk to the deceased..

alsslamu alikum

[Gumpfendorfer]

There is a test of those type of receptive people which clearly shows how they work, which is as stated in previous post. A random person has to draw a card from a deck of cards and is not allowed to answer, hint or do anything substantial while the questioner tries to 'guess' which cards she holds in her hand. Within short time he or she fires some questions and comes up with the right answer. Questioner hardly misses.

Why? Body language. For the largest part mankind communicates via body language rather than voice. I think it is even more than 3/4.
You can train yourself in picking up signals. Usually people give themselves away rather easily when they lie for instance, when they are in love with somebody and so on.
Even in a simple game as guessing cards.

[Ecclesiastes]

Bring in a randomly selected person who you are certain has never had any contact with this individual and forbid the person from giving any positive or negative feedback to any of her probing questions or guesses. Not even facial expressions, and certainly no verbal contact. Just stare straight ahead and say nothing while she attempts to do a "reading". Most "psychics" are just very perceptive and are good at asking leading questions and paying attention to your feedback as they fish around. Also get rid of obvious visual cues such as wedding rings and fashion choices by making the test subject wear nothing but a set of overalls.

Seriously, you seem rather gullible about this sort of thing.

First off I'm not gullible. I am just trying to have an open mind before I make/have a fast human descicion/opinion. The test you are suggesting has already been done by her speaking to random people on the street. Or do you think she has been told about those person before the camera's start rolling? Her answers are much more deep then I see you are married (ring) or something like that. She usually first start with saying she hears or sees a letter. She says the person cannot say who it is but just say yes or no. This is kind of like staring at her. Yes or no is not much. She almost always get's the person in question right and a lot of times she even brings people that are already deceased.

[Darth Wong]

First off I'm not gullible.

Yet you bought a staged publicity stunt on TV.

I am just trying to have an open mind before I make/have a fast human descicion/opinion. The test you are suggesting has already been done by her speaking to random people on the street.

No it hasn't. Did you even bother reading my description of how the test should be conducted?

Or do you think she has been told about those person before the camera's start rolling?

Possibly. Shurmer was once involved in a "psychic" demonstration on the Oprah Winfrey television show where the psychic had planted certain people in the audience.

Her answers are much more deep then I see you are married (ring) or something like that. She usually first start with saying she hears or sees a letter. She says the person cannot say who it is but just say yes or no. This is kind of like staring at her. Yes or no is not much. She almost always get's the person in question right and a lot of times she even brings people that are already deceased.

Obviously you haven't bothered reading several of the posts in this thread which directly address this kind of illogical thinking, nor have you ever bothered even looking at my very first post, which demanded that the tests be conducted on someone else's terms, not hers. There is a huge difference between "give only yes or no answers" and "no feedback whatsoever, not even facial expressions or body language".

[Ecclesiastes]

Yet you bought a staged publicity stunt on TV.

Where does it say that I believe she has this "powers". I only said I like to keep an open mind on things before making a opinion.

No it hasn't. Did you even bother reading my description of how the test should be conducted?
Obviously you haven't bothered reading several of the posts in this thread which directly address this kind of illogical thinking, nor have you ever bothered even looking at my very first post, which demanded that the tests be conducted on someone else's terms, not hers. There is a huge difference between "give only yes or no answers" and "no feedback whatsoever, not even facial expressions or body language".

Yes I bothered reading yours and other posts. True that your test differs from the "test" she has done by speaking at people on the street. I have not followed her from the very beginning or at all out of her TV show so I wouldn't know if she has already done such a test you described. Have you "followed" her or seen her on TV? She doesn't look like a fraud but ofcourse you would say I'm naive or something.

But let's say she has done or will do such a test you have described. And let's pretend she has passed the test. I don't think you will acknowledge her even then because what she does goes against everything you think. Ofcourse I don't know you that well but have seen your posts and know your views on things. You're an atheist who believes there is nothing after death. She perhaps is the proof there is an afterlife. Perhaps you are scared to see you are wrong.

[Darth Wong]

Where does it say that I believe she has this "powers". I only said I like to keep an open mind on things before making a opinion.

One's mind should be open, but not so open that anyone can stroll by and toss garbage into it.

Yes I bothered reading yours and other posts. True that your test differs from the "test" she has done by speaking at people on the street. I have not followed her from the very beginning or at all out of her TV show so I wouldn't know if she has already done such a test you described. Have you "followed" her or seen her on TV? She doesn't look like a fraud but ofcourse you would say I'm naive or something.

How does that disprove the point I'm making about the lack of proper testing of these abilities she claims to have?

But let's say she has done or will do such a test you have described. And let's pretend she has passed the test. I don't think you will acknowledge her even then because what she does goes against everything you think. Ofcourse I don't know you that well but have seen your posts and know your views on things. You're an atheist who believes there is nothing after death. She perhaps is the proof there is an afterlife. Perhaps you are scared to see you are wrong.

This is a classic example of the "attack the man, not the argument" ad-hominem fallacy. This is not about my personality or your imagination of how I might react to evidence which you admit does not exist (and hence is of no importance in this discussion), it is about serious holes in your logic and a serious lack of proper methodology in her claims.

If she truly had these powers, would she not be eager to undergo properly controlled tests in order to confirm them? Why does she insist on doing the TV circuit instead? You keep saying that you're not gullible and you think logically, but why has this question not occurred to you?

[Ecclesiastes]

One's mind should be open, but not so open that anyone can stroll by and toss garbage into it.

Why do you already think this is garbage? You already have an opinion even before seeing evidence (which isn't there). It is better to have an open mind, investigate everything then a closed mind and having an opinion about everything standing by.

How does that disprove the point I'm making about the lack of proper testing of these abilities she claims to have?

I do not want to disprove your point because I agree they should have a test in which everybody can see whether or not she has these special abilities. As I said before I do not know if she already has gone under a test of this sort.

This is a classic example of the "attack the man, not the argument" ad-hominem fallacy. This is not about my personality or your imagination of how I might react to evidence which you admit does not exist (and hence is of no importance in this discussion), it is about serious holes in your logic and a serious lack of proper methodology in her claims.

If she truly had these powers, would she not be eager to undergo properly controlled tests in order to confirm them? Why does she insist on doing the TV circuit instead? You keep saying that you're not gullible and you think logically, but why has this question not occurred to you?

I happily admit I have holes in my logic when it comes to this. That is why I'm "investigating" this. About her eagerness to undergo such a test I say why don't you ask her? As I said before I do not know if she already has gone under a test of this sort. What disturbs me the most is that you are so sure that it is a hoax even before she has undergone a test. Clearly you have a very closed mind which isn't good either.

Do you know what I think of and not? I don't think so. Therefor how can you know the question you ask has not occured to me? Because I haven't posted it yet? There are a lot of things I don't post for various reasons.

[The White Knight]

Wow, an American spiritualist. Don't even want to read on.

[Darth Wong]

Why do you already think this is garbage? You already have an opinion even before seeing evidence (which isn't there). It is better to have an open mind, investigate everything then a closed mind and having an opinion about everything standing by.

All claims without independently, objectively verifiable evidence are garbage. That's the scientific standard. It is the standard by which your entire modern standard of living was created thanks to science and technology, and you should have more respect for it.

You benefit from centuries of scientific advancement, purchased at the cost of innumerable man-hours and lifetimes of dedication, and you casually spit on that standard by dismissing it as "close-minded" when it is applied to one of your pet ideas. If you think so little of science, stop taking advantage of it. Stop taking medicine, stop using computers, go live in the mountains.

Do you know what I think of and not? I don't think so. Therefor how can you know the question you ask has not occured to me? Because I haven't posted it yet? There are a lot of things I don't post for various reasons.

The fact that you seem to think anyone should even begin taking this seriously despite the lack of any evidence for real controlled tests indicates that you don't understand the requirements of objective data. As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; this is not like telling people you found a quarter in your backyard. When someone claims a fantastic new phenomenon, real evidence is required, not a TV show. A fantastic claim does not have rights; it is not innocent until proven guilty.

[Ecclesiastes]

All claims without independently, objectively verifiable evidence are garbage. That's the scientific standard. It is the standard by which your entire modern standard of living was created thanks to science and technology, and you should have more respect for it.

You benefit from centuries of scientific advancement, purchased at the cost of innumerable man-hours and lifetimes of dedication, and you casually spit on that standard by dismissing it as "close-minded" when it is applied to one of your pet ideas. If you think so little of science, stop taking advantage of it. Stop taking medicine, stop using computers, go live in the mountains.

Don't start talking to me about respect because I am not the one who is in need of it. Yes I call it close-minded if you only think with the scientific standard. You weren't given your mind without a reason. You seriously need to step out of that pretty little sientific world of yours and start looking at things differently.

The fact that you seem to think anyone should even begin taking this seriously despite the lack of any evidence for real controlled tests indicates that you don't understand the requirements of objective data. As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; this is not like telling people you found a quarter in your backyard. When someone claims a fantastic new phenomenon, real evidence is required, not a TV show. A fantastic claim does not have rights; it is not innocent until proven guilty.

I just wanted everybodies opinion on it that's all. You are right, there is no evidence for her supossed "abilities" but I don't know if you got a piece of wood in front of your eyes but I already told you that I agree these people should be tested. I'd say that her talking to "complete"(you never can be sure can you) strangers on the street and start telling them about people she couldn't possibly know about with enormous dept to is already evidence of her abilities. You can call me gullible, naive or what not I still see this as evidence. The only point left is that she decided to step to those people. Like you said there should be a test in which somebody else tells how it goes.

[Darth Wong]

Don't start talking to me about respect because I am not the one who is in need of it.

You need to show science respect because of all it has done for you, and the fact that you use technology in your life, so you take advantage of science without showing it the proper respect and gratitude. I don't need to show illogical superstitious nonsense respect because it hasn't done a damned thing for me or anyone else. As I said, I am perfectly willing to completely excise superstition from my life; are you completely willing to excise science and technology from yours? Go live in the mountains and stop using the benefits of modern science if that's the way you feel.

Yes I call it close-minded if you only think with the scientific standard.

And I point out that "close-minded" is a childish criticism of an intellectual argument. You need to show that I am wrong or illogical. There is nothing wrong with being closed to illogical nonsense, and you have utterly failed to show that what you are spouting is anything but illogical nonsense.

You weren't given your mind without a reason. You seriously need to step out of that pretty little sientific world of yours and start looking at things differently.

Why? So I can be as gullible as you? So I can throw away years of university education and a professional license and all that I learned from that study and view the world in the unscientific way that a primitive savage does? So I can be as ungrateful to Science as you?

I just wanted everybodies opinion on it that's all. You are right, there is no evidence for her supossed "abilities" but I don't know if you got a piece of wood in front of your eyes but I already told you that I agree these people should be tested.

But you refuse to admit that her claims are garbage without such testing.

I'd say that her talking to "complete"(you never can be sure can you) strangers on the street and start telling them about people she couldn't possibly know about with enormous dept to is already evidence of her abilities.

You still demonstrate that you don't know what real evidence is. I have already explained what my definition of real evidence is. What's yours? Anything you see on TV? Or are your standards so low that you've never even thought of how you're supposed to differentiate between real evidence and salesmanship?

[Ecclesiastes]

You need to show science respect because of all it has done for you, and the fact that you use technology in your life, so you take advantage of science without showing it the proper respect and gratitude. I don't need to show illogical superstitious nonsense respect because it hasn't done a damned thing for me or anyone else. As I said, I am perfectly willing to completely excise superstition from my life; are you completely willing to excise science and technology from yours? Go live in the mountains and stop using the benefits of modern science if that's the way you feel.

I can show it respect without looking at everything in a scientific way.

I wasn't talking about you showing respect for the "supernatural". If you can't see what I meant by it then I guess you're what I think you are. A narrow minded respectless human being.

So what you are saying is that you only have respect for those who or things that has/have done something for you. No wonder the world is going down the crapper, it's full off narrow minded people like you who think they know the truth and everybody who thinks differently can **** off.

Stop using that "if you don't think scientificly you should not use what science or technology has brought to you " because that is childish and show you are out of arguments.

And I point out that "close-minded" is a childish criticism of an intellectual argument. You need to show that I am wrong or illogical. There is nothing wrong with being closed to illogical nonsense, and you have utterly failed to show that what you are spouting is anything but illogical nonsense.

And I point out that it often takes a child's view to see things clearly but you wouldn't understand.

It is impossible to show you you're wrong because you're just to thick headed. It wasn't my intention in the first place to show you you're wrong but you toke things so personally like all "discussions" you are in. I have respect for your views but you don't have respect for mine. You look upon my views as illogical nonsense and you can't stand that I do not make an opinion on this before there is some evidence. You however think this is garbage and illogical nonsense just because it has to do with the supernatural which you are sure doesn't excist.

Why? So I can be as gullible as you? So I can throw away years of university education and a professional license and all that I learned from that study and view the world in the unscientific way that a primitive savage does? So I can be as ungrateful to Science as you?

Again I say I am not gullible. The difference between you and me is that I wait for evidence to form an opinion and you already think this is nonsense because it has to do with the supernatural which you are sure doesn't excist. You don't throw away your education just because you try to look or just look at things differently if it was only a little bit different. You can always fall back on your scientific ways. You are not a savage or ungrateful to science when you look at things like the supernatural differently perhaps waiting for evidence to form an opinion.

But you refuse to admit that her claims are garbage without such testing.

Yes I refuse to admit that. I wait for evidence untill I make an opinion and before that I am completly objective. This doesn't make me a savage or ungrateful for what science and technology has brought me.

You still demonstrate that you don't know what real evidence is. I have already explained what my definition of real evidence is. What's yours? Anything you see on TV? Or are your standards so low that you've never even thought of how you're supposed to differentiate between real evidence and salesmanship?

Read my posts!!

The only point left is that she decided to step to those people. Like you said there should be a test in which somebody else tells how it goes.

You twist my words, leave part of my posts out just so you can confuse me with pretty/intelligent words and scientific :wub:. I grow tired of "discussing" with you if you can call it discussing. I would call it an inflation of your already large ego. You think you got the answer for everything but you also say let's have a test so we are sure if she has these abilities. But you don't need a test, No. You already think it is illogical nonsense even before there is some evidence on the table. You are afraid you might find out you are wrong and there is more then that what meets the eye. You live in a safe shelter called science and you are afraid to step out of it. You are afraid to look at thinks differently because that would be savage and illogical. Well newsflash: not everything is logical! I pity you...

[Darth Wong]

I wasn't talking about you showing respect for the "supernatural". If you can't see what I meant by it then I guess you're what I think you are. A narrow minded respectless human being.

So what you are saying is that you only have respect for those who or things that has/have done something for you. No wonder the world is going down the crapper, it's full off narrow minded people like you who think they know the truth and everybody who thinks differently can **** off.

No, the biggest problem with the world is people who do not differentiate between that which is logical and that which is illogical. Do you really think that people would be flying airplanes into buildings for Allah if they thought logically and scientifically?

Stop using that "if you don't think scientificly you should not use what science or technology has brought to you " because that is childish and show you are out of arguments.

Why? You argue that there is something wrong with the scientific mindset, so why do you continue to happily use its results?

And I point out that it often takes a child's view to see things clearly but you wouldn't understand.

Nonsense. Ignorance is not a superior point of view.

It is impossible to show you you're wrong because you're just to thick headed. It wasn't my intention in the first place to show you you're wrong but you toke things so personally like all "discussions" you are in. I have respect for your views but you don't have respect for mine. You look upon my views as illogical nonsense and you can't stand that I do not make an opinion on this before there is some evidence. You however think this is garbage and illogical nonsense just because it has to do with the supernatural which you are sure doesn't excist.

Notice how nowhere in this entire paragraph do you actually demonstrate a flaw in my logic. Instead, you simply attack me personally, because that's all you have left.

Again I say I am not gullible. The difference between you and me is that I wait for evidence to form an opinion and you already think this is nonsense because it has to do with the supernatural which you are sure doesn't excist. You don't throw away your education just because you try to look or just look at things differently if it was only a little bit different. You can always fall back on your scientific ways. You are not a savage or ungrateful to science when you look at things like the supernatural differently perhaps waiting for evidence to form an opinion.

I am waiting for evidence. You have failed to provide any.

Yes I refuse to admit that. I wait for evidence untill I make an opinion and before that I am completly objective. This doesn't make me a savage or ungrateful for what science and technology has brought me.

No, you do not wait for evidence, because you think you've already provided some when you haven't.

Read my posts!!

I have. They are remarkably logic-free and evidence-free. It must take considerable mental discipline to maintain such a strong wall of separation between logic and your thought processes.

You twist my words, leave part of my posts out just so you can confuse me with pretty/intelligent words and scientific :wub:. I grow tired of "discussing" with you if you can call it discussing. I would call it an inflation of your already large ego. You think you got the answer for everything but you also say let's have a test so we are sure if she has these abilities. But you don't need a test, No. You already think it is illogical nonsense even before there is some evidence on the table. You are afraid you might find out you are wrong and there is more then that what meets the eye.

Yet more personal attacks in lieu of identifying a real flaw in my argument. Stop being so childish.

You live in a safe shelter called science and you are afraid to step out of it. You are afraid to look at thinks differently because that would be savage and illogical. Well newsflash: not everything is logical! I pity you...

The fact that you are illogical does not mean that irrationality is a superior way to view the universe. We're not talking about how to live our lives; we're talking about whether something exists. That is a question of science, and you don't want to use science for one simple reason which you refuse to admit: you don't understand it. So instead of seeking to understand the science that you use but disrespect, you ignore it. Indeed, you reject the scientific standard itself and attack anyone who dares apply it. Pathetic.

[Redfoxx]

first off, krew don't attack darth wong just try to make him believe you. It isnt necessary to try and **** of wong to make a point.


Now, i need (as both have said) some strong evidence before i'll go on believing she can talk to the dead. The test that wong suggested would be best in my opinion but i doubt it will ever happen.

[Ecclesiastes]

I will stop discussing now (you must love this DW).
My only comment is that I find DW's posts provocative but I will not say he started the personal attacks.
I should not have attacked him personally but I was very frustrated.
Let's just keep it at that you have your opinion and I have mine before things start going out of hand.
I apologize.