Should I argue?

[luke07930]

Hello everyone, I have always disliked the way that religious people have a platform to preach their unproved beliefs. When doing this they usually spend alot of time condemning people, women, unmarried people, gays, lesbians and non believers are reserved a special place in the mind of the monotheistic believer. All have scorn poured on them and are promised burning toture for all eternity or in extreme cases violence in this life.

What I dont understand is when these people are on the tv or radio you never hear anyone questioning the religion of the accuser, its like it is not alowed, even in a secular country like Britain. We dont tell believers that what they are saying is rubbish. We respect their blind faith in the unproved and allow them space to spout there vicious dogma.

Recently I have been doing my best to argue with Muslims and Christians, pointing out the unlikeleyness of that their beliefs have any truth. And the cruelty in the dogma that they except without question.

I have found Muslims alot more excepiting of my critisisms but Christians usually tell me I'm satans little helper and I will be sorry on judgement dat etc.

My question is, is it cruel to reveal the truth to people with a belief that brings them comfort? A belief that brings them certainty in an uncertain world, a faith that brings them a promise of an afterlife and paradise?

Is the mainstream view that their beliefs are important, to be respected and not to be atacked by logic and truth, is this the best and kindest way?????

Because I do worry about the mental stabitlity of some believers and their ability to handle reality. Should I refrain from pushing my arguments????

[Hedshaker]

I rarely mention religion in day to day life. I come here to discuss and argue about the absurdity of religion. But if someone tries proselytizing to me, even subtly, then they are fair game ;)

bty, welcome to IIDB

[Tigers!]

Because I do worry about the mental stabitlity of some believers and their ability to handle reality. Should I refrain from pushing my arguments????
Thank you for your solititude for believer's mental stability. Most of us can handle reality rather well thank you. :wave:
If you want to push your arguments feel free. However don't forget Newton's 3rd law.
And I second the welcome to these fora. :wave: :wave:

[Beave]

That's a tough call. I know some people who are quite devout in their religion, but unless they are my friends they don't even know my views concerning their beleifs. Heck, I even went to a Ramadan dinner at a mosque last week because a fellow student invited me (on a related note, was it rude to accept or rude to say hey I'm an atheist and thinks your beleifs are ridiculous, no thanks!?). So, unless people try to push their ideas on me, or if they're in the mood for argumentation, I keep my thoughts to myself. I'm a firm beleiver that people have a right to believe what they want, but try to make others believe it and you're gonna get an earfull and a lot of resistance. Sometimes it's hard to not say "Hey what you just said is full of shit", but that's what IIDB is for. :) :D

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

I imagine that the answer to your question lies in knowing what it is that you are trying to accomplish. There are many reasons that one might want to engage in such a discussion, some more constructive than others. The most constructive reason that I have found thus far is to try to help the people in question. In this I’m motivated by the view that their aggressive behaviour is a cry for help, and most likely stems from fear.

I see that you have listed Buddhism as one of your beliefs. This should make it easier for you to grant other people the freedom to search for truth in their own way, and respect the truth that they find, no matter how much it may differ from your own. What you are battling here is not inaccuracy of beliefs (I don’t know on what grounds any human being could reasonably claim to have constructed a worldview that is completely accurate), but their destructiveness. Therefore your challenge lies not in correcting their beliefs, but in making them constructive. This you cannot do without understanding the effect that different beliefs have on the people in question.

I have found it useful to approach such discussions with a willingness to listen to the other person and acknowledge their point of view. If they feel that they’ve been heard, they are less likely to resort to aggression to get their message across. If they sense that you are sincerely interested in hearing what they have to say and want to help rather than scorn them, they are more likely to be receptive. It is only in an atmosphere of trust that they are likely to reveal the carefully concealed part of themselves that is in need of healing.

Regarding the actual arguments, you have a few options available to you. You can draw their attention to aspects of their religion that emphasise love, forgiveness and other noble qualities. You can remind them of the prominent religious figures whose ministry was based on compassion rather than condemnation and whose example they are meant to follow. You can also use the Golden Rule to make them aware of the undesirability of their behaviour.

Ultimately, it is for them to decide whether they are ready and willing to change, and what kind of change they wish to make.

[luke07930]

That's a tough call. I know some people who are quite devout in their religion, but unless they are my friends they don't even know my views concerning their beleifs. Heck, I even went to a Ramadan dinner at a mosque last week because a fellow student invited me (on a related note, was it rude to accept or rude to say hey I'm an atheist and thinks your beleifs are ridiculous, no thanks!?). So, unless people try to push their ideas on me, or if they're in the mood for argumentation, I keep my thoughts to myself. I'm a firm beleiver that people have a right to believe what they want, but try to make others believe it and you're gonna get an earfull and a lot of resistance. Sometimes it's hard to not say "Hey what you just said is full of shit", but that's what IIDB is for. :) :D

Hello everyone and thankyou for youre warm welcome. I have many religious friends and I have no problem with people having their own private beliefs. I lived with a Shiva worshiper in India, alchohol is a no no for Hindus but he didnt try to make me join him in his pujas(at 7.30 am) or force me to give up the demon drink.

Infact he was quite happy for me to drink in his house, he just didnt partake himself.

Where my argument begins is with religious people who make outrageous statements like ''without Jesus there is no morality'' I actually heard this on the radio today. Now I want to argue with the woman who said this. I want to blow her beliefs into the dustbin where they belong.

Recently I worked with an evangelical Christian and when he saw that I had a book by the Dalai Lama in my van he changed his atittude towards me and told me without Jesus I'am lost.

For me remarks like these are like a red rag to a bull and I usually calmly, logically but forcfully set about their religion with the baseball bat of reality.

How many times do we hear people say that indoctrinating children with religious dogma is a good idea?

How many times does this view get challenged with a vigor?

Usually the religious in our society are handled with kid gloves, a courtesy that most believers dont extend to non believers, gays , lesbians, women, unmarried couples, science etc

It is difficult to let someone say something like gays are evil because the Allah says so without challenging the religion that is used to validate that view, dont you think?????

[luke07930]

I imagine that the answer to your question lies in knowing what it is that you are trying to accomplish. There are many reasons that one might want to engage in such a discussion, some more constructive than others. The most constructive reason that I have found thus far is to try to help the people in question. In this I’m motivated by the view that their aggressive behaviour is a cry for help, and most likely stems from fear.

I see that you have listed Buddhism as one of your beliefs. This should make it easier for you to grant other people the freedom to search for truth in their own way, and respect the truth that they find, no matter how much it may differ from your own. What you are battling here is not inaccuracy of beliefs (I don’t know on what grounds any human being could reasonably claim to have constructed a worldview that is completely accurate), but their destructiveness. Therefore your challenge lies not in correcting their beliefs, but in making them constructive. This you cannot do without understanding the effect that different beliefs have on the people in question.

I have found it useful to approach such discussions with a willingness to listen to the other person and acknowledge their point of view. If they feel that they’ve been heard, they are less likely to resort to aggression to get their message across. If they sense that you are sincerely interested in hearing what they have to say and want to help rather than scorn them, they are more likely to be receptive. It is only in an atmosphere of trust that they are likely to reveal the carefully concealed part of themselves that is in need of healing.

Regarding the actual arguments, you have a few options available to you. You can draw their attention to aspects of their religion that emphasise love, forgiveness and other noble qualities. You can remind them of the prominent religious figures whose ministry was based on compassion rather than condemnation and whose example they are meant to follow. You can also use the Golden Rule to make them aware of the undesirability of their behaviour.

Ultimately, it is for them to decide whether they are ready and willing to change, and what kind of change they wish to make.

I suppose what I'm trying to accomplish is to make a debate where this is none. At the moment a religious zealot can say what he or she wants and everybody has to tread carefully around them. Nobody ever stands up and says, ''thats a load of rubbish''

Well they might do on the net, but not in the media and the louder the religious become the more I think there needs to be a challenge to their beliefs.

Even in the UK which is one of the most secular countries in the world, we hold the idea of having FAITH in an unproved god and the cruel dogma that is assigned to him as something to be in awe of. The believers beliefs should be respected, the dogma unchallenged. We can say we dissagree but we cant point out the obvious problems of trying to follow a medievil doctrine in 2006.

You never hear dinosuars, carbon dating or the fact that god frying peacefull non believers and forgiving violent believers makes no sense and is a highley unlikely way for an all powerfull, all seeing, allknowing creator to behave. I mean a jealous god????????? Nah

It's like its an unwritten rule, it's just not cricket to use logic, science and reality to argue with a religious person...Why is this???

As for my Buddhism! it is totally at ease with my Atheism, I believe in no gods, I dont believe in reincarnation. I have just found that the system that Buddhism uses to free us from internal suffering works for me thats all. After all that is what Buddhism is all about freedom from self inflicted suffering, no faith, belief or supernaturalisms involved :Cheeky:

[RAFH]

The reluctance to publically challenge religion, mostly these days xian and muslim fundamentalism, is mostly either leftovers from the mainstreams of those religions being the mainstream and unattackable or the result of current fear of setting them off. Fortunately with the xians these days the threat is just they will try to get you shunned, fired, demoted, and labeled as a pervert, and the operative word there is 'try'. For the most part, unless you are a politician or government employee or some high and mighty corporate type, its pretty much an empty threat. However, with the more extreme muslim fundamentalists, the threat is not so idle. They have killed people they disagree with. They have resorted to rioting and other violent reprisals and suggested in their protected speech much worse.

I agree with you its somewhat unfair; though we do have our Dawkins, its very difficult for Joe Atheist to get heard. Its also certainly quite frustrating personally. You feel like opening their heads and pouring in some intelligence, figuratively of course.

No, it isn't like an unwritten rule, it is an unwritten rule.

I think that's starting to change though. The Mufti in Australia, with his remarks he thought safely delivered in Arabic late at night to a mosque-ful of adherents about women being like meat to hungry cats has spot-lighted the issue. Even though many muslims have expressed they do not agree with the comments, most Australians and many throughout the western world feel the apologies are insufficient (apologies taken in both the modern common sense of "uh, sorry mate" and the philosophical sense). I am hopeful this will help push the notion of absolute tolerance for outright intolerance back a bit.

I don't consider religion any different than politics and its often very difficult to separate the two even if you wanted to. BS should be called whenever and wherever. And yes, as Tigers! suggests, best be prepared for that reaction. I always figure its better to be proactive than reactive but overall it probably doesn't matter because every reaction is just an action to the reaction it causes.

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

I suppose what I'm trying to accomplish is to make a debate where this is none. At the moment a religious zealot can say what he or she wants and everybody has to tread carefully around them. Nobody ever stands up and says, ''thats a load of rubbish''
If your goal is to engage in a debate, and presumably prove yourself right and the other person wrong, then much of what I've said in my previous post won't be of any use to you. Since this is an ego-sponsored activity, the choice of the approach to follow depends on its effectiveness in bringing you closer to winning the debate that you are having. Even stooping down to the level of the religious zealot with whom you are arguing is acceptable. ;)

As for my Buddhism! it is totally at ease with my Atheism, I believe in no gods, I dont believe in reincarnation. I have just found that the system that Buddhism uses to free us from internal suffering works for me thats all. After all that is what Buddhism is all about freedom from self inflicted suffering, no faith, belief or supernaturalisms involved :Cheeky:
Your listing of Atheism as your primary belief has made this kind of obvious. ;)

[DBT]

Your listing of Atheism as your primary belief has made this kind of obvious. ;)

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in the Gods.
Gods that man has obviously constructed as an easy explanation for the existence of the world.
This lack of belief is based on the lack of evidence for the existence of the countless number Gods that have been believed in, throughout our history.

[spamandham]

My question is, is it cruel to reveal the truth to people with a belief that brings them comfort? A belief that brings them certainty in an uncertain world, a faith that brings them a promise of an afterlife and paradise?

Perhaps, but ask any former theist whether they wish they could go back, and 95% will resoundingly declare "no". Sometimes, you have to be cruel to be kind.

The age of pandering to faith is drawing to an end. The human race can not survive much longer unless religion and nationalism are shown the door.

[NZSkep]

Thank you for your solititude for believer's mental stability. Most of us can handle reality rather well thank you. :wave:
If you want to push your arguments feel free. However don't forget Newton's 3rd law.
And I second the welcome to these fora. :wave: :wave:

All forces occur in pairs, and these two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction?

what does that have to do with preaching religion? :Cheeky: ;)

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

Perhaps, but ask any former theist whether they wish they could go back, and 95% will resoundingly declare "no".
How different are the sentiments of former atheists?

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in the Gods.
Gods that man has obviously constructed as an easy explanation for the existence of the world.
This lack of belief is based on the lack of evidence for the existence of the countless number Gods that have been believed in, throughout our history.
Thank you for the reminder. :) It is easy to lose sight of what atheism really is when frequenting these forums.

We don't dismiss science because it has been wrong in the past. Why not extend spirituality the same courtesy?

[DBT]

We don't dismiss science because it has been wrong in the past. Why not extend spirituality the same courtesy?

Unlike spirituality, the basic principles of science are sound, despite the fallability of its human practitioners, the cases of deception, outright fraud, etc, (hence revision and peer review) science has a proven track record in regard to building a dependable, verifiable body of knowledge of the natural world....
"Science is based on the premise that our senses, and extensions of those senses through the use of instruments, can give us accurate information about the Universe. Science follows very specific "rules" and its results are always subject to testing and, if necessary, revision."

...So is it really a question of courtesy, or does 'spirituality' likewise have the ability to prove its own merit?

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

Unlike spirituality, the basic principles of science are sound, despite the fallability of its human practitioners, the cases of deception, outright fraud, etc, (hence revision and peer review) science has a proven track record in regard to building a dependable, verifiable body of knowledge of the natural world....
"Science is based on the premise that our senses, and extensions of those senses through the use of instruments, can give us accurate information about the Universe. Science follows very specific "rules" and its results are always subject to testing and, if necessary, revision."

...So is it really a question of courtesy, or does 'spirituality' likewise have the ability to prove its own merit?
Spirituality has proven its merit countless times, by providing healing (including physical), the ability to foretell future events, a means of communicating with the deceased, and many other things, including my personal favourite - suggesting ways of improving one's life. It is important to realise that spirituality deals with an aspect of our existence that resides largely beyond the observational ability of the physical senses, and is therefore correspondingly more difficult to engage in and obtain useful information.

[spamandham]

How different are the sentiments of former atheists?

No different I imagine. The point is, it is not a disservice to play a role in someone's deconversion. Pandering is done out of the mistaken belief that it IS a disservice, and out of fear. Note that theists almost never pander to the perspective of atheists. Tit for tat.

[DBT]

Spirituality has proven its merit countless times, by providing healing (including physical),

I'm not aware of a single documented case of spiritual healing. Though the perception of 'being healed' can produce physiological effects no matter what the form of treatment may be...it's the placebo affect.


the ability to foretell future events

I'm not aware of a single documented case of true phrophecy.
The shear amount of predictions that are made by psychics, etc, do produce a certain percentage of 'hits' but the numbers are not statistically significant.



a means of communicating with the deceased

I'm not aware of a single documented case of anyone communicating with the dead. Though there are countless psychics who claim to do so.

The 'results' are usually achieved through two basic methods Hot reading (http://skepdic.com/hotreading.html) and Cold reading. (http://skepdic.com/coldread.html)


It is important to realise that spirituality deals with an aspect of our existence that resides largely beyond the observational ability of the physical senses, and is therefore correspondingly more difficult to engage in and obtain useful information.

Very difficult indeed, as there is virtually no agreement on the basic foundations faith between any of the religious belief systems. Compare the Hindu world view tp that of Christianity. Compare AiG to Catholic theology..........

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

I'm not entirely sure that I understand what you mean by a documented case. The work of Sylvia Browne, Dolores Cannon and John Edward, to mention just a few, has been widely documented, though not with scientific rigour. My own visit to a psychic has not been documented, but it has proved to be of tremendous personal value. It also did not fit the profile of hot or cold readings.

Very difficult indeed, as there is virtually no agreement on the basic foundations faith between any of the religious belief systems. Compare the Hindu world view tp that of Christianity. Compare AiG to Catholic theology..........
Why should we restrict ourselves to two-thousand-year-old spirituality any more than we should restrict ourselves to two-thousand-year-old science? Spiritual truths that were valid then should still be valid today, and be retained for reasons other than adherence to religious dogma. Information that has been obtained in the last few decades through psychics, mediums, hypnosis (including regression), near-death experiences and automatic writing exhibits a great deal of consistency.

[spamandham]

Information that has been obtained in the last few decades through psychics, mediums, hypnosis (including regression), near-death experiences and automatic writing exhibits a great deal of consistency.

Consistency does not imply anything of substance. Fashion trends tend to be consistent at any given time too.

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

Consistency does not imply anything of substance. Fashion trends tend to be consistent at any given time too.
Agreed. It is its healing ability and the provision of guidance that add substance.

[spamandham]

Agreed. It is its healing ability and the provision of guidance that add substance.

Neither of these have been confirmed in objective repeatable studies.

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

Neither of these have been confirmed in objective repeatable studies.
Objective repeatable studies are not needed to add value to one's life.

[DBT]

I'm not entirely sure that I understand what you mean by a documented case. The work of Sylvia Browne, Dolores Cannon and John Edward, to mention just a few, has been widely documented, though not with scientific rigour.

Yes, scientific rigour is the crux of the matter - it's amazing how phsycic abilities seem to evaporate under set controls and conditions.

I've also watched John Edward's working the crowd, he uses some slick techniques to fish for information, and has a largely captive audience who are more than willing (uncosciously) to feed him cues. I think that just come from their strong desire to connect in some way with departed loved ones.

Also keep in mind that there are hundreds of psychics who attempt to solve criminal cases by assisting the police, including Allison Dubois :) but there is not a single case to date - contrary to claims such as AD and Medium- that has been solved through psychic information.


BTW. (http://www.twopercentco.com/rants/archives/2005/11/allison_dubois.html)

[Thomas II]

Hello everyone, I have always disliked the way that religious people have a platform to preach their unproved beliefs. When doing this they usually spend alot of time condemning people, women, unmarried people, gays, lesbians and non believers are reserved a special place in the mind of the monotheistic believer. All have scorn poured on them and are promised burning toture for all eternity or in extreme cases violence in this life.

What I dont understand is when these people are on the tv or radio you never hear anyone questioning the religion of the accuser, its like it is not alowed, even in a secular country like Britain. We dont tell believers that what they are saying is rubbish. We respect their blind faith in the unproved and allow them space to spout there vicious dogma.

Recently I have been doing my best to argue with Muslims and Christians, pointing out the unlikeleyness of that their beliefs have any truth. And the cruelty in the dogma that they except without question.

I have found Muslims alot more excepiting of my critisisms but Christians usually tell me I'm satans little helper and I will be sorry on judgement dat etc.

My question is, is it cruel to reveal the truth to people with a belief that brings them comfort? A belief that brings them certainty in an uncertain world, a faith that brings them a promise of an afterlife and paradise?

Is the mainstream view that their beliefs are important, to be respected and not to be atacked by logic and truth, is this the best and kindest way?????

Because I do worry about the mental stabitlity of some believers and their ability to handle reality. Should I refrain from pushing my arguments????

Yes,sometimes it could be cruel simply because they might be too fragile to handle the truth. It's like going around telling children that Santa...is not...you know...from the North Pole...

Of course if THEY ASK you for your actual perspective then it's another story. Then you just tell them the truth.

In general I don't go around telling believers that they are full of poo.

Having said that, I educated my children without the concept of Santa or religion, and they are doing fine.

[lenrek]

This discussion is better fit for GRD. Thread moved (from EoG -> GRD).

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

Yes, scientific rigour is the crux of the matter - it's amazing how phsycic abilities seem to evaporate under set controls and conditions.
Are you saying that the benefits of spirituality should not be considered genuine until this has been established through scientific methods?

I've also watched John Edward's working the crowd, he uses some slick techniques to fish for information, and has a largely captive audience who are more than willing (uncosciously) to feed him cues. I think that just come from their strong desire to connect in some way with departed loved ones.
Do you also consider healing that results from using regressive hypnosis to lack substance? Some cases are described in Dolores Cannon's book The Convoluted Universe 2, for example.

Also keep in mind that there are hundreds of psychics who attempt to solve criminal cases by assisting the police, including Allison Dubois :) but there is not a single case to date - contrary to claims such as AD and Medium- that has been solved through psychic information.
Is this claim based on familiarity with all available police records, or does it come from another source?

Sylvia Browne's book Phenomenon describes a case of a girl who had received a heart transplant from a murder victim and was later able to identify the murderer through hypnosis.

[spamandham]

Objective repeatable studies are not needed to add value to one's life.

If you believe you have been healed when you have not, or if you believe you have recieved guidance that you have not, I guess I fail to see how such delusions would provide much benefit. It seems to me they are more likely to harm than to help.

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

If you believe you have been healed when you have not, or if you believe you have recieved guidance that you have not, I guess I fail to see how such delusions would provide much benefit. It seems to me they are more likely to harm than to help.
It would likewise be unproductive to believe that you have not been healed when you have, or that you have not received guidance when you have.

I think that it is useful to distinguish between cases of healing, where physical symptoms, such as recurring asthma attacks, are frequently present, and cases of guidance, where physical manifestations are generally absent. Alternative therapies of various kinds (I'm most familiar with regressive hypnosis) have successfully healed patients with clear physical symptoms, usually after conventional therapy has proved ineffective. In these cases, I honestly don't see what the patient would have gained from denying the effectiveness of this treatment on the grounds that it has not been validated scientifically. The situation is not so clear when it comes to guidance, but I still think that it is up to the person in question to evaluate its usefulness. I don't know whose senses or feelings they should rely on in preference to their own.

[Worldtraveller]

Are you saying that the benefits of spirituality should not be considered genuine until this has been established through scientific methods?
I would certianly argue that. Yeah. And I would not want to be prayed over (or whatever) when I knew there was a proven medical procedure available. Wouldn't you?

Study after study has shown that prayer not only does not work, but often has negative effects.

In addition, most double blind studies show a slightly higher rate of 'success' for placebos over non-treated patients. That doesn't mean the placebo works. There are all kinds of psychological factors involved in things like healing over and above just the medication. That doesn't mean they are 'spiritual' in any way though.

Alternative therapies of various kinds (I'm most familiar with regressive hypnosis) have successfully healed patients with clear physical symptoms, usually after conventional therapy has proved ineffective.
You have a peer reviewed source to back up this claim?

Cheers,
Lane

[spamandham]

Alternative therapies of various kinds (I'm most familiar with regressive hypnosis) have successfully healed patients with clear physical symptoms, usually after conventional therapy has proved ineffective. In these cases, I honestly don't see what the patient would have gained from denying the effectiveness of this treatment on the grounds that it has not been validated scientifically.

Such therapies as this HAVE been proven to be effective scientifically. For some reason, I thought we were talking about prayer, my mistake.

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

Such therapies as this HAVE been proven to be effective scientifically. For some reason, I thought we were talking about prayer, my mistake.
I think that prayer can be classified as one of these therapies, but I consider it to be the least credible among them. I definitely wouldn't limit the discussion to prayer alone.

Thanks for the chat. ;)

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

Are you saying that the benefits of spirituality should not be considered genuine until this has been established through scientific methods?
I would certianly argue that.
Is this how you approach life in general - not considering anything you observe or feel as genuine until this has been established through scientific methods?

And I would not want to be prayed over (or whatever) when I knew there was a proven medical procedure available. Wouldn't you?
I make use of both conventional and alternative healing therapies. I'm certainly not disputing the value of modern medicine. When it does prove to be ineffective, however (say that you have an ailment that several specialists in the field seem unable to diagnose or treat), I see more value in pursuing alternative treatments.

Study after study has shown that prayer not only does not work, but often has negative effects.
The studies done by Elisabeth Targ suggest that prayer has some effectiveness. Still, I see no reason to limit the discussion of alternative therapies to prayer alone. Furthermore, the harmfulness of alternative healing treatments pales in comparison to that of conventional medicine.

Alternative therapies of various kinds (I'm most familiar with regressive hypnosis) have successfully healed patients with clear physical symptoms, usually after conventional therapy has proved ineffective.
You have a peer reviewed source to back up this claim?
The book Lessons from the Miracle Doctors by Jon Barron indicates that the healing of at least some of these patients has been confirmed by conventional doctors. Book reviews on Amazon.com should provide you with ample leads to follow.

[DBT]

Is this claim based on familiarity with all available police records, or does it come from another source?

Quote; (http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/police-psychics.html)
"Except in the extremely rare case in which a psychic was actually involved in the crime or had apparently received secret information (as from a tip), psychics rarely lead police to concealed bodies or unknown assailants. Of course they may use their own logical skills, or they may benefit from luck or perseverance, but there is no credible scientific evidence that psychic power ever solved a crime. Instead, crimes are invariably solved by police who search crime scenes, interview witnesses, and perform all of the myriad tasks necessary to locate a missing person or to convict a criminal."



Sylvia Browne's book Phenomenon describes a case of a girl who had received a heart transplant from a murder victim and was later able to identify the murderer through hypnosis.

But can it be substantiated? Or is it just a claim written in a book... the type of claims which tend to fall apart under close scrutiny?

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

But can it be substantiated? Or is it just a claim written in a book... the type of claims which tend to fall apart under close scrutiny?
I haven't personally investigated any of the healing claims that I've read about in various books, so I cannot tell which of them, if any, are genuine. I find it difficult to dismiss all of it as fraud due to the sheer volume of claims, some of them by reputable medical practitioners. Still, this is nothing more than my opinion.

[Revasser]

I haven't personally investigated any of the healing claims that I've read about in various books, so I cannot tell which of them, if any, are genuine. I find it difficult to dismiss all of it as fraud due to the sheer volume of claims, some of them by reputable medical practitioners. Still, this is nothing more than my opinion.

A lot of people claim they've met the risen Elvis.

Volume of claims does not equate to veracity.

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

A lot of people claim they've met the risen Elvis.

Volume of claims does not equate to veracity.
Let me give a bit more background information regarding my viewpoint.

I have received Body Talk and Reiki treatments, and have attended a session with a psychic. All of these have been beneficial to me, so I can attest that they work specifically in my case. I also know people, mostly friends and family, who have had similar experiences, as well as out-of-body experiences, dreams that have subsequently materialised and other mystical experiences. This has been sufficient to convince me that there is more going on than what we can perceive with our physical senses.

Reading about the above as well as various other mystical subjects has made me realise that the information that has been obtained through these sources exhibits a great deal of consistency. Tying this together with my personal experience and that of other people I know has partially shaped my current belief system. The remainder was shaped by science and my intuition.

This doesn’t put me in a position where I can vouch for the legitimacy of any of the published claims regarding alternative healing practices or spirituality in general, hence my previous post.