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 -
KBA

Why people are skeptical of psychic claims

172 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Drayno
You just contradicted yourself there Spork.

Anyway, exactly how would you go about giving credible evidence over the internet? I'm just curious.

How did he contradict himself? He stated that people had no reason to lie..not that people did not lie. Then he went on to describe ways they did lie...no contradiction there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drakonwick

How did he contradict himself? He stated that people had no reason to lie..not that people did not lie. Then he went on to describe ways they did lie...no contradiction there?

People have no reason to LIE. But, they do LIE? So, I suppose you think this is unintentional?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sporkling

Oh moro maybe you need to read my post above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moonie2012
I believe. But I am not gullible. Just because I believe you say that I am gullible? Indeed no. I believe that they are real. Therefore, I also think that people have no need to lie.

Believing everything you read on the internet is the DEFINITION of gullible.

You said, and I quote, "I believe that people have no need to lie over the internet" - you didn't say anything about WHO is lying or about what, just that people don't lie over the internet - skeptics, believers, anybody.

Therefore, you ARE gullible, since you have said yourself that you have no reason to doubt anyone. You are reading and believing lies every time you get on the web.

Were you trying to imply that only skeptics lie? That is a bunch of BS. I know that and you know that, but you'll never admit it.

It is true you may not be able to provide credible evidence over the internet because of photoshop. But it does not imply people are using it. It just means that there is one more excuse for the people who do not believe to deny it further.

Assuming that any evidence shown will be shot down by skeptics as "faked" and therefore no evidence ever has to be shown is the lamest, most horsesh** argument/excuse/copout I've ever heard. Try again.

Edited by Moonie2012

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drakonwick
I believe. But I am not gullible. Just because I believe you say that I am gullible? Indeed no. I believe that they are real. Therefore, I also think that people have no need to lie.

You seem to believe absolutely everything you read on here Spork. Why is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moonie2012
You seem to believe absolutely everything you read on here Spork. Why is that?

He already said why - because people don't lie over the internet.

Give up Spork, your argument-fu is weaksauce.

Edited by Moonie2012

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drakonwick
He already said why - because people don't lie over the internet.

But, thats down right FALSE. Anyone with even a little common sense knows people lie over the internet.

(In FACT it's a given).

What disturbes me even more is some of the people on here will believe in any fantastical claim that

is presented on here. But, will throw facts right out the window. :blink:

Edited by Moro Bumbleroot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moonie2012
But, thats down right FALSE. Anyone with even a little common sense knows people lie over the internet.

(In FACT it's a given).

What disturbes me even more is some of the people on here will believe in any fantastical claim that

is presented on here. But, will throw facts right out the window. :blink:

Perhaps he only believes everything on certain sites, but that would be foolish, would it not? No website contains 100% pure, unadulterated truth, right?

To believe 100% of the material on any given site would be...extremely gullible.

Edited by Moonie2012

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drakonwick
Perhaps he only believes everything on certain sites, but that would be foolish, would it not? No website contains 100% pure, unadulterated truth, right?

Example - If someone were to say they could physically walk through a solid steel wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moonie2012

I can walk on water, actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drayno

You may not believe in everything , every single statement given by a person, but it does not hurt to have your eyes open. You do not have to be quite rude , even if people are lying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moonie2012
You may not believe in everything , every single statement given by a person, but it does not hurt to have your eyes open. You do not have to be quite rude , even if people are lying.

Lying IS rude, so in effect the liars start the rudeness.

Edited by Moonie2012

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drayno

That may be so, but would it be absolutely necessary to react the same way to an act you perceive to be rude?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drakonwick
You may not believe in everything , every single statement given by a person, but it does not hurt to have your eyes open. You do not have to be quite rude , even if people are lying.

I suppose that I'm a bit harsh at times! So, I apologise.

I am open to the aspect of certain unexplainable things. But, when people start claiming they can control fire, ice,

random objects, :huh: with just their mind? I have to draw the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moonie2012
That may be so, but would it be absolutely necessary to react the same way to an act you perceive to be rude?

Not at all.

We're deviating off the topic here, however. The real question is why won't at least ONE person post evidence of their wild claims?

Edited by Moonie2012

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
theSOURCE

I can do typecrapkinesis.

And I can prove it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moonie2012

My typecrapkinesis is better, yet I don't have to prove it because you wouldn't believe me anyway.

Or would you? I'll believe whatever you say.

Edited by Moonie2012

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drayno
I suppose that I'm a bit harsh at times! So, I apologise.

I am open to the aspect of certain unexplainable things. But, when people start claiming they can control fire, ice,

random objects, :huh: with just their mind? I have to draw the line.

As I stated earlier, our common sense sorts what is obviously ludicrous. Elemental manipulation is not currently relevant , however, in the future it is an open possibility. But as for now, I severely doubt that, which could cause people to engage in aggressive negotiation. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
malakiem

I don't like it when some skeptics feel that are psychics are delusional. What if someone investigates a haunted house. The owners claim they saw a young girl who wears a blue dress. They hire a few psychics and 2 out of 2 say that they see a young girl in a blue dress, I mean, using common sense, wouldn't that be a form of anecdotal evidence? Two psychics have even said my mom has a white aura.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drakonwick
As I stated earlier, our common sense sorts what is obviously ludicrous. Elemental manipulation is not currently relevant , however, in the future it is an open possibility. But as for now, I severely doubt that, which could cause people to engage in aggressive negotiation. :P

I most definitely agree with you there, and I will not refute it. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moonie2012
I don't like it when some skeptics feel that are psychics are delusional. What if someone investigates a haunted house. The owners claim they saw a young girl who wears a blue dress. They hire a few psychics and 2 out of 2 say that they see a young girl in a blue dress, I mean, using common sense, wouldn't that be a form of anecdotal evidence? Two psychics have even said my mom has a white aura.

I have no problem with ghost sightings - well, at least most of them. I don't automatically discount every one. I believe in ghosts, and I don't discount the possibility of certain psi powers, either.

However, when somebody comes in and claims they can create fire with their hands, flat-out REFUSE to do ANYTHING to prove it, and still people unquestioningly believe them - THAT bugs me.

Edited by Moonie2012

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drayno
I don't like it when some skeptics feel that are psychics are delusional. What if someone investigates a haunted house. The owners claim they saw a young girl who wears a blue dress. They hire a few psychics and 2 out of 2 say that they see a young girl in a blue dress, I mean, using common sense, wouldn't that be a form of anecdotal evidence? Two psychics have even said my mom has a white aura.

Yes, I agree with your point on the sometimes harshness of some skeptics. Well, to those two psychics , they know what they saw. They know it exists. "Seeing is believing.", I respectively disagree to a degree on there due to some constants that influence perception, however. Evidence itself, is something that is physical, or once physical, that can prove anything to be factual. It holds somewhat a form of relation to evidence, as they themselves saw evidence. But...it is technically not evidence until at least some proof, or someone we know to hold a high and respective societal position personally admits they saw it..but even then, it would not be...it's complicated, but bottom line. No.

Edited by Drayno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
malakiem
I have no problem with ghost sightings - well, at least most of them. I don't automatically discount every one. I believe in ghosts, and I don't discount the possibility of certain psi powers, either.

However, when somebody comes in and claims they can create fire with their hands, flat-out REFUSE to do ANYTHING to prove it, and still people unquestioningly believe them - THAT bugs me.

I understand moonie, I have nothing to say but I do agree with you. I don't mean to step on anyone's toes, but this goes for people who believe john edward, sylvia browne, etc. Who blindly believe despite what everyone says. That does bug me to. Even if someone proved she was a fraud, people will believe her. Maybe it's ignourants or stupidity. Or it's the mere desperate attempt to believe in something. Or it's some sort of phobia, who knows. But there's a few websites I go to, were they claim to channel spiritual beings, and turns out to be a hoax. I guess denying ignourance doesn't really mean anything anymore. Well, thanks guys for replying to me in a friendly manner. Take care moonie and drayno.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drayno

There is nothing wrong in believing anything, it is your choice, your life. I believe each person creates their own definition of reasonable criteria. So, as everyones views change, so do their expectations towards truth. But , I guess acceptance is the best path. Anytime Mal, and thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drakonwick

I suppose it all comes down to what one wants to believe, (Even if it goes against solid facts).

To each their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.