It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Jimmy11118
If I had 2500 dollars and left this 2500 dollars, lets say in my house, with one of my roommates or family members and went to sleep and then woke up and walked to where and who I left the money with and had the person tell me 'they don't know anything about what I'm saying' would be extremely difficult knowing I left it with that person and remember their words, which would make this situation one where I have a fact regarding this personal mystery I found myself in and I intend to use it for the retrieval of my missing 2500 dollars. Same thing with skepticism of the supernatural. Hang on to what you know or strongly believe and don't let morons tell you anything. Rely on facts.
originally posted by: Jimmy11118
I really believe what I said was correct and my description of a skeptic is one hundred percent accurate. If you don't then I guess were on two different pages and will most likely never find the middle ground. a reply to: InhaleExhale
originally posted by: Woodcarver
Our bodies do not become lighter when we pass. That experiment was shown to be full of inconsistancies and when reproduced it never came up with similar results.
If your "soul" weighed anything, then it could be found and studied.
a reply to: SLAYER69
originally posted by: rebelv
a reply to: malvy
I never mentioned The Uncertainty Principle, that is an entirely
different phenomenon than The Observer Effect-- Maybe you should
study QP a bit further mate.
A good example of The Observer Effect, is The Schroeder's cat Analogy,
although over simplified, it covers the basic phenomenon to a neophyte.
Not saying you are a neophyte, and not trying to offend here, but really,
I never brought up The Uncertainty Principle which has to do with
scientists apparent inability to know the exact position AND the direction and
velocity of a particle (like an electron) is going, and has further applications
such as one can observe a particle (like an electron) depending on how the
experiment is set up as either a particle or a wave. This has nothing to do
with the Observer Effect however.
originally posted by: Jimmy11118
I believe in facts and I'm not a skeptic or behave the way they do and I understand how skeptics questions and asks for evidence, instead of assuming its real, which is the main reason why I avoid them. Debunker is just another name for a type of skeptic. I appreciatea your comment it was helpful. a reply to: Tangerine
originally posted by: dr1234
originally posted by: LoneCloudHopper2
I am wondering how or why skeptics still assert that the belief in the supernatural is delusion in the face of so much evidence. They easily forget that spirituality has been an intrinsic part of the human experience and never has there existed a non-spiritual society. Now with science, technology and gross materialism people are seeing ghosts and demons as 'silly superstitions' which belong to the past. I've noticed two things about such people: A. They are often well-read on current events. B. They are not so well-read on history. I am not a history buff myself, but rarely do I have to do much reading before I get into the spiritual experiences of well-respected historic figures. Every great mind I've met (or read about) was spiritual (and almost all of them non-religious too.)
Skeptics tend to hold to two arguments: "I've never experienced it" or "It's never been proven." The former disproves nothing and as for the latter, prove what to whom? Or should I say, what is proof? If it is scientific proof, who is to verify that? If they mean the majority of scientists, I have questions of my own: How could you know (since many scientists may keep it to themselves (some believe in God and are not Christian scientists, for example?) And what would their belief prove? As Mahatma Gandhi said: "Even in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth."
The evidence is endless, but a few examples: Studies showing that the body loses weight when a person dies, studies showing that the brain reacts when being stared at through a one-way mirror, deep-regression hypnosis revealing past-life memories and pre-life memories of a very similar and non-religious description (see Dr. Michael Newton,) and the scientific fact that physical matter is mostly space made up of particles held together by an invisible magnetic force—resembling a physical form to the human eye and by touch, due to the magnetic force (therefore our perceived reality is itself electrical signals perceived by the brain.)
Since reality is a perception through stimuli, then what makes the waking world more real than the dream world and how then could one (in intellectual honesty) assert that one world cannot interact with the other? They are connected, quite obviously—since we must sleep and 'recharge' ourselves. We awake, 'refreshed' and ready for a new day; we are bringing energy from the dream state into this one, and since we often dream what we experience while awake, vice-versa would also appear to be the case.
But now to common sense points. Everyone has stepped in on a heated debate and felt the tension in the air ("so thick you could cut it like a knife.") What about "women's intuition," the ability of either sex to "pick up" things from people they are closely linked to? Mothers often feel a psychic bond to their children, sensing when they are in danger. "Gut instincts" can aid detectives as well as writers like myself; inspiration striking us and a great idea just "pops into your head." Some people have had shared dreams with someone close, or dreams which came true. Déjà vu is extremely common, sometimes making you feel that every single object, person, word spoken, every single thing in that moment had been somehow witnessed or experienced before; a powerful experience which then fades. Sometimes you just "get a feeling" that something will work out or have a "bad feeling" that it won't. We've always had these experiences, they're nothing new and are absolutely nothing to be so embarrassed about that we all must hide them and pretend they don't happen, when they do (for the majority of us.)
And then there is the one subject that silences most skeptics: Edgar Cayce. If any one person's story every proved the existence of supernatural ability, it was his. Debunking what he proved and to so many would be a futile effort, so skeptics just conveniently overlook it. The few attempts to debunk him that I've read fall pathetically short of debunking the massive amount of real healing he accomplished on multiple people (and while monitored by credible witnesses.)
Countless books, immense public fascination, feelings stirring deep inside you that such things have truth, and yet skeptics still say "bah humbug!" If they feel that way, fine, but how they can still assert their view onto others in such a bold way as to make them feel either foolish or insane for disagreeing with their rigid outlook is absurd to me in the face of so much evidence; which includes photographs, audio recordings, physical evidence, countless credible witness accounts. How about the case of Spring-Heeled Jack? Debunk that one! Several credible witnesses all had the same delusion? A man with springs on his boots who ran around with cold, icy hands and who ripped at women's clothes, who startled such prominent people that the law got involved to search for him?
I'm sorry, skeptics, I can appreciate your fear of the unknown, but your assertions speak of, dare I say, self-delusion to me. At this point, the writing is pretty bold on the wall.
Easily, actually. For one, define "supernatural" please. Vague generalazations obfuscate the situation, be specific. People who are skeptical may tell you a certain photo of a blurry ligjtning bug isn't an orb, but you can't assume they don't have room to beleive in anything slightly unconventional. Supernatural phenomenon (I'm being vague because you didn't give me any specifics to go on) is usually misunderstood natural phenomenon, so it's mostly bull honkey. You can beleive what you want, but chances are you believe in something that isn't real. Physics for example, almost all can be easily proven as charlatans or flat out delusional, yet people twist and mold their words to fit what actually ended up happening. This isn't proof, and proof is how intelligent people decide what is most likely real or not.