Friday, March 30, 2012

Like god, Psychics Work in Mysterious Ways

Remember that murder that Robbie Thomas likes to claim he helped solve?  The one that he still uses to suggest he has psychic powers?  The one that he had helped, in no way, in solving?  Yes, I know, that only narrows it down to EVERY SINGLE CASE that Robbie claims to have been involved in.

No, remember the one that Robbie claimed, to the family, that the girl was still alive almost a week after, we now know, she was murdered?  (I'll admit that might not exclude very many but it does exclude some - given that it was a female!)  For those that guessed Tori Stafford, you're right.

Robbie Thomas claims to have been involved in solving the murder case and, if that's the case, Robbie Thomas is a fucking cell phone.  They didn't find Tori's body because of a psychic.  Nope, they found it because they used REAL police work and REAL evidence.

Here's the story - it doesn't say "Robbie Thomas is a liar" -  it doesn't have to, because we already knew that.  Robbie Thomas, in his claimed 20 years of "psychic criminal profiling" has never solved a crime using his claimed psychic abilities.  His claims that he has are lies.  In other words, he makes Weather Forecasters look like they've got perfect records!

A special note to my good friend Robbie Thomas:
Good work Robbie Thomas - you are a scumbag.  In the reality-based world that most of us live, we like to think that the people who actually do something should get the credit for it.  The police solved the crime, the real witnesses solved the crime, the community solved the crime.  You did not contribute, beneficially, to this case.  So, fuck off, you low-life piece of shit.  With love, Sarnia Skeptic.

Saturday, March 3, 2012

That Makes Sense

I think the Million Dollar Prize from the JREF is a wonderful tool to use when confronting believers of the occult. I'm not sure they see it the same way because they often react by moving the goal posts.

When it is suggested that they get tested under scientific scrutiny it is argued, by believers, that skepticism can affect performance. However, more commonly, I get the response 'psychics can't use their powers for personal benefit' (to explain why you never see the headline 'psychic wins lottery' (Jay Leno)).

Assuming that were the case, we must follow those implications to wherever they may lead.

Before we do, however, let us consider faith in the Abrahamic god and psychics. The Bible is fairly specific about the idea of people talking to the dead, conjuring up spirits and the like. Does that not trouble you (if you accept the Bible to be some form of truth)?

If you have arrived at atheism as a result of your skepticism, you probably don't believe in ghosts, psychics or fairies.

But, enough with my digression.

The idea that a psychic can not use their powers for their own benefit suggests that whatever endowed them with these "great" powers is actually capable of determining how these powers are used. If you believe that it is a god that granted them these powers, you must, then, question yourself why that same god didn't make it so all humans could only do good?

That single statement ("can't use it for personal gain/benefit") destroys any argument you might have for why evil exists.

One must also ask that why would such a being give these "special gifts" to such slime balls and scumbags? Shouldn't that sky-fairy really have given them the ability to win the lottery so they would stop abusing all the people they currently victimize (and re-victimize)?

It makes perfect sense.


Now, if you want to read some horrible bullshit from an Animal Communicator (if you’re too worried about being called out by humans as being fake, you can always claim to read the minds of animals) as to why psychics don’t win the lottery, here it is:

Or to see the mental gymnastics that some go through, check out:

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Naturally Stupid - Arguments against the appeal to nature (often called the naturallistic fallacy)

When it comes to fallacies, one of the most commonly abused is the appeal to nature.  The fallacy is often used to claim that something is "good" or "safe" simply because it is "natural" - you'll see it repeated, almost ad nauseam, in product and business advertisements.

Someone simply making the appeal to nature may not be wrong about a product being "good" or "better" but the idea that something is "good" because it is natural is wrong.

I was, very recently, offered a can of Jamba Juice energy drink with the claim that it is "all natural".  I asked him what it contained that made it "all natural" and he told me that it included green tea and other natural ingredients with "no chemicals added".

Ignoring that it is comprised of nothing BUT chemicals (everything is), the suggestion that he was attempting to make is that simply because it isn't "naturally occurring" it can be assumed to have risks while "natural" is safe/good for you.  "Natural" stuff (like anthrax, carbon monoxide, lightning, poop and even the stuff you think is healthful) is not risk free - the toxin is in the dose.  Too much water can kill you.  Too much vitamin D will kill you (ask Gary Null - that nut-job "health guru"). 

So the next time someone suggests that something is all-natural, simply ask "natural? Just like anthrax, asbestos, lead, mercury, faeces, influenza, measles and ebola?".  So any product that contains "all natural" ingredients might include any of those items and still be true to their claim.  Mmmmmmmm... appetizing.