Thread: Skeptics Vs. Believers: Choose your Side

Originally Posted by ethen

Tk isn't new, and we have had the technology to study it for quite some time now. What makes you think things are going to change in the future?

Or better yet, why is it that psions are so annoyed that people do not take them seriously (especially the scientific community), yet they refuse to take serious measures by adhering to scientific standards and protocols? What are they waiting for? From what I have seen, even if these people aren't as good as Nina *coughobvioustricktablecough*, there are still countless people who seem to be more than proficient enough to demonstrate that they can move something with their mind. All a psion would have to do is do what they do, but instead of doing it in their home, they do it in a lab. Bada Bing, bada boom.

The fact is that there is no good excuse for why this hasn't happened yet.

I think that's strange too, actually. But I don't care because that doesn't change my genuine telekinesis experience. I am 100% sure I can do telekinesis and so can you.

When I get better I promise I'll contact a scientist.

Science expects psi abilities to be like some kind of mechanism or device that you can just turn on and off with the same results on demant, every time. The problem with this approach, is that it doesnt work that way. That's like asking an olympic athlete to perform their word record performance on demand, and over and over again as well. Science doesn't play fair.

Hardly.

If people can do PK well enough to catch it on camera (youtube anyone?), then they can do it well enough to be studied. Besides, there are plently of people out there who claim to be able to do these things, more or less, on command...even if you are not one of those people.

Originally Posted by ethen

there are plently of people out there who claim to be able to do these things, more or less, on command

So everyone keeps saying. Name one...

If you really want proof, you could go see this guy in China to experience it for yourself. He's there every day. There are many people like this to be found around the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu99GRUUN6Y

Can I be the Decepticons? Oh wait, they're not there.

Originally Posted by The Cusp

So everyone keeps saying. Name one...

Are you trying to call my bluff?

You could always check out my videos and see these people for yourself. I’ll leave it up to you to sift through the comments, though. There must have been dozens of people who have made that very claim, and even some who claimed they could levitate objects. You have probably seen these videos, they are the most watched, most commented, most ranked, most favorited PSI videos on Youtube and Google Video. I have the #1 and#2 spots, in fact.


And I bet if I were to go to psipog, it wouldn't take more than a few minutes to find several people who make the same claim.

Originally Posted by The Cusp

So everyone keeps saying. Name one...

If you really want proof, you could go see this guy in China to experience it for yourself. He's there every day. There are many people like this to be found around the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu99GRUUN6Y

Right

And no magician or faith healer ever had an assistant or a plant...

guys, videos don't prove and should not convince anyone of anything.

that was exactly the point of my videos.

Ethen, you did those videos? I've seen them before.
Videos are not proof, I agree, cuz some of the telekinesis videos on youtube are fake, it's very evident. However, not all of them are...

I love that Chi-video. There's another one I like too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aos0hnwiHt8

Between "gullible nutcase" and "sceptical person, that doesn't accept half-ass 'evidence' of supernatural, illogical, poplar nonsense", I chose the latter.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Between "gullible nutcase" and "sceptical person, that doesn't accept half-ass 'evidence' of supernatural, illogical, poplar nonsense", I chose the latter.

Hehe. "half-ass 'evidence'" is the best kind of evidence.

Originally Posted by Sandform

Hehe. "half-ass 'evidence'" is the best kind of evidence.

And in many cases, the only evidence. And that's not much support when the premise itself is shaky.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

And in many cases, the only evidence. And that's not much support when the premise itself is shaky.

I wonder what it's like to be a rain maker...
I wonder what it's like to know that I made the rain...

Evidence is for the objective world. And since we live in a subjective world (ever heard of intention manifestation?) experience is the only thing that matters. Truth cannot be observed, only experienced.

Originally Posted by BohmaN

Evidence is for the objective world. And since we live in a subjective world (ever heard of intention manifestation?) experience is the only thing that matters. Truth cannot be observed, only experienced.

Mmm, that is just some seudo BS my friend. Human beings are not what defines what the universe is, everyone always assumes that the human mind is what determines what the universe is, it isn't.

There is knowledge that comes from the external (lets call this reality).
and there is knowledge that comes from the internal (lets call this fantasy).

External stimuli is indeed observing truth.

Internal is indeed not.

You are speaking with no experience in the area of intention manifestation, I can tell. You can affect reality with your thoughts. Read this and you will know:

http://www.amazon.com/Intention-Expe...8647294&sr=8-1

Listen to a few of these radio shows. Some are lame, but most are great, and they're all entertaining.
http://www.monova.org/search.php?ter...coast%22&cat=0

I'm a beliver!

I'm really not sure if it's been mentioned, it probably has, but this is not only a dumb dichotomy but incorrect usage of the word skeptic.

The word skeptic came out in Greece originally, used to describe the philosophical school of thought of people that believed we couldn't understand our natural world, but they didn't give up the search.

This is quite contrary to what many people today consider a skeptic, which is someone that believes there's a logical explanation to everything, I'll even add based on known information because little do they know but that's typically how many self described skeptics argue.

So I am a skeptic based on the original usage of the word, I don't think logic is an absolute end all to understanding, but I do think understanding is possible. I believe in existence beyond the natural world because everything I've learned has promoted this.

But again this dichotomoy is dumb, people ought to have discussions as individuals, not groups.

Originally Posted by DoomedOne

I'm really not sure if it's been mentioned, it probably has, but this is not only a dumb dichotomy but incorrect usage of the word skeptic.

The word skeptic came out in Greece originally, used to describe the philosophical school of thought of people that believed we couldn't understand our natural world, but they didn't give up the search.

This is quite contrary to what many people today consider a skeptic, which is someone that believes there's a logical explanation to everything, I'll even add based on known information because little do they know but that's typically how many self described skeptics argue.

So I am a skeptic based on the original usage of the word, I don't think logic is an absolute end all to understanding, but I do think understanding is possible. I believe in existence beyond the natural world because everything I've learned has promoted this.

But again this dichotomoy is dumb, people ought to have discussions as individuals, not groups.

heres to that. Well, the skeptic part. I don't think it's dumb at all to discuss this as a group, he just used the word skeptic wrong.

Originally Posted by BohmaN

You can affect reality with your thoughts.

Yes, it is called making your body function. =P Just like you can move things with your mind, its called touching things.

And I already knew about the theory your referencing. But it is an interesting theory to say the least.