To think psychics are all fakes?

[LambinsideaDuckinsideaTrout]

I don't like that they take peoples money when they are in a vulnerable place, lost loved ones etc. It's immoral. Just my opinion.

Thoughts? Opinions?

Waffley

I agree it is nice that it gave you comfort when you needed it. The same as faith in god etc gives people comfort and hope.

Where's the harm you ask? Plenty examples on the thread.

For example I don't think science will fully explain what happens when we die.

It kind of does, in as much as the scientific method can be applied. Your heart stops, your brain activity ceases, your organs fail, you start to decompose, and so on...

I'm talking about when people report seeing things and people etc when they are passing over before they get pulled back. Science has an explanation but it doesn't explain why some people are able to describe things that actually happened. See parts of the surgery or attempts to re start their hart. Things that were said and done despite the fact they were technically dead at that moment

Any attempt to prove that people having near-death experiences (I'm pretty accepting of NDEs BTW, the brain is a funny thing) can actually observe their environment has failed. There have been studies using planted items with specific visual imagery in operating theatres, and (as far as I can tell) not one patient has ever reported seeing the laptop on top of the cabinet with a purple picture of the Statue of Liberty displayed on it (or whatever).

In fact, when patients are questioned about NDEs with regard to perhaps striking things they may have observed, the frequency with which patients admit to standard NDEs (the light tunnel, time distortion, life review) drops dramatically.

And so you are left with personal testimony, personal testimony which seems to be sensitive to the environment under which it is obtained, and is never a reliable resource for scientific process.

Endorphind adrenaline or drugs may in some minds explain the whole tunnel of light thing but not the rest.

There is no "all the rest" apart from "what people say". It is not the job of science to explain "what people say" (although it may be able to address when/why they say it).

I think there is a fundamental problem here. People are saying that they have experienced or have open minds about or believe in certain things of whatever nature, psychic/religious etc. Other people who believe in a different set of things which include picking and choosing from the parts of science that validate their point (or attempt to) are not allowing anyone else to have a different point of view. This is dangerous ground as nobody really knows 100% what the truth is. You can say that certain things have not yet been proven. This is not evidence that they don't exist, just that they are not measurable using current methods yet. I find the insistence on being 'right' tiresome and it defeats the object of a debate such as this one.

Case For The Creator bingo. It will mention:

1. The cosmological argument self-contradiction.
2. Missing links, incomplete fossil record, therefore Darwin wrong.
3. Objective morality as a universal truth.
4. Please tell me I'm wrong and it doesn't mention the perfection of the eyeball and how it cannot possibly have arisen by "chance". Perhaps it continues into scoffing at the jumbo jet created when a hurricane blows through a shed full of scrap metal...

weeps

People are saying that they have experienced or have open minds about or believe in certain things of whatever nature, psychic/religious etc. Other people who believe in a different set of things which include picking and choosing from the parts of science that validate their point (or attempt to) are not allowing anyone else to have a different point of view

For me, this is not true. You can have whatever point of view you like. However, until you present evidence that your point of view is worth taking seriously, then I will not, well, take it seriously.

maid

Why do you take such pleasure in picking apart other peoples beliefs. They don't agree with you, get over it.

We are free to believe what we like regardless of what you or anyone else thinks.

People can have different points of view. But if that point of view is "there's lots of evidence for X" then I expect them to be able to at least outline what that evidence is or expect to be challenged on the assertion.

If, in contrast, that point of view is "there isn't any real evidence for X beyond my own subjective experience, but I believe it anyway" then that's fine and dandy.

Maid- it is not up to you to tell people what they can and cannot believe. You can believe what you like, so can I but it is absolutely not your place to preach.

Why do you take such pleasure in picking apart other peoples beliefs. They don't agree with you, get over it.
Because I happen to think that picking apart beliefs (on all sides) is the only way that any kind of movement towards absolute truth can be made.

Baldric you have a right to believe whatever you want, but it's not open minded to believe fervently in something for which you have no evidence.

The question you will be asked (it's been said already at least once) is why don't you believe in all the other non-proven things too? Are you too closed minded to accept that invisible dinosaurs exist?

It's not so much the particular belief I have a problem with, but the principle of 'I have no information about this one way or the other, but I decided to believe it's true'

But Baldricks, you cannot prove a negative. I could say that there is definitely a pink rat that created the universe, no one can prove me wrong if I just insist on believing it and dismiss those that don't as having a closed mind.

Waffly you raise a good point. I am glad you found your reading comforting, I really hate to seem insensitive to those that have found peace through these means. The downside is that although the psychic/ medium had a 'hit' with you may have had 100 misses with other paying clients. Is it ethically right to potentially hurt those that truly believe they have had contact with loved ones that have passed on? I am sorry.

Maid- it is not up to you to tell people what they can and cannot believe. You can believe what you like, so can I but it is absolutely not your place to preach.
Where have I told anyone what they can or cannot believe?

Psychic Sally was the funniest night I had out in a while. One of her stooges in the audience forgot their cue and the whole show fell apart. I was sitting next to another who was reading their lines before the show started, but I didn't know that at the time and she came up with the same stories that she did in another town 250miles away according to my friend who went to both.

But we aren't scientists or neurologists or anyone who could really make that happen. We are just people who have grown up having seen or heard or read about things and formed opinions.

If you are going To argue with people with regards to fact so it with people who are in postitions to change things. But being overly agressive on an internet forum to people for merely disagreeing with you isn't going to "move anything forward"

But religion is a societal problem, by raising doubts on places such as internet fora people are trying to change others' minds. The aggression stems from centuries of being told what to believe, now there are enough of us to fight back without fearing the backlash.

Derren Brown has proved time after time how they cold read. Some people are also trained mentalists. They can read body language extremely well and definitely can use that to pretend to be psychic.

So no, psychics do not exist. They are charlatans that use people's vulnerability and gulliblity for their own gain.

But there is plenty of evidence that people have experiences which cannot be explained. Where the roots of these experience reside is anyone's guess. I find it very difficult to be so black and white in my thinking to just dismiss things out of hand when a lot of people have experiences such as this. In fact, I think it is very sad that people need to inhabit a world so devoid of possibility when the reality is that we only know a tiny fraction of what makes us as we are.

I agree why so angry? What about Buddists? Are you slowed to March up and tell them they're mental charlatans? Scientologists are of course mad but many religions believe in life after death, reincarnation etc. I think there are laws against abusing them. I believe in things I know probably aren't real because it feels nice, it doesn't do any harm and I don't mind what other people think.

Oh, for goodness sake, Baldrick.

People are entitled to their beliefs and opinions - they are not entitled to their own facts.

If they are going to air their beliefs on a public forum using logical fallacies & incorrect scientific statements to support them, then they will be picked up on it.

There's nothing open minded about believing something when a) there's no evidence that it's true and b) rather a lot that it's not. That's the very opposite of open minded.

Open minds wait for evidence & base their conclusions on that. Sceptics, in other words.

But we aren't scientists or neurologists or anyone who could really make that happen.

Speak for yourself

But being overly agressive on an internet forum to people for merely disagreeing with you isn't going to "move anything forward

You will have to accept this as "stuff people say" but I haven't written a single word with any intentional aggression, unless a discussion and critique of a particular view is de facto aggressive?

Errr...this moved on...quite a bit...

Lamb in case you are at all interested, and just not to be rude since you asked the question, yes I do believe that some people genuinely believe they are doing it.

Sorry, this is irrelevant in the turn the thread has taken

Scientologists are of course mad

Why?

Why are they mad but Christians/Buddhists aren't?

Of the three, Scientology is actually the most likely to be correct.

(Although, it plainly isn't - but it's not a supernatural belief, so it's more probable).

Theodorous Buddhism isn't a religion. You have just been very dismissive of scientologists but how do you know they don't speak the truth? Lots of them really believe in it.

Baldricks hearsay does not equal evidence.

I think we're due a new Enlightenment movement for the modern era.

Hettie- where do you get your 'facts' from may I ask? You read research others have done and then pick and choose the parts which suit your belief system. How does that differ to someone that has say a religious belief? You assume that what you read is true, you don't know it's true. I can't see the difference between one kind of dogma and another.

I can't stand the whole "why can't you be nice?" crap.

Why can't you all learn to think?

Start thinking and I'll be nice.