Psychic readings

ViolaLass

catkins wrote: »

You can believe in whatever you like. It doesn't bother or affect me in any way.

I can't. I can believe what the evidence tells me. It isn't about choice.

I don't personally mock people who believe in unproven things but I do find them puzzling and I don't go to them for life advice.

cyantist

pigpen wrote: »

you underestimate the gossip-mongers.. I have had people ask me about things I have only ever discussed with one person who they didnt even know..

I have my facebook in total lockdown yet stuff I have 'planted' on there has been back to my abusive ex within a week.. A collection of people who don't know him, yet it gets there.. how? Not divine intervention thats for sure! .. just blabber mouths.

It only takes one person to see you .. this is how rumours are started.

I'd be more inclined to look at mutual friends/family members and see who is giving this woman the information.

These are things that either only me and my husband knew (and he definitely had not told anyone) not one single other person. Or in one instance something I had told absolutely no one. Not just no one she might know. I mean not one person at all. There's no one to gossip. I live 400 miles from this woman and have no mutual friends apart from my sister, who is only finding out this info from her friend! Which is quite worrying.

I understand people trying to find reasonable explanations. This is exactly what i was like at first. I have tried to think of everything believe me, and nothing makes sense. If it was just a couple of thing I'd think ages seen someone or been told something but she would be having to bug/ stalk me and my sister plus countless other people living up and down the country as well as having access to personal computer files, medical files and in some instances private thoughts. If someone who has a day job as a teacher has the ability, time and inclination to do all that she is wasted not being a spy!

BarryBlue

catkins wrote: »

I totally disagree. I have found most believers to be far more tolerant. On the whole accepting that everyone has a different view and that many people do not believe in any God or any religion. Non believers on the other hand are so quick to say that there is definitely not a God or, as so may like to refer to, a sky fairy.

I don't go around telling people there is definitely a God, definitely an afterlife. I believe totally in them but I don't expect others to. You stated that you know for sure there is no God or afterlife and that all mediums are liars, con artists etc. I disagree but I am not on here shouting that some are genuine. I believe what I believe but I don't mock others who don't feel the same way.

There would be no point whatsoever in entering into a "discussion" because most people either believe or don't believe. What is ever going to be said on here that would honestly change someone's view or belief?

As I said, I have reasons why I believe, especially in an afterlife but I am never in a million years going to give those reasons on here so that I can be ridiculed as I know I would be

Nobody has mocked you. Criticism of what people believe in is, however, what discussion is all about, and is not personal to you or anyone else. There is no doubt that non-believers are given a hard time and suffer everyday discrimination. As for closed minds, you will find that an atheist would always consider evidence, of which there is none, which is why they are atheists. A believer will always have a closed mind and believe, despite the evidence.

You, personally, may not go around telling people about god. But that is exactly what all religions do. They have state support for it in their indoctrination of children so that they can get them young. I could discuss this at length, but as you say there is little point.

The point of this thread, irrespective of all that, is that those who pretend to communicate with dead people are frauds. All of them, without exception. The evidence is overwhelming. It is cynical exploitation of gullible people, often at difficult times in their lives. They are shameless con artists. I do find it difficult to take seriously anyone who defends them as genuine when their methods have been laid bare for all to see.

ViolaLass

cyantist wrote: »

These are things that either only me and my husband knew (and he definitely had not told anyone) not one single other person. Or in one instance something I had told absolutely no one. Not just no one she might know. I mean not one person at all. There's no one to gossip. I live 400 miles from this woman and have no mutual friends apart from my sister, who is only finding out this info from her friend! Which is quite worrying.

I understand people trying to find reasonable explanations. This is exactly what i was like at first. I have tried to think of everything believe me, and nothing makes sense. If it was just a couple of thing I'd think ages seen someone or been told something but she would be having to bug/ stalk me and my sister plus countless other people living up and down the country as well as having access to personal computer files, medical files and in some instances private thoughts. If someone who has a day job as a teacher has the ability, time and inclination to do all that she is wasted not being a spy!

If enough psychics tell enough people enough things, someone somewhere is going to hit the nail on the head occasionally.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Person_one wrote: »

Even if I wasn't completely sceptical about psychics anyway, I have a personal experience that probably comes as close to the impossible 'proof they don't exist' as any believer would accept.

I had a friend who completely bought into the whole medium/psychic/paranormal/ghosts etc. rubbish. Totally believed it, hook line and sinker. Thought her house was haunted and got a priest in even though her family had bought it as a new build! We used to argue for hours on the topic, she'd tell me all sorts of stories about slamming doors and mysterious moving objects and I'd be incredulous that an otherwise intelligent woman kept shelling out cash to psychics to be told she'd meet a men with 'J' in his name.

She died nearly 10 years ago now. Not a peep. No messages, no friendly psychics turning up at my door, no visitations, nothing. I know why, its because she's dead, and that's what happens when you're dead, you don't exist anymore. But if you do believe even for a second that the dead can communicate with the living then there's no way this person wouldn't have taken the chance to gloat and prove me wrong!

This is such an excellent point! Why aren't all the Victorian spiritualists furiously contacting mediums telling us they were right all along?

cyantist

ViolaLass wrote: »

If enough psychics tell enough people enough things, someone somewhere is going to hit the nail on the head occasionally.

Exactly. It would happen occasionally. If you tell someone 30 things, in detail, and all 30 are completely accurate then it's no longer possible this is just due to chance

NewShadow

ViolaLass wrote: »

I can provide proof that there isn't and I have no proof that there is. The same works for God and psychics.

Scientific methodology would actually say - You can provide evidence there is no monster under your bed that you can detect using the tools and knowledge currently available to you.

I've highlighted physics, because I might suggest you look up Fermi's paradox... It's never as simple as yes or no.

A body of evidence forms a hypothesis, a collection of hypothesis that substantiate each other form a proof, a proof is subject to revalidation periodically because proof does not equal truth.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If you assume either:

• If a proposition has not been disproven, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true.

• If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.

Both positions are equally false dichotomies.

Person_one

cyantist wrote: »

Exactly. It would happen occasionally. If you tell someone 30 things, in detail, and all 30 are completely accurate then it's no longer possible this is just due to chance

No, not chance, skill.

Derren Brown and other debunkers are able to convince people just as much as any 'psychic', the only difference is that they admit its a trick. That means it is entirely possible its a trick whoever is doing it.

cyantist

Person_one wrote: »

No, not chance, skill.

Derren Brown and other debunkers are able to convince people just as much as any 'psychic', the only difference is that they admit its a trick. That means it is entirely possible its a trick whoever is doing it.

But when Derren brown did this debunking in the system he started with 100 people and ended up with just one person who he had correctly guessed a winning horse for. And there were only 6 races. To get 30 facts right at random about someone you'd have to have thousands of people who you're telling things to, to end up with just one person for who all things were true. That's just not feasible. Then there's the added complication that this isn't just "pick one winner out of ten" type of information.

And why would someone go to all that effort? It it was a job I can see it may be worth it (though you'd have to consider all the negative publicity from the people for who you got nothing correct). But someone who has never tried to make any money or offer readings - it would make no sense

Person_one

cyantist wrote: »

But when Derren brown did this debunking in the system he started with 100 people and ended up with just one person who he had correctly guessed a winning horse for. And there were only 6 races. To get 30 facts right at random about someone you'd have to have thousands of people who you're telling things to, to end up with just one person for who all things were true. That's just not feasible. Then there's the added complication that this isn't just "pick one winner out of ten" type of information

That was just one trick, he's also demonstrated the effectiveness of cold reading many times, as well as things like ouija boards etc.

Cold reading can be extremely convincing, some people are very very good at reading your responses to their questions, not necessarily verbal or overt responses either and at directing you subtly to provide the information they need to feed back to you to convince you they already knew it.