Wednesday, March 23, 2016

Collect the million bucks or shut up & It's YOUR god, you prove it exists

I get email - often from people who agree with my desire to get people to think critically or from people who have something that they think might interest me or the 2 people who read my blog.  However, I also get email from crazy people, people who firmly disagree and others who think/claim that I'm stupid.

First of all, I don't want you to accept what I say - learn for yourself and come to your own conclusions.  I would like for you to understand what constitutes evidence and data and to understand how to evaluate it. 

Since the majority of my blogs covered psychics for a while, I seem to get a lot of email from people who "want (me) to know something" or to "get the facts".

Explain to me how he was able to give the name of my uncle who had passed away and even the day he passed away. He couldn't have known any other way.
This is a common statement that I hear from people who disagree.  There are a number of things that I think need to be addressed when statements like this are made.  Asking for a copy of the "reading" (ie. video or audio) might help in ruling in/out some approaches.  (I've NEVER been given a copy of a reading by someone who firmly believes in psychics - I have asked numerous times.)

First of all, I'm skeptical to the suggestion that it is as it is stated.  I am fairly certain that the "psychic" didn't say "So, let's first talk about your uncle Jack Smith who died on August 12, 1984."  The "psychic" likely approached it as most cold reading is done - "I'm getting contact from a person, their name starts with a "J" or an "R" or a "S"".  To which the person probably responded "Maybe my uncle Jack?"  "And it seems to me that he died possibly in the summer." "Yeah, he died in August." 

Another thing to consider is that the "psychic" may have been able to get the information another way.  Since appointments are often made, the "psychic" could have searched genealogy sites, newspapers, facebook, etc. for information on the clients before they attended.

The reality is that stories are often exaggerated, details are left out and new information is added.  If your psychic could really do what you're claiming, send him to to collect his million bucks or shut up.

Real psychics don't charge for their services and they don't profit from it. (In response to my "collect the million bucks")
Right! Errr. Wrong.  I would suggest, then, that psychics don't exist simply because I've never met a self-claimed psychic who offers their services and doesn't charge for it.  By your statement, Robbie Thomas, Sylvia Browne, John Edwards and others are not psychic.  The evidence of their claims would also support your statement.

Pick on the people who are doing the real harm like drug companies.
I've talked about the REAL harm that psychics do - check back through my blog you lazy (or information ignoring) baffoon.  Or check out  If it were true that drug companies were causing real harm and offering no benefit, it does not make psychics, all of a sudden, less wrong.  It doesn't make them smaller liars or more honest.  (I do disagree with the suggestion that drug companies are "all bad" - though I'd be the last to suggest that they couldn't be better but that's not the point of this blog entry.)

"God Exists"
(If) you're so certain that god doesn't exist, present your evidence.
This is a tired claim - I'm not the one making the suggestion of existence so the burden lies on YOU (the god believer) to proof that he/she does, in fact, exist.  Until then, god almost certainly does not exist.

May god have mercy on you.
And may my invisible purple unicorn treat you fairly.  Ridiculous statement answered with the ridiculous.  It is like threatening someone who doesn't believe in hell with eternal suffering in hell.  I'm not worried about your god because I'm not concerned about smurfs, fairies, gods or anything else that doesn't exist.

Friday, March 18, 2016

Free Speech? Come on Marilyn Gladu

It has been broadly reported that Marilyn Gladu recently claimed, when referring to Trump, “the only bright light is that he has sort of restored freedom of speech to America".   The Sarnia Observer

Though I don't disagree with the suggestion that Donald Trump is saying things without thinking or saying things that many, even if they do believe such, would never say in public, let's not equate that, simply, with free speech.

Donald Trump, through his actions, has demonstrated that free speech is not absolute - he has spent considerable time and effort to take away the speech of others.  Trump's threats of lawsuits and actually following through with some are an affront to free speech not an encouragement of it.  Free speech also comes with the rights of others to express contrary views. 

Consider when a joke was made about Donald Trump's inane "birther" claims about Barack Obama.  Donald Trump was offering 5 million dollars for Obama to release his passport and college records.  To show how stupid of a request it was, Bill Maher offered $5 million to the charity of Trump's choice (Maher suggested The Hair Club for Men) if Trump could provide proof that he wasn't "the spawn of his mother having sex with an orangutan". 

Donald Trump, Marilyn Gladu's champion of free speech, sued Bill Maher. (Unsuccessfully, mind you.)

More recently, at Trump rallies, dissenting views are silenced by Trump - people are kicked out.  That's not free speech, that's the desire to say whatever you want without allowing others the opportunity to respond. 

For more on what a free speech advocate would be advised not to do, see The Atlantic: The Lawsuits of Donald Trump.

Marilyn Gladu, you have the right to say whatever you would like.  We have the right to point out when something you say is absurd - that's free speech.  Suing me would suggest you don't think the right of free speech is for everyone.

(Which brings me to this: At some point in the future, I'll tackle Marilyn's views on the separation of church and state, her belief that Muslim immigrants "want to kill everybody" and other public statements she has made that we should all find absolutely appalling.)

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

Robbie Thomas has another book coming out

Being a strong supporter (can you call it that?) of psychics, I can't begin to tell you how excited I am that Robbie Thomas, the most consistent psychic I know of (0 cases solved in more than 23 years), is coming out with another book.

For those who aren't familiar, I've talked about Robbie Thomas almost as much as Robbie Thomas has talked about himself.  This site has often taken a skeptical look at the claims that the scumbag (read some of the entries in this blog) has made.

To get a few things out of the way before we deal with the book in particular, the following are not disputed:

  • Robbie Thomas has never solved a single crime using his self-proclaimed psychic abilities.
  • Robbie Thomas is not psychic (nobody is).
  • Robbie Thomas has claimed that kidnapped children were still alive when the evidence is clear that they had already been murdered at that point.
  • Robbie Thomas has lied to numerous people that he can help find their loved ones or find those responsible for the crimes committed against their family members.
  • Robbie claims that he was attacked by a hate group!
  • Robbie Thomas was exposed by his manager.
I have reached out to Robbie but I'm still waiting for a response.

Actually, what more is there to say?

With love, SarniaSkeptic.