Skip to main content

Shirley Ghostman channels Col. Sanders (Kentucky Fried Chicken)



Chris French tests psychic Shirley Ghostman. Chris is pretty cool. He obviously realizes what's going on about halfway through final bit.

Wootton interviewed elsewhere:

Qu. What inspired you to create Shirley Ghostman?

Wootton: A close friend lost someone dear and I went to see a psychic with them. Shirley came as a result of me witnessing what was going on. When you’re not the focus of the psychic’s attention, it’s very easy to see the truth of what they’re up to and it really got my back up. I became quite angry and couldn’t believe these charlatans go round ripping people off. I went to see a couple of the more famous psychics do their live performances. You have to admire their showmanship but it’s not fair to prey on people.


Qu. Why did you call him Shirley?

Any boy called Shirley must have been picked on at school and we wanted to give the character an unfortunate backstory because a lot of the celebrity psychics have had pretty depressing upbringings. That’s why they reinvent themselves as someone special who can see dead people. I find that so arrogant. Tess Daly told me about a psychic she saw, so I went along to see them, just to try to find out if they were for real. When I got home and made a transcript of the reading, I realised I had given them all the answers.


This clip involving a genuine exorcist is more disturbing (This is a real exorcist - http://www.boblarson.org/ )...

I liked the exorcist's line "Listen to me. Instead of dealing with your real life and how messed up it is, you've got this make-believe world... and it's ..it's the spirits, and it's like a drug." The irony.

Comments

Obviously there is no such thing as ghosts and contacting the dead.

The whole thing is simply ridiculous.

Here is a video on life after death - for real. This is the only proven case scenario of life after death.
Anonymous said…
Travis, where is this video?

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o