’)I’ll never understand why people believe this crap.
Montel Williams’ psychic pal Sylvia Browne told the family of missing Shawn Hornbeck he was dead shortly after the Missouri boy vanished – and later allegedly offered to help locate his body for $700 per half hour.
The popular TV clairvoyant appeared on the “Montel Williams Show” in February 2003, four months after Shawn disappeared, and told Pam and Craig Akers she believed their son was “no longer with us.”
Of course, Shawn Hornbeck was found alive last week.
And then subsequently paraded on national television by his parents and Oprah.
They appeared on television? Oh dear, dear me.
This event, of course, will do nothing to stem belief in psychics.
Maybe this woman gave Mr. Bush her predictions on what would happen in Iraq.
I’m probably (ok definitely) going to offend some people with this, but…
…why does it strike me as even more pathetic that some people who call this stuff BS (an opinion I share) then don’t see any irony when they haul themselves off to church every Sunday?
Because most mainstream churches are not run by hucksters claiming to speak to the dead for a fee and parading their “gift” on tv. Most churches are about people communing with each other in a joint belief reinforcing a path they believe in leading to the next phase of existence.
I know that and I don’t even go to church. (You see why atheist types bug me?)
Because most mainstream churches are not run by hucksters claiming to speak to the dead for a fee and parading their “gift” on tv. Most churches are about people communing with each other in a joint belief reinforcing a path they believe in leading to the next phase of existence.
I know that and I don’t even go to church. (You see why atheist types bug me?)
This, of course, barring those that claim to actually HEAR the voice of God.
Now don’t get me wrong. I’m fine with people saying they feel a calling by God, that leaves room for doubt, but claiming that God actually speaks to them is both stupid and elitest.
Some people believe in psychics because they want to; some because they need to.
Which is why I said “most mainstream churches”. Yes, there are the occasional yahoos like Pat Robertson who claim they’ve got God on speed dial but the majority of people in the clergy are not like that.
Because most mainstream churches are not run by hucksters claiming to speak to the dead for a fee and parading their “gift” on tv. Most churches are about people communing with each other in a joint belief reinforcing a path they believe in leading to the next phase of existence.
Well, I was just responding to the “B.S.” and “I’ll never understand why people believe this crap” statements.
Most people who believe in astrology are searching for the same thing as most people who believe in religion are.
And a few use believers in astrology to line their pockets, a few build thousands of multimillion dollar cathedrals from the donations of impoverished members.
As far as speaking to the dead, I kinda thought that’s what many prayers were.
A rational way of deciding whether something is BS or whether it makes sense to believe in it is through evaluating whether it is contradicted by what we can observe, and if it is supported by what we can observe.
By that standard, astrology is just as rational as religion.
I’m not saying your not right in that there are more outright scam artists in astrology than religion, and why that might not make you more disgusted by it, but that’s not what you said. You asked why people would believe it.
People believe it for the same reason people believe in religion. Its the same stuff – mythology. Some people seem to need mythology, and some of those people like a different flavor of it than others.
Me, I see it all as the same stuff. Fairy tales.
I didn’t post that to bug you, Oliver, I don’t mean to do that at all. But frankly, in a world where we people who don’t happen to harbor superstition have been continually cast as immoral, where none of us will EVER be president, where most of us still have to be in the “closet,” some of us are deciding that we shouldn’t have to hide it.
If someone responded to one of your posts by saying “this is why I go to church every Sunday,” or something along those lines, would you be bugged?
Sorry for the length of this comment, and Oliver, again, I’m not trying to bother you, this is not a rant, just an elaboration…
…but if “atheist-types” bug you just for existing and being open about their atheism rather than hiding, then you’ll just have to learn to live with being bugged.
1. There’s a world of difference between astrology and the crazy psychic with the 1-900 number. I don’t profess to say that astrology is bunkum anymore than I can say Christianity, Judaism, or Islam is bunk. The 1-900 lady is a scammer, the person who honestly believes in aligning their pencils on their desk to heal the psychic energy is just doing what they believe in.
2. My problem with some atheists is the exact mirror of my problem with the fire-and-brimstone religious folks. Maybe it’s because I’m in the squishy middle as an agnostic (I believe there is purpose and destiny to life but do not profess to have any clue as to who the string pullers are, though I confess that thanks to my upbringing and desire to have the world make sense I lean towards the more Christian view of the world – the Christianity that includes Jesus and peace and all that Frank Capra stuff) but I’m just turned off by anyone who is so rock-solid certain. To me, from an analytical POV I think the Greek Gods are as viable as God or Allah or Whatever.
3. I don’t care if you are an atheist, in fact I’ve probably got more in common with you than you think. My belief in God was shaken when my mother had a heart attack because – and this isn’t just a son who thinks his mom is the shit – she’s the most pious, good person to walk the earth. To me at the time, if God could give a person like her a heart attack well then fuck him. That said, the incident had the exact opposite effect on my mom. In fact, she became an even stronger believer in God because of it. So I figure, who am I to judge? Maybe I was right, maybe she is. Nobody knows. But the tone many atheists take, in which it’s always done looking down their nose to people who have the nerve to pray to a God that they know doesn’t exist (how they know this when nobody has crossed over and come back to give us a report, I don’t know) is the big turn-off. It’s the same as conservative Christians claiming that everyone who doesn’t follow God their way is going to burn or be “left behind”. Same crap, different smell. To each his own is my philosophy and why those who are so certain rub me the wrong way. Atheism is a system of belief that deserves respect, but in return, atheists need to respect the rest of us who do think in one shape or another there’s a big guy or girl or monkey running the show upstairs.
I really hate it when threads detour down the “God” road, but…
You see why Muslim types bug me…
You see why Mexican types bug me…
You see why Homosexual types bug me…
You see why Black types bug me…
Is we learning yet?
Craig never attacked the church. His post was about the irony of believing in one form of mysticism over another, arguably even more incredible, one. While I wish he hadn’t turned this into another debate about religion, Oliver’s little throw away tag about “atheist types” is just the kind of rhetoric that he would jump all over if someone said it on Capitol Hill. Defending (insert deity of choice here)’s press agents doesn’t prove anything. What’s more, it’s somehow alright to pick out one “psychic” and condemn the lot as fakes and people who believe in them as idiots, but to pick on churchgoers (at least the anti-psychic ones)for exhibiting what some might argue as hypocrisy is crossing the line?
A psychic taking money and claiming to talk to the dead is not the same as 99% of religious leaders. Just ain’t. Craig did in fact attack church and the people that attend it. That’s my whole point – way too many folks who are atheist think this is a decent way to demonstrate their superiority.
Maybe the problem some atheists have, myself included, is that we don’t know if a believer is speaking figuratively or literally when they talk about their communications with god. When Bush talked about going to his Father, and he didn’t mean GHWB, for war advice I took it to mean something more than that he just looked for guidance through scripture.
I hope you’re right Oliver, but I don’t think that Pat Robertson is that much of an aberration; my guess is that his type is more common than you think.
Okay Oliver I’ll bite: What is the evil Atheist agenda? I sort of thought this was a war of self defense. We were nice enough to let you dream your silly dreams of happy ending afterlives and eternal hellfire (for the other guy usually) until theists decided they knew what was best in terms of stem cell research, or that our kids should be programmed to be stupid, or that prayer is a replacement for cancer therapy or that anyone should die for jihad or Jesus…enough is enough as Saint Richard Dawkins has said in his first epoch…
The Big Three of Atheist writers (Dennett, Dawkins, Harris) are primarily acting in the self defense of reason and logic. The only presciption I can see, even though I’m not sure they’ve spelled it out, is that religion should be taken out of the equation when it comes to science questions certainly and probably all public policy questions where evidence can be measured. Magical thinking, and yes the mindset for the psychic believer is the same as that of the religious person (You think atheists are more likely to listen to psychics or church folk? Care to place a wager anyone…?, should not have a role in policy decisions. Sounds rational to me.
So I ask you Oliver: What is the evil Atheist agenda other than reasoned debate?
Maybe the problem some atheists have … is that we don’t know if a believer is speaking figuratively or literally when they talk about their communications with god
Why is that?
When a thought pops into an atheist’s head, I don’t worry about where it came from.
fd,
It sounds like we sort of agree on this. I don’t worry about, or attempt to attribute, the random thoughts that enter my mind either. Given that I don’t believe they’re coming directly from a devine being, the irrational ones are easy to dismiss. But if you believe your thoughts are the result of a direct up-link to god, well than I suppose ignoring them would be a little harder to do.
muzza: Watching more than one television preacher at a time would lead you to believe that, at the very least, they are reading different Bibles, and possibly worshiping different Gods.
Julian Jaynes has a wholly (no pun intended) different take on listening to the “Voice of God.”
http://www.julianjaynes.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4
To a casual observer there are many similarities between TV preachers like Pat Robertson and psychics like Sylvia Browne; and the people they prey (no pun intended) on. But I certainly agree with OW that most clergy are something very different.
Again, speaking as an outsider, I think there is a vast difference between being inspired by the word of god and what a small minority of believers, like Robertson, mean when they say they hear the voice of god.
Again I say, reread what you wrote and you’ll see why atheists come off so badly. “Silly little dreams”, etc. Why is there the need to belittle folks? I don’t belittle atheists, they’ve got as much claim to their belief as any shaman, priest, or mullah. Why is it the loudest voices on the side of atheism nowadays feel the need to condemn everyone not marching down their path? Again, it’s just the flip side of Falwell and Robertson and as much a turnoff as those guys.
Sorry OW, but I don’t get where you’re coming from. Please point specifically to where I belitte believers as a whole here.
Am I dismayed that in 2007 Pat Robertson and Sylvia Browne can make a decent living doing what they do? Yep, I am. But I sense so are you.
Would you also agree that if someone hears a Steve Sabol voice-over in their head and claims it’s god, then it’s also cause for concern?
Atheism is not a belief.
He can say whatever he wants but atheism is a belief. Atheists believe there is no god or no afterlife. Maybe they’re right, but they’ve really got no evidence to back it up. They’ve got their beliefs. And that’s fine.
Muzza, I’m more speaking to Philip and Bill L. than you when I talk about belittling.
I don’t hear Steve Sabol. I hear John Facenda (What’s that God? A frozen tundra? You got it.).
Oliver: Not when it comes to policy issues! You’re not looking at this in context. When did the Big Three arrive on the scene? They arrived on the scene when the Christian Right started intervening in various issues including stem cell research and global warming and of course the rise of patriarchal radical islam…That’s the context. I find your argument not unlike me pointing out how mean you are toward the republicans and that nice Mr. Bush (How could you sniff…)and being ignorant of right wing radio or the fact that republicans own most mainstream media…the reason you’re an asshole is that you’re fighting other assholes and you’re using their weapons. Good for you I say. Please apply this knowledge to what the Big Three are doing.
Two, we’re running out of time for niceties. More than likely, our first and probably nuclear exchange will be between factions of true believers. We need create as few people who are confident that a wondrous afterlife awaits them no matter what evil they do here.
Three, and I challenge you again, other than not being nice to believers (and why can’t you say nice things about Mr. Bush?), to find policy matters that atheists are pushing–based on logic and reason–that we’re pushing that’s similar to what the Christian in terms of stem cell or their overall war against evolution science and reason? What bill? What initiative?…other than: you have a very silly belief system that you probably shouldn’t be using to kill people over….
typos:
“We need to create as few people as possible who are confident”
“what the Christian right is doing in terms of”
When did the Big Three arrive on the scene?
The Christian Right first sought political clout when the attempt to push God out of the public square began: With the attempt to outlaw prayer in schools; outlawing Nativity scenes on the lawn at City Hall, and other totally unnecessary attacks on our common Judaeo – Christian heritage.
our first and probably nuclear exchange will be between factions of true believers Yes, and I suppose that’s because we obstinate Christians don’t want to surrender to the Islamofascists? Maybe it’s because there are a whole lot more believers running things than nonbelievers.
you have a very silly belief system that you probably shouldn’t be using to kill people over.
Riiight! And atheists don’t kill people? Is that in the Handbook or something?
Face it, atheism is nothing but contrarian.
Nothing has ever been accomplished in the name of a refusal to believe in God, nor will it ever be.
I don’t care if you don’t believe in God; why do you find it so important to attack Christians?
Did a Catholic steal your lunchbox when you were a kid or something?
1. Those “attacks” were constitutional and were probably started because of the belief that there shouldn’t be a state church so that idiotic Christians could claim that Keith Ellison get sworn in.
2. Surrender in what way exactly? How many people do we have to kill to protect Christianity and spread the Christian message of love? Would 50 million dead Iranians win this wonderful war?
3. Actually, percentage wise, there are very few atheists in the prisons. I suppose that’s because we actually think about the ethical implications of what we do and know that there’s no forgiveness in the next world. Also, I don’t kill because I think its wrong. And, hey, you don’t have to threaten me with Hellfire for me to not kill people, even 500000 innocent Iraqis…
4. It’s not contrarian. It’s a philosophy with a long history of honorable practictioners. Its being brought up now in an aggressive way to stave off world war III and also so that our most important points can be addressed with logic and reason and not magical fairies in the sky. Religion is killing us a species. It must be destroyed, or at least its hand cannot be allowed to taint rational public policy discourse…Is that contrarian enough for you?
typos again sigh:
“could claim that Keith Ellison couldn’t get sworn in.”
From the top:
This was Craig’s initial post which started the whole shooting match. Notice he never actually attacks the church, or all church goers. He is specifically speaking to those people who believe in a higher power that then go on to look down their noses at people who believe in another “higher” (albeit far less fantastic) one. Granted, his use of “pathetic” is harsh and an argument could be made that such provocative language was unnecessary, but that isn’t what happened, was it.
Right out of the gate, OW starts defending churches against psychics. What? Who is that directed at? Craig didn’t say a word about the church, nor did he question anyone’s faith. As 100% established…again…he posited the question that maybe religious people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones at the neighbor’s glass house. Granted, I am one of those who simply avoid this thing like the plague (usually), as it always ends the same way and no ground ever seems to change hands. However, the whole “atheist types” remark is hands down the most offensive thing I’ve read in this thread. I already pointed out why. Just substitute another minority for atheist and pretend you’d have the stones to start a post like that (well, with the exception of “conservative” or “rightwing” or “winger” or any of a million variants). What’s more, Craig could have been a church goer who does believe in psychics and was offended by the original article. Sure, that’s not likely, but nothing beyond the general tone of his post would tell you otherwise. This is another factor that makes the “atheist types” remark so telling. OW had no way to be sure that Craig is, in fact, an atheist. He just assumed it and attacked Craig for what he felt he said (or perhaps for what he felt Craig implied) and not what Craig ACTUALLY said. Then Philip weighed in and pounced on OW with the “silly dreams” remark that really got under his skin. That was a clear cut insult and while I disagree with the tone, I suspect Philip was simply pissed off by OW’s previous comments and lashed out.
Things just spiraled from there and now I’m being told I’ve “belittled” others (not so, and I’d rather not have to quote this entire thread to prove it).
Do you mean he can say whatever he wants, right or wrong, and you’ll stick by your guns? Atheists don’t believe in deities because there is no proof any exist. The odds of any afterlife along the lines of a Heaven or Hell existing is therefore remote. There could be one, but the lack of any evidence at all makes it hard to swallow. Really, though, the term atheism only applies to belief if gods. Anything beyond that is more accurately a form of secularism.
Demanding proof that God/Heaven doesn’t exist is an impossible standard to meet. Take dinosaurs as an example. Prove they existed. Fossils? Just accumulated sediment. Fancy rocks, really. Maybe the Devil put them there. Maybe they are put there by God as a test of faith. Prove me wrong. Just remember that no matter how much evidence you present, I’ll be there with a “that’s just the way God/Allah/Galactus wants it.”
For arguments sake, let’s label OW (and me, and a lot of others) apsychists, people who, duh, don’t believe in psychic phenomena, at least “as seen on tv!” We shake our heads in wonder at people who believe in this b.s. Then we turn around and scream at atheists for not having the decency to shut up and show some respect for religion. Atheists are different, though, because they can’t prove God doesn’t exist while it’s easy to prove psychics don’t exist since we have so many examples of false predictions to establish the whole enterprise as bunk. Arguably you could do the same with most holy texts, as most indulge in prophecy to one degree or another. In reality, though, you’d be debating the interpretation of those texts, and that simply opens up the question of human fallibility. As for psychics, all you can really do is prove that a small subset of the overall population are faking it (or are simply misguided). What if some theories about time and space prove to be true and it turns out that psychic phenomena do occur except that it has more to do with 4th dimensional space and string theory than metaphysics? According to some stuff I just made up/saw on SciFi, that’s a new and burgeoning field of research that shows great promise.
This marks the end of my contribution to this thread. Using my vast mental powers, I predict that, as usual, no one will cede any ground, particularly Frank or Philip.