I'm not a Christian anymore, yet I'm not an Athiest
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-05-2017, 04:36 AM
RE: I'm not a Christian anymore, yet I'm not an Athiest
Troll seems to be the best answer.

"I spoke to a psychic....for $250....on the phone". To be honest you deserve to be ripped of for being such a bloody looney.

Having problems with your computer? Visit the Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2017, 04:39 AM
RE: I'm not a Christian anymore, yet I'm not an Athiest
(31-05-2017 04:26 AM)OakTree500 Wrote:  
(31-05-2017 04:19 AM)DogLover12347 Wrote:  Because she proved it to me. I don't believe in anything without proof.

Ok then:

Quote:Critics attribute psychic powers to intentional trickery or to self-delusion

In 1988 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences
gave a report on the subject and
concluded there is "no scientific justification from research conducted over a
period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena."


A study attempted to repeat recently reported parapsychological experiments
that appeared to support the existence of
precognition.
Attempts to repeat the results, which involved performance on a memory test to
ascertain if post-test information would affect it,
"failed to produce significant effects", and thus
"do not support the existence
of psychic ability,"and is thus categorized as a pseudoscience.

And:


Quote:Parapsychological research has attempted to use random number generators to
test for psychokinesis, mild sensory deprivation
in the Ganzfeld experiment to
test for extrasensory perception, and research trials conducted under contract
by the U.S. government to investigate remote

viewing. Critics such as Ed J. Gracely
say that this evidence is not sufficient for acceptance, partly because the
intrinsic probability of psychic phenomena is very small.


Critics such as Ray Hyman and the National Science Foundation suggest that
parapsychology has methodological flaws that
can explain the experimental results
that parapsychologists attribute to paranormal explanations, and various critics
have classed the field as pseudoscience. This has largely been due to lack of

replication of results by independent experimenters.

The evidence presented for psychic
phenomena is not sufficiently verified for
scientific acceptance, and there exist many non-paranormal alternative
explanations for claimed instances of psychic events. Parapsychologists, who

generally believe that there is some evidence for psychic ability, disagree with
critics who believe that no psychic ability exists and that many of the instances

of more popular psychic phenomena such as mediumism, can be attributed to
non-paranormal techniques such as cold reading, hot reading, or even self-delusion.

Cold reading techniques would include psychics using flattery, intentionally making
descriptions, statements or predictions about a person vague and ambiguous,

and surreptitiously moving on to another prediction when the psychic deems the
audience to be non-responsive.



Magicians such as James Randi, Ian Rowland and Derren Brown have demonstrated
techniques and results similar to those of
popular psychics,
but they present physical and psychological explanations as opposed to paranormal
ones.



In January 2008 the results of a study using neuroimaging were published.
To provide what are purported to be the most
favorable experimental conditions,
the study included appropriate emotional stimuli and had participants who are
biologically or emotionally related, such as twins. The experiment was designed to

produce positive results if telepathy, clairvoyance or precognition occurred,
but despite this no distinguishable neuronal responses were found between psychic

stimuli and non-psychic stimuli, while variations in the same stimuli showed
anticipated effects on patterns of brain activation. The researchers concluded

that "These findings are the strongest evidence yet obtained against the existence
of paranormal mental phenomena."


James Alcock had cautioned the researchers against the wording of said statement.

A detailed study of Sylvia Browne predictions
about missing persons and
murder cases has found that despite her repeated claims to be more than 85% correct
"Browne has not even been mostly correct in a single case."

Concerning the television psychics, James Underdown states that testing psychics
in a studio setting is difficult as there are too many areas to control:

the psychic could be getting help from anyone on the set.

The editor controls everything; they can make
a psychic look superior or
ridiculous depending on direction from the producer.
In an Independent Investigation Group IIG expose of John Edward and James Van

Praagh they discovered that what was actually said on the tape day,
and what was broadcast to the public were "substantially different in the accuracy.

They're getting rid of the wrong guesses... Once you pull back the curtain and see
how it's done, it's not impressive at all."



Basically: TL;DR - It's scientificually and legally crap.



Can you tell me EXACTLY what you/she said?

By reading this I have to assume they didn't investigate the Forever Family Foundation. I found out about these group of psychics when one of them was promoting her book called the "Light Between Us" I wasen't going to buy her book, but then she did a reading live on Fox News and got it right. So I bought the book and found out that to be a psychic on the Forever Family Foundation you had to pass a series of tests performed by actual scientists trained to make absolutely sure cold readings weren't being done. That's when I decided to get a reading myself and I was baffled by the whole experience.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2017, 04:40 AM
RE: I'm not a Christian anymore, yet I'm not an Athiest
I've been giving the benefit of the doubt but this is a little hard to believe.

Especially since he said believing something can come from nothing is "believing in magic", while people being psychic is clearly the same thing.

Imagine someone being able to gather information (directly) about people and not even needing to be near them to do it. If people could really do this, what kind of thing would we expect to happen? Do those things happen? No. People can't do it, it's bullshit. It always falls apart under controlled conditions.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
31-05-2017, 04:41 AM
RE: I'm not a Christian anymore, yet I'm not an Athiest
(31-05-2017 04:28 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  
(31-05-2017 04:25 AM)DogLover12347 Wrote:  Does that mean scientists don't know anything about life for certain and never will?

Scientists don't know anything for certain.
That's not what science does. It simply models reality. We can't model things we have no data about. We have data about life, so we can model it. We can test those models. We have no data about anything that happened before a
certain point in our history, so we cannot test any models. They are merely speculative.

This is where religion runs riot, filing these gaps. I'm glad you've escaped it, but the
thinking it preys on is still present somewhat.
So then the best thing to say is "This is most likely?"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2017, 04:43 AM
RE: I'm not a Christian anymore, yet I'm not an Athiest
(31-05-2017 04:33 AM)julep Wrote:  Nothing about you or your story adds up, to my reading...Wondering whether you're a liar for Jesus? a sock puppet (your writing style seems a little familiar)? a generic troll?
I'm neither of those things, I'm a seeker of the truth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2017, 04:43 AM
RE: I'm not a Christian anymore, yet I'm not an Athiest
(31-05-2017 04:36 AM)OakTree500 Wrote:  Troll seems to be the best answer.

"I spoke to a psychic....for $250....on the phone". To be honest you deserve to be ripped of for being such a bloody looney.
Can you tell me what a troll is?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2017, 04:45 AM
RE: I'm not a Christian anymore, yet I'm not an Athiest
(31-05-2017 04:41 AM)DogLover12347 Wrote:  
(31-05-2017 04:28 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Scientists don't know anything for certain.
That's not what science does. It simply models reality. We can't model things we have no data about. We have data about life, so we can model it. We can test those models. We have no data about anything that happened before a
certain point in our history, so we cannot test any models. They are merely speculative.

This is where religion runs riot, filing these gaps. I'm glad you've escaped it, but the
thinking it preys on is still present somewhat.
So then the best thing to say is "This is most likely?"

That would be the best thing to say about any conclusion, yes. But likelihood requires data still. Without any, before a certain point, we cannot even estimate probabilities. We have no idea. If you know something about this, you've somehow done better than every scientist who has ever lived.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2017, 04:48 AM
RE: I'm not a Christian anymore, yet I'm not an Athiest
(31-05-2017 04:45 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  
(31-05-2017 04:41 AM)DogLover12347 Wrote:  So then the best thing to say is "This is most likely?"

That would be the best thing to say about any
conclusion, yes. But likelihood requires data still. Without any, before a certain point, we cannot even estimate probabilities. We have no idea. If you know something about this, you've somehow done better than every scientist who
has ever lived.
I'm not saying I'm smarter than scientists, I'm just trying to use common sense.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2017, 04:51 AM
RE: I'm not a Christian anymore, yet I'm not an Athiest
(31-05-2017 04:39 AM)DogLover12347 Wrote:  By reading this I have to assume they didn't investigate the Forever Family Foundation. I found out about these group of psychics when one of them was promoting her book called the "Light Between Us" I wasn't going to buy her book, but then she did a reading live on Fox News and got it right. So I bought the book and found out that to be a psychic on the Forever Family Foundation you had to pass a series of tests performed by actual scientists trained to make absolutely sure cold readings weren't being done. That's when I decided to get a reading myself and I was baffled by the whole experience.

So you got conned again, this time into buying their book?

No offence mate, but a book written by a psychic claiming that they have to pass "real scientific tests" to be in their little club, is exactly what a psychic would say to convince pillocks like you to find out more about them. If you can tell me the name of 1 of these Scientists, and verify they are a real and practicing scientist who's not know to be a total BS artist, I'll give you a million dollars.

According to their website, to join:

Quote:After submitting a questionnaire on basic ethics and practices, mediums are invited to participate in a program that seeks to verify their ability in spirit communication.

During these sessions, mediums seeking certification are required to provide a series of readings to different sitters. The information provided by the mediums is scored by the sitters utilizing a method devised by the foundation.

In order to pass this certification, a medium must demonstrate composite scores that indicate significant proficiency, providing percentages of accuracy that are way beyond the statistical probability of chance.

So no scientist involved dude, just them coming up with some random test you take, devised BY them (that part in bold), again to con more people out of money....in this instance OTHER Psychics.

Here's a story of one of their certified psychics claiming somebody had died....when in fact they were very much alive:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/09...40157.html

The evidence in there mate, you just don't want to see it.

Having problems with your computer? Visit the Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like OakTree500's post
31-05-2017, 04:51 AM
RE: I'm not a Christian anymore, yet I'm not an Athiest
(31-05-2017 04:48 AM)DogLover12347 Wrote:  
(31-05-2017 04:45 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  That would be the best thing to say about any
conclusion, yes. But likelihood requires data still. Without any, before a certain point, we cannot even estimate probabilities. We have no idea. If you know something about this, you've somehow done better than every scientist who
has ever lived.
I'm not saying I'm smarter than scientists, I'm just trying to use common sense.

Science has repeatedly shown us that common sense fails badly when trying to model reality. And that's just within the parts we have access to. The whole point of the scientific method is to remove assumptions and bias as far as possible, and to test models objectively.

You can propose any model you like for before this certain point, but we can't test it yet. Until we can, it's just speculation. And I'd say, if anything, it's exceedingly unlikely we can even imagine how things work if you go back far enough. The inception of a reality, if that is the case, is so far outside our experience. Or maybe this reality is eternal. We don't know.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: