I said that I would set you up with them.
Wanting to protect the privacy of said individuals is consideration. I never said these two were friends.
Again, you cast aspersions and are disparaging. You are proving me right about skeptics and their hostility to those who believe.
I expect better of a moderator than this. Are you not responsible for setting an example? What sort of example do you set with your behavior?
Unsubstantiated. 
Thanks for proving me right again. It is examples such as yourself which show that some skeptics are ill mannered boors.
Hastur, would either of your two friends, the one who thinks that you are the competition and might not cooperate or the other one you think you might be able to contact, be willing to be tested for their abilities by someone who has studied cold-reading for years and knows every trick in the book?
No, they wouldn’t.
Probably, your “vibes” would be bad and “make” them fail.
Every excuse can be trotted out and the true beleivers will always believe.
Not one “psychic” has been able to prove themselves in how many years?
Hastur,
It’s natural that threads develop.
OK, Czarcasm would like to discuss a (polite) test of a psychic ability (Tarot).
That sounds interesting and useful to me. (And, seriously, there is potentially $1,000,000 in the future).
However as I’m in the UK, I’d like to continue our discussion using only the board.
You mentioned that one psychic was 70% accurate. How do you measure that?
I take your point about people who do readings out of books being sloppy. I assume that newspaper horoscopes are also too vague.
Can you do a reading across the Web, or do you need to meet?
I imagine because nobody is making radical claims that Cocaine is some sort of cure-all. Granted, I personally think that the harder drugs (including tobacco but excluding marijuana) should be illegal. They certainly are extremely harmful, but I’ve never had an addict tell me how great their lives are and extoll the virtues and healing powers of their drug of choice. Even medical marijuana users don’t claim that the drug cures their cancer.
yosemite: Thank you for your response. Once again, when it’s all spelled out, I find that we two agree more than we disagree. I understand how it can be irritating to you to have someone question your personal choices, especially when those choices aren’t hurting anyone else. I myself don’t have a problem with vegetarianism, for example, so those who label it irrational will not get any sympathy from me. You’re not going around telling other people that vegetarianism cured your cancer, though–that’s the sort of thing I would not stand by for.
Most skeptics are eager simply to put information into people’s hands so that they can make informed choices, and to stop people from spreading known falsehoods. Sorry if you consider that obnoxious, but I gather that you find a lot of my behaviour obnoxious. I’m not going to be polite and sit by while lies are pedaled to the uninformed.
You asked (again) how we decide what’s irrational or rational, but the answer to that question is in the last paragraph–the scientific method. If someone makes a claim that can be tested using science, but then refuses to submit the claim to testing, or if they see the negative results of the test and deny them, there is no reason to believe their claim, and it’s something of a personal goal for me to make more people were aware of that.
The scientific method helps me decide what’s rational and what’s irrational, not personal value judgements–that’s the way I try to keep myself rational, anyway. Maybe it doesn’t always work, but I would never say, “You shouldn’t believe that because I think it’s bunk.” I say, “You shouldn’t believe it because it’s been proven wrong,” or “because it is not supported empirically and there is no plausible physical mechanism,” or “because that has been demonstrated to be dangerous.”
Hopefully you wouldn’t consider me too obnoxious, because I don’t go around nagging people–I’ll bring it up once, and if they aren’t intersted in what I have to say, I’ll drop it. But I do wish that anytime a psychic or a fad diet promotor or a UFO enthusiast appeared on TV spouting ridiculous claims, a skeptic would be right there with them, explaining the more rational point of view. If that’s obnoxious, too bad. I find untruth and unreasoning credulity much more obnoxious.
Hastur wrote:
[emphasis mine]
Now it all makes sense!
Hastur wrote:
[emphasis mine]
That’s the key word, isn’t it? Belief. Proponents of the paranormal rarely say they have hard evidence for it, they merely say they believe in it.
Take your “competition,” for example. You claimed her powers were real. How do you know this? Was she subjected to a scientific scrutiny, with tight experimental controls which shut all mundane avenues of communication off from her? If she was, surely the results of this experiment should have been published somewhere, and you could perhaps give us a link to them or the name and issue # of the scientific journal they were published in. But if her powers were not subjected to scientific scrutiny, then how do you know they are real other than that you simply “believe” they are real?!
As an off-topic aside, did you by any chance, ever run a Wrestling website? I only ask because the former webmaster of a site that I visit was also a Pagan (actually, he may have been a Wiccan, I find it difficult to distinguish sometimes.) and he als had MS (or a type of it anyway).
Your posting style again sort of reminds me of his more serious stuff, so I thought, what could be the harm in asking.
I don’t know. That is up to them. You asked me for names. I can get in touch with one of them readily. I can’t guarentee their participation.
Now… would you answer the question I asked at the bottom of page three?
IMHO, skeptics are skeptical b/c it is human nature
we desire answers
“God” is a quick an easy answer, but clearly a less reliable one, if not altogther useless(disregarding human psyche) and pointless
No. I don’t care for wrestling. It is not my cup of tea.
Yes, I think so.
No, I don’t consider you obnoxious. I am not against the information being given out, I just think that there’s a point when the person KNOWS, and the skeptic needs to leave it alone. You will also note that when I say that if a person starts making claims, of course they should expect the skeptics to ask questions, and challenge them. When a person starts a discussion, people will discuss! Or, when someone says “crackpot herb cured my rare tropical disease, and it will for you too”, of course I don’t expect people to just take that at face value. They will ask questions, and discuss!
It’s the people who are mainly keeping to themselves, and aren’t trying to “convert” anyone, yet still are pestered, even after they indicate that they made an informed choice - that’s irritating.
Pepperland - I see your point on the drugs, but that doesn’t answer the entire question. I take it that most of you would want to pass along useful information to someone who was about to undertake some extremely weird and possibly hazardous health cure, whether or not they were “preaching” to everyone else about it? I know I would try to converse with them about their choices. I’m guessing, from the responses on this thread, that most of the rest of you would too.
So, why don’t I see more people trying to intervene when someone admits they use illicit drugs? (Particularly on this board?) I’m not saying that no one ever does this, but I just don’t think it’s the norm.
I often hear people make the claim that the drugs don’t hurt them, makes them more productive, that they can handle it, etc. But I am sure scientific studies don’t bear that out. (But I am sure there are contradictory opinions on the effects of drugs too…) The point is, there seems to be more than adequate scientific evidence of the risks of drugs. And you can’t get around the fact that consuming a drug that you basically get off the street (no FDA inspection there) could be considered extremely “irrational”. But I just can’t recall seeing any huge outcry about this among many people. I see threads regarding drugs crop up on this board, (granted, I don’t follow every drug-related thread) and I can’t recall seeing a huge amount of people tring to relay “useful information” to any confessed illicit drug users. Why is this? Is there a double standard here?
**
Well I have to admit I don’t believe you have any psychic abilities. Instead I think the tarot cards are simply a crutch you use to do some of your critical thinking. Everybody has some sort of crutch to help them do something so don’t go thinking I’m jumping on you. Since you interpret each card to mean whatever you want it to mean it doesn’t sound like psychic powers to me.
**
I’d be wary of anyone giving me a tarot reading if they expected me to take it seriously.
It is this general meaning that makes me think Tarot reading isn’t supernatural at all. You can take any given card and make it mean whatever you want.
Now I will try to answer the OP as to what skeptics get out of getting people not to believe in the supernatural. I live in a society where the decisions of others can have a profound affect on me. I’m better off with a neighbor who makes rational decisions then I am with someone who passes laws based on what Miss. Cleo tells him.
Marc
It sounds like you are using the cards as a handy way to prompt your subconscious mind into revealing your intuitions and desires. That’s the kind of thing that a lot of people do in a variety of ways (talking to a Rogerian psychologist or a close, non-judgemental friend, flipping a coin and noticing which result is disappointing, etc.). I wouldn’t call success in using that method a psychic power, just a useful psychological trick, and nothing to be skeptical of, until and unless someone uses the cards to push an interpretation on the client by using the authority of being a psychic reader - that’s when demands for proof become appropriate.
Andy
“Ill mannered boor”? What would you say about the guy that keeps making stuff up, keeps making promises on which he can’t deliver, and snivels and whines every time someone says something to him that is less-than-positive?
I think you need to examine your own self before you start casting aspersions on others, pal. In fact, I’ve been saying that to you for about a year now.
And you fail to recognize that people change. You can’t even seem to notice that my tone has changed, Spoofe.
You go around the threads making fun of people, casting aspersions on people’s motivation, and in some threads you behave abusively. You snidely asked if someone was a virgin in a thread today.
I’ve made nothing up. I have every right to defend myself and retract an offer if I feel that the person in question will not behave appropriately. That is not whining.
When are you going to be an adult, quit casting aspersions, and start talking like a rational being? Your current mode on here is quite irrational, and I’ve seen as many people tell you to knock it off as they once told me to.
I’ve changed because of what I have been through in the past three months. Is it going to take a catastrophe for you to change as well? I hope not for your sake.
I did answered this by saying that the only thing I am focused on is having you back up another of your fantastic claims. The above quote of yours makes no sense unless you were trying to say that I object to those who believe without any evidence whatsoever.
Y’know, if this were a message board run by Fate magazine, willful acceptance of unsubstansiated claims would probably be the norm. Here at the SDMB, where the goal is presumably to fight ignorance, unsubstansiated claims should be automatically challenged. This ain’t exactly the Art Bell show.
Let me know if your psychic friend is willing to be tested, o.k.? This is your shot at putting me in my place.