Psychics/ Mediums

Mankysteve

You can criticize people beliefs, Just because there spiritual/religious beliefs doesn't/shouldn't mean people cant criticize them. I wouldn't be so crass to call people stupid or !!!!!! though as that just as bad. You've got to respond with a proper argument why there beliefs are wrong.

People may find them comforting beliefs does'nt mean there right.

To be honest I find a lot of these "psychics" are using people losses for there own gain which I find highly offensive.

no1catman

Mankysteve wrote: »

You've got to respond with a proper argument why there beliefs are wrong.

People may find them comforting beliefs does'nt mean there right.
To be honest I find a lot of these "physics" are using people losses for there own gain which I find highly offensive.

I think you probably mean - 'psychics' relating to a phenomena that seem to be outside the physical and natural laws i.e. Newton's Laws. As opposed 'physics' referring to these laws! Whereas as the 'phenomena' that psychics/mediums work with is based on Quantum physics.

You are quite welcome to express your views - but just because you think such believes are wrong - doesn't mean they are - just your opinion.

sookipeaspud

According to those nutters in the Daily Mail - all this tarot reading spiritual stuff is real, but then again Daily Mail loves whacko whacky rubbish talk!

MrsHoneybun

Of course it's fraudulent. Basically, if you go to a psychic you're giving your money away to someone who doesn't deserve it.

Mankysteve

no1catman wrote: »

I think you probably mean - 'psychics' relating to a phenomena that seem to be outside the physical and natural laws i.e. Newton's Laws. As opposed 'physics' referring to these laws! Whereas as the 'phenomena' that psychics/mediums work with is based on Quantum physics.

You are quite welcome to express your views - but just because you think such believes are wrong - doesn't mean they are - just your opinion.

Corrected spell checked mistake.

Things are wrong untill there proven by evidence thats there correct your. Ie innocent until proven guilty not guilty then proven innocent no matter what other say.

Gavin83

I believe in all sorts of stuff like this, psychics, ghosts and certainly things like aliens. However, I believe that 99% of psychics are liars and make stuff up in order to make money. Partly for this reason and that I don't really have any desire to know the future or speak to dead relatives I'd never visit one.

I've had a few ghost experiences that have lead me to believe that they exist, regardless of what they actually are. I think it's fair to say there is a lot in science we don't yet know about, the argument that it hasn't yet been discovered doesn't really wash with me.

I don't believe in God as a religious entity though.

marleyboy

Mankysteve wrote: »

Corrected spell checked mistake.

Things are wrong untill there proven by evidence thats there correct your. Ie innocent until proven guilty not guilty then proven innocent no matter what other say.

By your analogy "things are wrong until proven by evidence", there is NO evidence that suggests the atheistic opinion that there is no life after death, that there is no spirit or God. Your argument is two fold, does this mean that there is a possibility you could also be wrong?

The truth is, we simply do not know, we can interpret or guess, but without any kind of static proof for either, we are in no position to judge.

I was born a Roman Catholic although I do not follow religion, I would like to "think" there is life after death, but if there is not, when I die I wont be in a position to know about it.

Of course nobody can PROVE to me there is not, as much as PROVE to me there is. Just as nobody can prove one religion over another. The only proof I have is in the here and now, that "life" exists, from plants, insects and all the way up the food chain. This is not even taking into account life on a microbiological level.

You cannot prove to me that there is no life after death, as much as I cannot prove to you that there is, be that there is no evidence for either. I certainly have my doubts about psychics, mediums or spiritualists, as much as I have my doubts about priests, religions or gospel. But I am in no position to brand them as liars on the grounds they have no proof, simply because I have no proof that they are lying.

The most we can do, is doubt them or disbelieve in their claims, and up until we can prove one way or the other who is right or wrong, we are in no position to make any claims that we ourselves cannot prove to be fact. On this basis alone, you cannot claim to be right.

Oopsadaisy

Gavin83 wrote: »

I believe in all sorts of stuff like this, psychics, ghosts and certainly things like aliens.

I don't believe in God as a religious entity though.

Illogical is the word that springs to mind.

Which of these do you believe in??

Tooth Fairy

Father Christmas

Easter Bunny

Casper [the friendly ghost]

Fairies at the bottom of the garden

Leprechauns [sic?]

Yeti

Bigfoot

Loch Ness Monster

Genie [in a bottle]

Jeanie [I love Jeanie]

Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse [Curly, Larry and Mo, can't remember the fourth name]

E.T.

The great big teapot spinning in space

The Borrowers

Gremlins

Angels [by our Robbie]

Oopsadaisy

The constant bleating of "You can't prove God doesn't exist" annoys me. As does the 'My belief [that God or a giant paperclip made from cheese made us all] is as equally likely to be correct/as valid as your belief in science".

Godsters follow an argument that if we can't be 100% certain of something, then all explanations, no matter how bizarre/unlikely, should be attributed equal validity. This is a ridiculous way to think or live.

Lets look at an example....a blanket. Lets assume we know nothing about insulation.

I give you a blanket and you wrap it around yourself and you feel warmer.

I ask the question 'How does a blanket make you warmer?'

We don't know, so a scientist and a Godster each try to work it out/explain it

The Godster says 'Well, it's easy. There's definitley a great big invisible paperclip that is made out of cheese [different religions believe in different cheeses] and it sees you put the blanket on [out of 6 billion] and it then sends special cheese heat down to you.'

Scientist says 'Well, at the moment I don't know ...but on first glance maybe it's something to do with the blanket stopping the wind blowing away your own heat, or maybe it traps the heat from you body, or maybe there's a power source in the blanket that puts out heat, or maybe because it's a shiny blanket it reflects the heat back, or maybe the blanket just generates heat from chemically/physically breaking down or by concentrating heat from external sources [like a magifying glass] or maybe it's a miracle......We could do some experiments to see if we could eliminate some of these'.

The Godster would then write down in a big old book 'The cheesy paperclip send us heat in the special blanket', it would then teach it to all the children, every day. It would devise a specia chant/incantation/spell to honour the 'magical and mysterious holy heat sent from the cheesy paperclip'.

The scientist would then seek to eliminate some of their own hypotheses [eg search it for a power source - eliminates that; seeing if the blanket raises the temperature in an empty box would prove that the blanket is not generating any heat by itself, etc]. At the end of the investigation the scientist would say 'We believe it's to do with insulation [a new discovery] and trapping a layer of air, etc.....'. Other scientists would now try to confirm and either confirm or disprove the first scientist's hypothesis. If they disprove any part of it, they would then seek alternative hypotheses and again test these.

So after several years/decades/centuries..........

The scientists explain insulation, trapping, evaporation, reflection, etc.

The Godsters shout 'It's magical heat from the great big cheesy paperclip in the sky, look we've got an old mis-translated book that says so, and because you can't prove the big paperclip doesn't exist our theory of the holy blanket is as valid as yours'.

The Godsters would insist that it's 50:50 when it comes to science : cheesy paperclip.


So in summary, the absence of absolute proof does not make all options equally valid; so not being able to prove God doesn't exist doesn't make it a 50/50 situation.

Caroline73_2

Oopsadaisy wrote: »

The constant bleating of "You can't prove God doesn't exist" annoys me. As does the 'My belief [that God or a giant paperclip made from cheese made us all] is as equally likely to be correct/as valid as your belief in science".

Godsters follow an argument that if we can't be 100% certain of something, then all explanations, no matter how bizarre/unlikely, should be attributed equal validity. This is a ridiculous way to think or live.

Lets look at an example....a blanket. Lets assume we know nothing about insulation.

I give you a blanket and you wrap it around yourself and you feel warmer.

I ask the question 'How does a blanket make you warmer?'

We don't know, so a scientist and a Godster each try to work it out/explain it

The Godster says 'Well, it's easy. There's definitley a great big invisible paperclip that is made out of cheese [different religions believe in different cheeses] and it sees you put the blanket on [out of 6 billion] and it then sends special cheese heat down to you.'

Scientist says 'Well, at the moment I don't know ...but on first glance maybe it's something to do with the blanket stopping the wind blowing away your own heat, or maybe it traps the heat from you body, or maybe there's a power source in the blanket that puts out heat, or maybe because it's a shiny blanket it reflects the heat back, or maybe the blanket just generates heat from chemically/physically breaking down or by concentrating heat from external sources [like a magifying glass] or maybe it's a miracle......We could do some experiments to see if we could eliminate some of these'.

The Godster would then write down in a big old book 'The cheesy paperclip send us heat in the special blanket', it would then teach it to all the children, every day. It would devise a specia chant/incantation/spell to honour the 'magical and mysterious holy heat sent from the cheesy paperclip'.

The scientist would then seek to eliminate some of their own hypotheses [eg search it for a power source - eliminates that; seeing if the blanket raises the temperature in an empty box would prove that the blanket is not generating any heat by itself, etc]. At the end of the investigation the scientist would say 'We believe it's to do with insulation [a new discovery] and trapping a layer of air, etc.....'. Other scientists would now try to confirm and either confirm or disprove the first scientist's hypothesis. If they disprove any part of it, they would then seek alternative hypotheses and again test these.

So after several years/decades/centuries..........

The scientists explain insulation, trapping, evaporation, reflection, etc.

The Godsters shout 'It's magical heat from the great big cheesy paperclip in the sky, look we've got an old mis-translated book that says so, and because you can't prove the big paperclip doesn't exist our theory of the holy blanket is as valid as yours'.

The Godsters would insist that it's 50:50 when it comes to science : cheesy paperclip.


So in summary, the absence of absolute proof does not make all options equally valid; so not being able to prove God doesn't exist doesn't make it a 50/50 situation.

It's the cheese theory that is correct. It said so on wikipedia.