I disagree on that one
.
I disagree on that one.
Skinwalker said:
I disagree on both counts.
Skinwalker said:
So what?
Skinwalker said:
I disagree on all counts. But feel to try to prove otherwise.
Skinwalker said:
Finally something we can agree on.
Skinwalker said:
Prove it.
Skinwalker said:
So far, the only thing you seem adept at proving is that you know a fancy word or 2 (syllogism, for instance) and that you're prolific with the insults; ofcourse, I've definitely seen worse coming from non moderators...
Seances: Magick versus Psychic
- Thread starter Wingmaker Seeker
- Start date
Just because you disagree, doesn't imply that psychic abilities or ghosts exist. There have been concerted efforts to explore these claims. Not a single case of psychic ability has been discovered and not a single ghost has ever been shown to exist.
If this is untrue, please do more than say "I disagree." Show us the evidence. If either have any basis in fact, where are the data? Moreover, if you consider "syllogism" a "fancy word," then clearly we're operating on a different level. In which case, you might be correct: perhaps this forum isn't for you.
But lets begin with the premises above, which you disagreed with. Why do you disagree? What reason is there to believe that if psychic abilities existed that they would be unobserved? In addition, are you also saying that you disagree that people have been observed to lie and exhibit delusion?
Rather than post why you disagreed, you simply said, "I disagree" as if your woo-woo opinion holds any weight. I'm open to revising my position -all you need to do is provide the evidence that my premises are incorrect, which would show my argument as unsound. At which point I would be forced to either revise my argument or concede that I was wrong.
If this is untrue, please do more than say "I disagree." Show us the evidence. If either have any basis in fact, where are the data? Moreover, if you consider "syllogism" a "fancy word," then clearly we're operating on a different level. In which case, you might be correct: perhaps this forum isn't for you.
But lets begin with the premises above, which you disagreed with. Why do you disagree? What reason is there to believe that if psychic abilities existed that they would be unobserved? In addition, are you also saying that you disagree that people have been observed to lie and exhibit delusion?
Rather than post why you disagreed, you simply said, "I disagree" as if your woo-woo opinion holds any weight. I'm open to revising my position -all you need to do is provide the evidence that my premises are incorrect, which would show my argument as unsound. At which point I would be forced to either revise my argument or concede that I was wrong.
No, it implies I -believe- they do. My point is you don't have proof that they don't or even that they probably don't.
Skinwalker said:
In regards to psychic abilities, I recommend you read Jim Marrs' Psi Spies, which you can pick up at amazon or read online here.
In terms of what I believe to be very strong anecdotal evidence that I personally have experienced many times, I find that many people can sense when you're looking at them intensely- even if you're looking at them from many floors up in a hotel or if you're behind them. I bring up the hotel thing because already at a very young age (I may not have even been in my teens yet), I had realized this effect; that is, that when I looked at people intensely, wanting to know all about them, they would frequently look back at me; even if I was behind them. One night, I was in a hotel in Mexico, many floors above ground level. I looked at this woman who I thought was beautiful (couldn't really see detail but I had a good imagination
). I thought- yes! No -way- she'll realize I'm looking at her from this distance. And so I began to admire her beauty, feeling relatively sure that she'd never notice. And then, the unthinkable happened; she looked back at me . You could say that perhaps it was my imagination, but I quickly ducked and decided from there on in that looking at someone else intensely, perhaps with a desire to know more about them, can be very powerful indeed.In regards to ghosts, I admit that I can't remember the name of the book I read concerning a true story of a haunted house. I was persuaded by it anyway.
Skinwalker said:
Just because you knew the term before I did means that your arguments are all more advanced
?Skinwalker said:
If you used more words like syllogism and less words like woo woo, I'd be -more- interested in being in this forum, not less.
Skinwalker said:
No, I'm not.
Skinwalker said:
There you go with the 'woo-woo' again
I've learned from experience that at times it's best not to get into details if it's quite possible that the person you're responding to isn't all that interested in your line of reasoning- you seemed to fit the bill but since you've now asked me to elaborate, I have.
Skinwalker said:
I can state the same.
Last edited:
The same kook that wrote "Alien Agenda?" No thanks. In fact, just recommending trash like that earns you as much disrespect as you get. I actually read his "Alien Agenda," and I suspect all his books follow a similar grain: lots of anecdote, lots of colorful embellishment, and even more wild-ass speculation.
The guy makes his money peddling nonsense to conspiracy nuts. Anyone who's spent more than $5 on his books is stupid. (unless of course you've spent more than $5 on his books. After all, you're clearly not stupid).
Woo-woos are always eager to recommend books written and published by woo-woo nutters, but they rarely seem to actually read real academic texts written by real academics.
I tell you what, start a thread on Jim Marrs and "Psi Spies" and quote the most convincing two passages. Please allow me to rip them to shreds.
Just because you call him 'kook' doesn't make it so.
Skinwalker said:
What you call anecdotes I call evidence. While he may have believed a bit too much concerning Gods=aliens, I believe a lot of his evidence was sound. His first book, Crossfire was the basis for Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" which I personally found to be quite good.
Skinwalker said:
I'm not going to scour the book to find the 2 passages I find the most convincing. But I'll give you the first part of the Preface, which I think provides ample room for discussion:
*************
In 1992, following the success of my book Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy, I began to look for other dark secrets being hidden away by the federal government. What I found led me into an incredibly journey through time, space, ESP, UFOs, censorship, and disinformation.
It began with my discovery of a psychic ability termed remote viewing, or RV. This phenomenon in the past had been called clairvoyance, prophecy, or soothswaying. Although recorded by all cultures throughout human history, it was believed to be simply an occult fantasy until scientific studies during the 20th century confirmed its existence.
Despite the fact that remote viewing was developed by various tax-supported government agencies including the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and even the U.S. Army, a majority of Americans still have never heard of this facility.
But remote viewing forever changed the lives of the men and women employed in its use. This included people only tangentially connected to the government-funded RV programs.
This book became one of the casualities in the ongoing conflict between sicence and ESP, military secrecy and the public's right to know, as well ast he never-ending intramural competition between government agencies and power-seeking individuals.
What you are about to read was suppressed in the summer of 1995, four months before the existence of government sponsored remote viewing was publicly revealed by a CIA press release.
The story of remote viewing- then one of our government's most closely guarded secrets- now has filtered into certain aware segments of the public, where it continues to attract growing fascination and interest. Today, several experienced viewers are bringing this phenomenal technology to a wider audience. Others have spoken about it in books, articles or public speeches. Even some entrepreneurs now advertise psychic readings reportedly accomplished through RV.
*************
every single 'remote-viewer' that ever agreed to undergo double-blind testing was shown to be a sham.
Marrs' book was based upon a sham. He's a kook.
Marrs' book was based upon a sham. He's a kook.
Heres an interesting article you would NEVER find within the US.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-510762/Could-proof-theory-ALL-psychic.html
Remote viewing is just a step up from lucid dreaming. You do believe in lucid dreaming dont you skinwalker?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-510762/Could-proof-theory-ALL-psychic.html
Remote viewing is just a step up from lucid dreaming. You do believe in lucid dreaming dont you skinwalker?
I believe that Jim Marrs' shows just the reverse in his book but it's been a while since I read it. I note that you seemed uninterested in the part of his preface to the book that I quoted, especially this part:
Despite the fact that remote viewing was developed by various tax-supported government agencies including the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and even the U.S. Army, a majority of Americans still have never heard of this facility.
Skinwalker said:
Easy to say, but I haven't seen you show any evidence that that's actually the case.
Please, quote the most convincing passage where Marrs "shows" this. What data are revealed? What citations does he provide?
Yes, I was uninterested. The fact that the government funds it is hardly evidence of any legitimacy. The very fact that the government no longer funds it says something about its legitimacy. Appeals to authority in this case are ironic coming from you, but that's something that I've noticed about conspiracy nuts: they cherry pick what they believe the government is capable of. The government temporarily funds a woo-woo topic and therefore the government is an authority; the government says something contrary to the woo-woo credo and its therefore a conspiracy. Face it: you're a mystery-monger and a significance-junkie who sides with the mysterious and silly significances just as long as they fit your woo.
Again, its the burden of proof issue. If there is a claim being made: i.e. that remote viewing is real, then the burden to show evidence resides on the claimant. The counter-claim, which is there is no good reason to believe such flights of fantasy, is a logical result of the woo.
But if you insist, I can dig up a few old threads where I've cited experiments that demonstrate the bunk of the matter.
There's some truth the fact that the CIA certainly did ATTEMPT to make use of 'remote viewing' - but the end of the story is the most revealing of all. After 24 full years of trying hard and spending millions of dollars in the effort, they pulled the plug on the project.
And for those "true believers" out there, here is some serious reading material for you which also includes some bare facts about why it appeared to be working - sometimes. But in the end it totally failed. http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache...l+cia+remote+viewing&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us
why wouldn't you find that in the u.s?
i dont think there is too much that supports remote viewing or that it is related to lucid dreaming. do you have some links?
It is apparent that the most skeptical and the most self-confident bloggers have been the most consistent and the longest-lasting patrons to this site. The same tendency has been observed in religious circles. The passionate prevent prodigy and their mission prevents insight. The fearful find rest in simplicity while enquiring minds continue to grow.
If this message doesn’t make any sense, don’t “sweat it”. It was intended for a select group. :m:
If this message doesn’t make any sense, don’t “sweat it”. It was intended for a select group. :m:
The message made perfect sense. It is an attempt to redefine delusion as "enquiring minds" so it sounds like a good thing.
I agree. However, while I believe there is a lot of truth to this, I find that -some- of the posters here are willing to expand their horizons as to the possible, which is why I have spent the amount of time I have here. A quality that I find rather rare here is the tolerance for difference. Case in point:
I believe that 9/11 was an inside job. There are a fair amount of forums whose sole reason for being around is to promote this viewpoint. One could argue, why don't I just stay on those sites when talking about the issue?
The answer is in somewhat ironical; I'm generally not over there because as a general rule, everyone has already decided that things are one way and there's just not much of a challenge; most people there are in agreement that 9/11 was an inside job and the few who don't are essentially labelled the woo woos and that's that. At the same time, this place isn't JREF, where I would contend that the atmosphere is positively toxic for someone who believes in the paranormal or that 9/11 was an inside job.
There are times when I believe that disagreeing too much with others can simply be bad for one's health. So I'll simply say that to each their own view of things.
How do you know its not you who is delusional? Because your thoughts fall inline with the mainstream? Because you know alot of people that think the same thing?
The amount of believers involved does not determine truth. If it did Christianity's God would have come real.
Because reality agrees with me. One thing that's important to understand is that everytime reality agrees with an idea in your head, truth is found. Over time cumulative truth shows various constraints of reality.
In the case of psychic/para claims, we have to look at what reality is saying:
* Psychic/para claims have existed as far back as history has been recorded. Since that time, there has been zero supportive evidence of those claim.
* All psychic/para claims that have been tested in a controlled environment have failed.
* Many (and I mean alot) psychic/para assertions are directly invalidated by science. For example, the U.S. hospital system has been conducting an experiment for out-of-body-experiencers. They have units that routinely stop and start patient's hearts and a huge amount of them experience traditional OOBEs during the process (i.e. floating high above looking down). The doctor's place four monitors facing upwards in these cardio rooms, each with a distinct image that can be clearly seen from up above. To date not a single OOBExperiencer has seen any of the images.
* Humans are naturally prone to fantasy and non-evidence-based belief. For fantasy, it helps people cope with reality. It can be observed all over the world that the poorest and least educated cultures adorn their lives with very high degrees of fantasy, so it's no surprise that humans universally find psychic/para ideas attractive. Non-evidence-based belief on the other hand is a survival mechanism allowing people to make quick decisions with incomplete information or to accept what the 'group' accepts to gain their support and resources.
* Humans have difficulty distinguishing between external stimulus and internally generated stimulus. A huge amount of people claiming to have experienced psychic/para phenomena have been duped by their brains. Hynagogic hallucination, hynopompic hallucination, and even dreams are very often the culprits. Many people don't even realize there are different modes of natural human hallucination nor the function of their content.
It becomes quite clear that not only do psychic/para phenomena not objectively exist, but our brains are hard-wired to be very receptive to the idea of them. So, whether or not my thoughts are aligned with mainstream thought or social popularity is utterly irrelevant.
Agreed.
Last edited:
Or atleast this is what you believe. Personally, I believe that at times, reality can be stranger then some dearly held fictions.
Well no, it does whether I believe it or not. I consequently don't see the relevance of the link or quote you chose.
Sorry Crunchy, no one gets to claim omniscience here.
Your claim of knowing the 'true' reality is no more valid than anyone elses.
Your claim of knowing the 'true' reality is no more valid than anyone elses.