All forms of extremism should be condemned, vigorously, wherever they are found.

I would say that the majority of moral judgements are relative to the exact circumstances. It's not difficult to come up with situations where lying or killing are the morally correct things to do. Even so, some things are clearly absolutely immoral: owning another person (slavery), for example.

Nothing mystical about it. It's called propaganda. You don't have to read many messages on this forum to realise that some people will believe any nonsense without ever trying to get the true facts.

Translation: I have no evidence so I'll avoid answering the question.

Anything that, in practise, tells you to stop thinking and blindly follow what you're told is a bad thing.

Closed minded? Not at all.

Provide the tiniest scrap of real evidence for its existence and I shall change my mind about the supernatural.

You're not related to the captain of the Titanic by any chance?

Try taking a dose of reality and the phantoms in your head will disappear.

I am no fan of Microsoft but I had no problems switching to W10 from XP.
I do a lot of low-level systems programming and switching was painless (other than one failing, obscure MS utility for which nobody can seem to suggest a solution).

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2016/01/arctic-ice-environment-text

A lot of it has and more is going.

It's yet another loony conspiracy claim (well past its fourth sell-by date of 2000).

far more than what?

Please give references to your statistics.

You seem to be almost begging the question by using the word 'uncanny'.

Take the example of the planets. Observe their movements and you'll find that they all move in elipses (Kepler's first law) and the square of their periods is proportional to the cube of their semi-major axes (Kepler's third law) - uncanny!

Not uncanny at all - they are both a consequence of a single, much simpler thing: the gravitational force between two masses follows an inverse square law (Newton).

Things can seem uncanny until you make a simplifying discovery. Just because you can't explain something now doesn't mean there is anything supernatural going on; it just means you can't explain it (yet).

Except that if you go to three new specialists you are likely to get the same results as before. That's because they work in the real world and base their conclusions on evidence that is open for all to view and interpret.

I would love to see a properly conducted trial where three 'professional' tarot readers independently give readings for the same people. Once the Barnum statements have been removed ("you have a good sense of humor, but not everyone sees it"; "you tend to think about things before taking action"; "You have had some major challenges in your life"; "you recently had a disagreement with someone you care for"...) the remaining specific predictions should be equivalent: not identical, but obviously foretelling the same things.

I have a prediction of my own: removing the Barnum statements will leave null readings.

http://web.randi.org/swift/did-a-psychic-see-my-future-no-it-wasnt-in-the-cards

The definition from your reference:
"Your higher self is you."
So it's a tautology (like one equals one)

"You in the ether."
What is the "ether"? Definitions in terms of underfined things remain undefined.

"Your higher self is the real you, your total soul consciousness."
What is a "soul consciousness"?

"The you that is living here on Earth is just a projection of the consciousness of your higher self."
So I am a projection of myself? How is one projected?

"Your higher self is the more complete you,..."
Complete describes something has nothing missing, so what can this possibly mean?

"...the one that isn’t being frustrated by the veil that draws down upon us when we incarnate..."
This assumes we exist before we are born. Where is the evidence for this?

"...that causes us to forget where we came from."
A simpler explanation for forgetting where we come from that we didn't exist before we were born and so had nowhere to come from.

"The higher self is the one in possession of your spiritual contract, the plan you made for yourself before you incarnated."
So we make plans before we exist...

"He or she has your instruction manual and your life plan in his/her hot little hands."
... and we seem to have a temperature too?

Sorry, but this is nothing like a definition; it's no more than another example of what can only be described as babble: use lots
of meaningless words that sound good.


[As for the rest, aposomething evidence (English isn't my first language, and I don't know that word, too lazy at the mo to look it up, lol)...]
Apocryphal is an adjective meaning "(of a story or statement) of doubtful authenticity, although widely circulated as being true."
Perhaps you should read about both sides of these issues in your native language where you can spot uses of undefined terms.

[We both work differently. The evidence that is sufficient for me, would likely not suffice for you.]
You haven't provided any evidence.

[For instance when I notice that my readings work, that's proof enough for me. I don't need any more proof.]
So if you think something is true, that's enough? I suggest you investigate "cognitive bias".

[I have already learnt that it works.]
It is common for people who believe they have special powers to remember the hits and forget the misses. If I make random guesses as to which face of a die will come up, I am bound to be right sometimes. Can I claim clairvoyance if I ignore all the times I was wrong?

[The latter you choose what energy you want to use, you choose what method etc.]
Throwing around a word like 'energy' when you are unable to provide a clear, unambiguous definition diminishes your credibility.

[you don't have to become disrespectful]
I can respect you while pointing out when you make meaningless statements.

From Google:
"The Higher Self is generally regarded as a form of being only to be recognized in a union with a divine source. In recent years the New Age faith has encouraged the idea of the Higher Self in contemporary culture, though the notion of the Higher Self has been interpreted throughout numerous historical spiritual faiths. Some denominations believe that the higher self is a part of an individual's metaphysical identity, while others teach that the higher self is essentially our tie to the heavens. Similar to the notion of the soul, the higher self can be defined by many different sects, while also being a topic of interest in the scientific and philosophical fields."

Would someone care to translate that into something that has any meaning?

[Not the older generation so much, cos they've been raised in a different environment. Brought up with science, and often the doctrine of religion, and told that anything else is nonsense and non-existent.]
I have never been told that; I work out what is nonsense for myself, usually from the complete absence of anything but anecdotal or apocryphal evidence.

[Nah, you're too skeptical. Not my job to 'convert' people.]
I didn't ask you to convert anyone, just to define your terms. Without clear meanings all you have is babble.

It's interesting to note that none of these self-proclaimed psychics claimed the JREF million dollar prize. All they had to do was demonstrate their claimed gifts. Cue for a list of the usual weasel-word excuses.

Can you give an accurate reading when you can't see the person in question? If not, the cards are irrelevant. If you can, just demonstrate your accuracy and you'll invent a whole new area of physics (not psychics) and proabably get a Noble Prize.

You do realise that children behave differently from (most) adults?


Everyone has things they do not know and are therefore agnostic about them.


Have you never felt the wind?
You can't see infrared radiation, but you can feel it (heat).
You can't see X-rays but you can take pictures with them.
You can't see Neptune, but you can use a telescope to make it visible.
You can't see protons, but you can detect them.


You are combining two separate things. There are many things that you can't see but you don't have to be able to see something to explain it.
There are also many things you can see but can't (yet) explain.


Who dismissed anything? I was asking for facts before making a judgement.

I have no problem in treating things as unexplained without needing to make up a satisfying but unsupported explanation. For example, I know that UFOs are real: many things can be unidentified. That doesn't mean they have anything to do with aliens (if you knew that, they wouldn't be unidentified).

Please explain exactly what you mean by 'energies'.


Just cold reading, or, if you know the person, warm reading (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Warm_reading).

If you throw out enough general verbiage, people will tend to latch onto anything that they can make fit and ignore the rest (the Barnum effect).