Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Do you believe in Psychics?


katie0410

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, sees said:

Love can't be proven to exist....the best that science can come up with are 3 neurotransmitters i.e. the byproducts of the experience.  Go figure.  Ha!

Yet love isn't psychic, it's psychological. It's what compels us to breed and nurture our young. There's no mysticism involved.

You know you've messed up. If love can't exist why have we discovered the chemistry behind it?

Edited by XenoFish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
1 minute ago, sees said:

You say that I don't believe in psychics because they cannot do what they claim they can do and your criteria is scientific evidence is it not?

That is EXACTLY what constitutes scientism! Scientism is the view that science has a monopoly on human knowledge and that only things that are “scientific” are true.

I am not saying that everything that can't be proved by science is true but for it to be dismissed and condemned through this narrow, inappropriate measure is blinkered and myopic.  Science is just not up to speed yet on being able to account for this unmaterialistic phenomenon.

That said, I don't believe everything that purports to come under the psychic umbrella i.e. I exercise discretion but I can separate the wheat from the chaff.  Yes there are many fakes in the psychic world (just as in a lot of professions) which is not to say that they are ALL fakes!!!

 

There is no evidence that psychics can do what they claim. It is true that psychics are miserable failures in scientific experiments, but I did not restrict myself to those clear demonstrations of the failure of psychics.

Just because psychics are a great example of the failure of woo is no reason to attack science. It looks like sour grapes.

Once again, if you have any evidence to support psychics please present it. Attacking science does not support your cause.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, stereologist said:

There is no evidence that psychics can do what they claim. It is true that psychics are miserable failures in scientific experiments, but I did not restrict myself to those clear demonstrations of the failure of psychics.

Just because psychics are a great example of the failure of woo is no reason to attack science. It looks like sour grapes.

Once again, if you have any evidence to support psychics please present it. Attacking science does not support your cause.

Brace yourself quantum woo is coming.:lol:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sees said:

A hissy fit?  Come on...I have nailed your limited perception to a real definition that you are struggling ineffectively to get out of!

No. All you've done is shown that you have nothing to say. You need to support your position instead of having a hissy fit.

My perception is not limited. I believe you have limited yourself by putting up blinders to reality. Reality shows us that psychics cannot do what they claim they can do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All righty folks, let's just stop with the same old belief/skeptic/science/para argument please. It's been dragged all over multiple topics quite enough. Keep to the OP topic and discuss the topic nicely please.

 

Rashore, moderating team

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Yet love isn't psychic, it's psychological. It's what compels us to breed and nurture our young. There's no mysticism involved.

You know you've messed up. If love can't exist why have we discovered the chemistry behind it?

No YOU have messed up because you said on the previous page # 145 that ' If it can't be proven then it doesn't exist' and, like I said, the best that science can do to prove love exists is to come up with 3 neurotransmitters...big deal! Do I even need to say that love is so much more than just chemical byproducts???

Edited by sees
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So sees, you believe in psychics. Can you provide a reason that you believe in psychics? I told you my reason for not believing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, stereologist said:

No. All you've done is shown that you have nothing to say. You need to support your position instead of having a hissy fit.

My perception is not limited. I believe you have limited yourself by putting up blinders to reality. Reality shows us that psychics cannot do what they claim they can do.

Sorry but you have yet to show me that your view is not one recognised as scientism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, stereologist said:

So sees, you believe in psychics. Can you provide a reason that you believe in psychics? I told you my reason for not believing.

We have been down this road and I cannot prove to you online what I am.  Checkout the 'no explanations' thread.

You are welcome to your belief but recognise it is just that, i.e. not a fact that psychics are not real.

Edited by sees
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sees said:

No YOU have messed up because you said on the previous page # 145 that ' If it can't be proven then it doesn't exist'

Are you dense? I mean are your thought processes on the verge of collapsing into a black hole. Love and attraction can be demonstrated in a lab. The neural pathways can be observed, the same with the release of chemicals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sees said:

Sorry but you have yet to show me that your view is not one recognised as scientism.

You can continue to misrepresent my position all you want. It just comes across as a hissy fit by someone that cannot support their own position and hate it that there is no evidence to support their failed position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Are you dense? I mean are your thought processes on the verge of collapsing into a black hole. Love and attraction can be demonstrated in a lab. The neural pathways can be observed, the same with the release of chemicals.

It is reductionism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
2 minutes ago, sees said:

We have been down this road and I cannot prove to you online what I am.  Checkout the 'no explanations' thread.

So you just believe. This is tantamount to a religion for you?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, stereologist said:

You can continue to misrepresent my position all you want. It just comes across as a hissy fit by someone that cannot support their own position and hate it that there is no evidence to support their failed position.

It is up to you to prove that this is not the case, surely.  You are entitled to your believe but to say psychics are not real takes it into controversial, dubious territory!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sees said:

It is up to you to prove that this is not the case, surely.  You are entitled to your believe but to say psychics are not real takes it into controversial, dubious territory!

Sorry but the burden of proof is on you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, stereologist said:

So you just believe. This is tantamount to a religion for you?

No I KNOW!  My experiences are real but I have no need to try and convince someone who is clearly coming from scientism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, XenoFish said:

Sorry but the burden of proof is on you.

Yeah, yeah....ha!  We who have psychic experiences feel no need to be beholdent to the limitations of science.  Sorry about that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sees said:

It is up to you to prove that this is not the case, surely.  You are entitled to your believe but to say psychics are not real takes it into controversial, dubious territory!

I don't have to prove anything. You are the one with some weird idea that is clearly wrong.

I have made my position quite clear. I don't believe in psychics because they cannot do what they claim they can do. That's not controversial. That is a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sees said:

Yeah, yeah....ha!  We who have psychic experiences feel no need to be beholdent to the limitations of science.  Sorry about that!

So you believe that you have psychic experiences? Why didn't you say that before?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, stereologist said:

So you believe that you have psychic experiences? Why didn't you say that before?

There is a difference between having direct experience, hence KNOWING and having a belief

I am done with this pointless exercise.  I have no need to prove to you hardened sceptics what countless people already know.  Maybe one day you will be more open minded or maybe science will catch up.  I will now unfollow this thread (at least for a bit).  Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

 

Edited by sees
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sees said:

There is a difference between having direct experience, hence KNOWING and having a belief

 

That's fine.

So what sorts of psychic experiences have made this real for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sees said:

There is a difference between having direct experience, hence KNOWING and having a belief

 

There's also a fine line between misunderstanding a normal cognitive function and self delusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked

Folks really need to start paying mind to the site rules and cool their heels for a bit.

 

Thread closed for moderator review.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.