Poll: Psychic

[Kif]

I believe it was Tim Minchin who sang

"If anyone can show me one example in the history of the world of a single psychic who has been able to prove under reasonable experimental conditions that they are able to read minds

And if anyone can show me one example in the history of the world of a single astrologer who has been able to prove under reasonable experimental conditions that they can predict future events by interpreting celestial signs

And if anyone can show me one example in the history of the world of a single homeopathic practitioner who has been able to prove under reasonable experimental conditions that solutions made of infinitely tiny particles of good stuff dissolved repeatedly into relatively huge quantities of water has a consistently higher medicinal value than a similarly administered placebo

And if anyone can show me one example in the entire history of the world of a single spiritual or religious person who has been able to show either empirically or logically the existence of a higher power with any consciousness or interest in the human race or ability to punish or reward humans for there moral choices or that there is any reason - other than fear - to believe in any version of an afterlife

I?ll give you my piano; one of my legs; and my wife"

 

[Tartarga]

If people are psychic then i'm Eddie Van Halen... which i'm not.

 

[Nova5]

S'a load of shit, mate. You really gotta find a better pass-time for spending yer spare dollars, eh?*

*This reply brought-to-you by a 30-year-old bottle of Wente Brothers wine from Southern California.

 

[crudus]

I do believe that psychics(or at least psychic abilities exist whether they be consistent or not) exist. I don't believe that people who are psychic waste their time advertising it.

 

[IronDuke]

I only believe in the power of Sean and Gus, AKA Black & Tan.

If you don't know what I am talking about, go hit yourself over the head with a shovel.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Burden of Proof states that people who make the claim need to back it up with evidence, not those who disagree.

If you stated that everything was made up of particles and didn't provide any evidence to support your claims, of course people would disagree - same as if I claimed that all particles are shaped like smiley faces. Evidence or GTFO.

Not entirely. If I was asking you to believe, then I would need proof to convince you. However, the course of my life has convinced me of senses beyond the physical 5, and for you to convince me otherwise would require you to provide proof that my experiences were not what I thought they were.

The same can be said for Psychics. These people claim to have psychic ability, present what is essentially cold reading, are consistently proven to be fraudulent and then we're expected to say "Oh, well maybe they exist anyway?"

With no evidence to support the existence of psychics, the only logical conclusion is that they don't exist. Once proof to the contrary comes to light, then perhaps people would change their views.

Not entirely true. There is evidence for such things, particularly in nature. Too often people associate this kind of things with assholes like Uri Gellar or astrologers in news papers. That is kind of like saying there are no such things as gorillas because someone photographed a yeti.

If you are interested, read the book Supernature by Lyall Watson and you will learn a lot of things about this topic. There are no such things as spoon benders, and things happening just because they want them too, but there are some things in nature that seem to work outside the box, and require further study.

 

[mikey300]

im not really sure i think most are hoxes but you never know some could be real