It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

real life magic

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Dinnj
 


Um, probability density shells. Quanta. Mexico City mass anomalies. I could go on and on...
I think there's room for many possibilities. The problem is syntax. Why don't you provide me with a precise definition of "real."
Then maybe I'll retract my statement.
You were being personal, but I don't mind. I should have been clearer. In recent years there have been numerous documented cases of various effects devoid of causation. That is, the effect of some event is real, while the causative element, i.e the event itself, is not.
It seems that reality has some built in safeties that sort of cover-up the impossible, but this feature of "standard" reality seems to have limitations. And it leaves us with possibilities until the tools and the cognition catch up.
Arguing about reality is stupid. And yes, ATS is full of it! You just got me to dot it.




posted on May, 29 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


actually it might, reality is all just based on how you perceive it anyway



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by omg aliens are so real
 


For me magic is real, but I do not see it as magic, rather I see it as a natural result of directed awareness/energy. As an example, on a cloudy night I may want to view the moon so intend to make a hole in the clouds to do so, then 'imagine' pushing my energy out to create the hole. It works, in fact so well, that recently I taught a group of 7 kids how to do it while camping and they had success within 10 seconds.

And this is just as effective for moving rain towards you by reaching out with your energy to every molecule in the clouds you seek to pull toward you. This works too for smoke/smog and bringing wind to cool you on a hot day, etc.

If you choose to experiment with this simple little process please try not to hold onto your own doubts as they will block you. Just see what you want to do in your mind's eye, and Intend it as you action it with your hands/arms.

It works like this: First comes the sponsoring thought, this sets the Intent and then you simply do without doubting. If you try to show-off it will not work for you, as it does not align with unbalanced ego.

This same process works on effecting Divining Rods with your thoughts and energy. This too is something I teach people to show them first hand that they are powerful beings, and, we have also done this activity in public parks while it has had a lot of people there... of course they wonder what the weirdos are doing, but, you should see the fear or surprise on their faces when they recognize what they are seeing for themselves. LOL

So it must be a real thing, and the terms Wizard, Witch, Warlock, etc, are very much misunderstood concepts that have been given negative connotations by religion to prevent people from having their own experiences of 'magic'.

Let's move away from the usage of such old terms and begin fresh with a better concept of Powerful Beings, which all of you are, only you do not know this directly because you have been indoctrinated against looking into it. Time to change that eh?



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 03:34 AM
link   
Well, of course no one is going to get the million dollars. Those who learn what we define as Magic, will never use it for personal gain.

Let's look at Randi's $1 million dollar thing here for a minute. One of the first things you might think is "1 million dollars?! you'd have to be crazy NOT to prove magic!". So, knowing that no one will ever "prove" it, there's no need to worry about people ever believing that it's possible. Well, MOST people, that is.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   
A real possibility for an underlying mechanism for "magic" or highly improbable events or whatever limited language we choose may be that awareness/consciousness itself is a type of energy like EM, or something. Therfore any energy input to a system has real consequence even if the accepted model rejects the mechanism.
The ability to concentrate is VERY powerful and as various users noted, it is verifiable, but oddly subjective. Dare I say corroborable only under certain conditions? Sound like a cop-out, I know, but ... data is data.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Dinnj
 


Hey, now... you tore me a new one. Come back and reciprocate the communication.
I even gave your emotive post a star!




posted on May, 30 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Waffles~
 


If they argue about reality as being a FACET of our perception, then they are saying that reality IS a facet of our perception.

This means the facets of our perception ARE reality.

So that is not particularly relevant.

As for people not proving things real or unreal, as it does not benifit them in any way:

You yourself have disproved that which you have said previously.
(Does that make sense? Looks dodgy,)

In saying that people should not argue about whether things are true/real or not, you have afffectively argued with what I have just said.

It may not benifit you, but you did it. Why? Human nature.

If I knew more about human psychology than I already do, I could go into more depth as to why, but not only can I not as I lack the knowledge, it would be overly lengthy, and I feel my point has already been made.

Our perception is reality, if there is something we cannot percieve, we cannot have any clue of it existing outside of our perception, (For we cannot see cows on the other side of walls, for example.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for nobody with real magic claiming the MILLION DOLLAR prize...

Get out, that's more bizarre than the idea of magic in the first place, aside from saying no one will prove it so mainstream people will not have the capacity to believe in it is just stupid.

Why say it's meant to kept a real secret.... then blasting about it on the net yourself? (Not sure WHO I'm replying to here, I'm sure this has been said on more than one occasion.)

[Edit from here]

Ah, it's Mercury I'm replying to here. Well Mr. Mercury, fickle like the only metal which can flow at room temperature, "Of course people that can really use magic won't use it for personal gain."

Are you stupid? Serious question, what's your IQ?

If they don't use it for personal gain, what will they do with it?!

Move a cloud 400 miles from them so it DOESN'T affect them in the slightest?? Everything they WANT to do, makes a personal gain in some way, otherwise it has no purpose.

I'm sure you also believe everything has a purpose, so if that has no purpose, it doesn't exist, (Paranormal believer psychology here.)

So if you think people that can utilise magic don't use it for personal gain, then you're either right, and they're stupid,

Or you're wrong, they're clever, and you're stupid.

Thankyou for reading, I wish the best for everyone here, that reads this, and even more so to the people that reply to me. ALL replies are appreciated. Positive or negative.

I like people, just not a lot of their beliefs.





[edit on 30-5-2008 by Dinnj]



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dinnj
reply to post by ~Waffles~
 


If they argue about reality as being a FACET of our perception, then they are saying that reality IS a facet of our perception.

This means the facets of our perception ARE reality.

So that is not particularly relevant.

As for people not proving things real or unreal, as it does not benifit them in any way:

You yourself have disproved that which you have said previously.
(Does that make sense? Looks dodgy,)

In saying that people should not argue about whether things are true/real or not, you have afffectively argued with what I have just said.

It may not benifit you, but you did it. Why? Human nature.

If I knew more about human psychology than I already do, I could go into more depth as to why, but not only can I not as I lack the knowledge, it would be overly lengthy, and I feel my point has already been made.

Our perception is reality, if there is something we cannot percieve, we cannot have any clue of it existing outside of our perception, (For we cannot see cows on the other side of walls, for example.



[edit on 30-5-2008 by Dinnj]


I think you may have misunderstood what i was trying to say earlier.For one to say that reality is a facet of perception it does not have the same definition of reality as those who would label it concrete.It doesn't mean that the facet is reality but only a piece of perception which is abstract and not real. It is a facet of an abstract concept which is defined as merely the perceiving of what it is and making it as something that is not.

The problem lies clearly with how reality is defined.The mode of the abstract thinkers is that to be real it must exist in physical form.Perception does not exist in a physical form more so the method of how we as people apprehend the world around them.That world is real at a base level in terms of measurable energy but it is the way we perceive reality that is the illusion.

"You yourself have disproved that which you have said previously.
(Does that make sense? Looks dodgy,)"

I don't clearly understand what you mean by this, I stated two different view without taking either side.I don't see how this relates to what I was saying.I feel the problem isn't so much what I'm saying it seems to be more a misconception on what I was elaborating upon.

"It may not benifit you, but you did it. Why? Human nature. "

I didn't ever argue in favor of any point, I only elaborated on the two main concepts and stated the reasons why there are conflicting views.

I know I may not be seeing this exactly as it is, I can only offer what I have labored to see for myself.Your words sound soo angry, and I don't know why
.I don't feel that I have done anything to warrant this.Maybe I'm just seeing things that aren't really there, but it would be nice to know that you aren't feeling this way.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Hi,

Since you mentioned Kabbalah I thought you might be interested in a link I have at my site: www.liquidfinancing.addr.com/emails.htm . During January - February 2004, I received 58 anonymous emails. I just found out recently that those emails, which I saved 57 of them, after I realized that they weren't just spam, but something much deeper than that, are detailing everything about my family, and current events happening now, here in 2008. There is a whole load of stuff about Madonna as well.

I have a book that I wrote about my experiences over the past few years, the link for that is in the above site. This email link and its information is part of my book. Because the book is dense reading, I have separated this out so that people can see that something paranormal is happening.

The emails are in the form of a word search; what I did was highlight the words that are in the emails to make it a little easier to see them, and with descriptions as to what they mean. They are very detailed, with names of my family and Madonna's family, and where we have been living, what we have been doing, plus a lot of other stuff that is detailed in the book.

I think you'll have to admit, this is really weird! I fully know that I am weird myself, but I can't do anything about it.

Do I win the paranormal proof award, lol?!

Regards



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Dinnj
 


Garsh, you're mean. But you can argue a bit. But then I think you're relying too heavily on your own definitions of terms without presenting those definitions. I could follow your reasoning better if it weren't so semantic.

What is "real" and what is "personal gain?"
I've heard that practitioners of certain disciplines are sort of energetically bound not to use their powers for material or sexual accomplishments. It injures them. Maybe that was the meaning of one of the previous comments you attacked so viciously!

Also, you may be pleased to know that I have few beliefs and those I do have I put on and take off like a well-worn sportscoat, at my convenience.

You're sharp, no doubt. But it's more effective to be mean without name calling. It makes you look petty and that's close to stupidity. Not to say I'm not guilty too! And did you notice that you got me to debate reality? Fudge! Duped again.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Waffles~
 


Oh and no doubt, you have a more objective stance here. As for your antagonist, being so sure and full of one's own self-worth is usually a sign of a deep deficiency. But maybe the dervish is just having a bad day.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by djerwulfe
reply to post by ~Waffles~
 


Oh and no doubt, you have a more objective stance here. As for your antagonist, being so sure and full of one's own self-worth is usually a sign of a deep deficiency. But maybe the dervish is just having a bad day.


Thank you for being understanding Djer ^~^,I'm not really sure why Djinn is being this way.It seemed like such a normal discussion.Its alright to have bad days, but I don't see the logic behind perpetuating a cycle of anger and loathing in others as well as yourself. Well I do certainly hope he responds ^~^.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Waffles~
 


Yes, you are seeing things that just aren't there.

Aside from that, there is a proposition that you get a cat, place it in a non transparent, sound proof box. You administer a poisonous gas inside this box.

You cannot percieve the cat, you cannot see it, smell it, hear it.

When you open the box ten minutes later and find the cat's corpse, you know that it has died, but we did not percieve it.

This IS evidence to say that not all things that are real, (As we know the cat died inside the box,) are picked up by our perception.

Which indeed supports what you're saying.

However.. conversely to that, we can say that the cat was alive when we placed it inside the box, and that when we found it's corpse 10 minutes later it had indeed died.

Although we did not percieve it dying, we can use -evidence- at both ends to concluded; "The cat died sometime between putting it inside the box, and opening the box."

Therefore we can speculate about things as being real without percieving them happen at the time, but NONETHELESS, it is sheer stupidity to then say, 5 minutes 34 seconds after we placed it into the box, it transformed into a dog, then died, then the corpse degenerated into a cats body.


If we did not administer the gas into the box, and the cat were still to die, it would be quite speculative to say that, for example, "Magic," killed it.

Reality is not EVERYTHING we percieve, but is constricted by it. -Concretely,- constricted by it.

If there are things that are real that we CANNOT percieve, therefore have no knowledge of, how can we know it to be real?

The truth is, for us to know something is real, we MUST be able to percieve it to SOME extent, (Eg. Finding the cat's body.)

So for us to KNOW for sure something is real, it MUST be percievable.



Definition of gain:

1. to get (something desired), esp. as a result of one's efforts: to gain possession of an object; to gain permission to enter a country.
2. to acquire as an increase or addition: to gain weight; to gain speed.
3. to obtain as a profit: He gained ten dollars by this deal.
4. to win; get in competition: to gain the prize.
5. to win (someone) to one's own side or point of view; persuade (sometimes fol. by over): to gain supporters.
6. (of a watch or clock) to run fast by (a specified amount): My watch gains six minutes a day.
7. to reach, esp. by effort; get to; arrive at: to gain one's destination.
–verb (used without object)
8. to improve; make progress; advance: to gain in health after an illness.
9. to get nearer, as in pursuit (usually fol. by on or upon): Our horse was gaining on the favorite at the far turn.
10. to draw away from or farther ahead of the other contestants in a race, one's pursuers, etc. (usually fol. by on or upon).
11. (of a watch or clock) to run fast.
–noun
12. profit or advantage.
13. an increase or advance.
14. gains, profits or winnings.
15. the act of gaining; acquisition.

Profit or advantage - Using magic would definately be "Having an advantage."

An "Increase" of spritual atonement?

As it's happening to the "Caster," it would be classified as PERSONAL.

Personal gain.

[Edit from here]

I am not "Loathing in others and myself," I am merely saying what is true, if you think somehow proving a few points is the same as loathing, then you have no right to argue about the deinition of words.


[edit on 31-5-2008 by Dinnj]

[Edit here... again]

"I stated two different view without taking either side.I don't see how this relates to what I was saying"

Neither do I, if even you yourself do not see how that related to what you were saying, why did you say you were "Stating two different views without taking either side"?

Do not try to use intricate syntax, nor use overly complciated words if you do not know how to. Again, I am not angry, nor making personal attacks, but it makes it hard to understand you.

[edit on 31-5-2008 by Dinnj]



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 05:28 AM
link   
(Sorry for double post, lack of word count.)

If you still don't take my word for what "Real" is, take it from a real dictionary;

a. existent or pertaining to the existent as opposed to the nonexistent.
b. actual as opposed to possible or potential.
c. independent of experience as opposed to phenomenal or apparent.

Look at b. Absorb it, read it, cast a spell on it.

Real is something that IS concrete, although what you may think is real is not concrete, when you use the real word, you define something that IS percieved.

Although a floating toaster that is invisible with absolute power that makes no marks on the planet while controlling our actions is possible, and has a POTENTIAL to exist.

It does not make it real.

Ironically, this is the REAL definition of the word itself, not possible, nor potential, but actual.

[Edited for spelling]

[edit on 31-5-2008 by Dinnj]



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dinnj
reply to post by ~Waffles~
 

[Edit from here]

I am not "Loathing in others and myself," I am merely saying what is true, if you think somehow proving a few points is the same as loathing, then you have no right to argue about the deinition of words.


[edit on 31-5-2008 by Dinnj]

[Edit here... again]

"I stated two different view without taking either side.I don't see how this relates to what I was saying"

Neither do I, if even you yourself do not see how that related to what you were saying, why did you say you were "Stating two different views without taking either side"?

Do not try to use intricate syntax, nor use overly complciated words if you do not know how to. Again, I am not angry, nor making personal attacks, but it makes it hard to understand you.

[edit on 31-5-2008 by Dinnj]


Hello again Dinnj

Just a few points to help clarify.

"I am not "Loathing in others and myself," I am merely saying what is true, if you think somehow proving a few points is the same as loathing, then you have no right to argue about the deinition of words."

The statement I made about "Loathing and Others" was brought about under the theory that you were just having a bad day.That is where the word loathing was in relation to.It was not in any relation to what you were talking about earlier in regards to reality.For the record I was not arguing on the definition more so stating two separate views.If anything I was arguing that the definition of real is varied.Though as you did say that I was perceiving something was that wasn't there, it would of course render the statement about loathing to be only a view.

"Neither do I, if even you yourself do not see how that related to what you were saying, why did you say you were "Stating two different views without taking either side"? "

Because that is what I did,I stated a more scientific view, and a more esoteric one (so to speak).I stated them both because I felt it was better to elaborate on the two main ideas surrounding reality.This was done because of my own belief that while reality can be objective, it can also be subjective.Though this point has already been clarified already

"Do not try to use intricate syntax, nor use overly complciated words if you do not know how to. Again, I am not angry, nor making personal attacks, but it makes it hard to understand you."

I don't understand why you would say this.I am being very precise with my words, which i don't view as overly complicated in any way.Neither, is the context of what I am saying excessively intricate.Though I can understand how this would make it hard to understand someone should these elements not be the case.Could you provide some examples?

I also noticed that in a later post you posted the dictionary definition of the word "Real".This to me is an understandable concept, however this does not make the concept written in stone.The dictionary defines words for us yes,though still it was written by human hand and therefore would be subject to bias or in the very least a consensus on the definition of the word.In this it could have ignored other definitions of the word in favor of one brought about by majority of consensus.What this is implying is that one group of people whom are the majority on a specific view will have more credibility than a smaller group of a minority with a conflicting view.

So for me, quoting from the dictionary is really just getting another opinion.Though it is a powerful tool to use.My reasoning for saying this is that I feel reality is primarily a subjective experience with concrete objective views.You and I would look at a cake and agree on its color,shape,and overall appearance.Though we may not agree on the cake's yumminess, texture,or feel.I may say the cake can be defined as very tasty, though you may think it's best defined as something that isn't tasty.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Waffles~
 


And? I do not see the point in anything you've just said.

You've expressed you don't think the definition of real isn't what I've said it to be, but you've in no means explored WHY.

Also, when I said about the loathing, I did NOT attribute it to any points you were expressing, just at targetting my personality. What I meant was, how could you tell?

As for asking for an example of when you used incorrect syntax/use of vocabulary.

I already DID. It was very obvious, also, you said you were being very "Precise," with your words. Well, if you knew THAT much about grammar and definitions in general, not only would you realise the definition of real I took is TRUE, but you would also realise the difference between PRECISION, and ACCURACY.


On the subject of the cake, I'd have to agree cake is indeed yummy. Such a thing still, cannot be attributed to the definition of real. I'm just going to find the defintion of defintion for you.

1. the act of defining or making definite, distinct, or clear.
2. the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, etc.
3. the condition of being definite, distinct, or clearly outlined.
4. Optics. sharpness of the image formed by an optical system.
5. Radio and Television. the accuracy of sound or picture reproduction.

Now, you may want to argue all you want, but when you say the word; "Real," for all EXTENTS AND PURPOSES, (Know what that means?), the dictionary definiton I supplied earlier is what you're saying.

So unfortunately, as communication is a one way thing, just cause you think the definiton in the dictionary of "Real," is incorrect, tough.

The dictionary is not just another opinion, it's entirely FACTUAL. Learn the difference between the two.

Have I argued about reality efficiently this post? No, why? I'm responding to a post that hadn't argued about it at all either.

Waffles, I'm sure your intent is good, but you need to actually argue your corner MUCH more effectively. I need a real brain exercise at the minute, posting constant definitions of words because you don't, (Or choose not to,) understand them, is getting boring.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Magic is what science hasn't caught up to yet....

It is very real. It has 1,000's of different names in many different tongues.

Chanting, or spells, or voodoo, all use the same mechanisms...

I believe that when a spell is cast, it vibrates throughout dimensions. One being our own, and the other being a spiritual dimension where laws of physics do not apply. In this dimension there exists forces we cannot comprehend. This is where science fails to find answers.

Supernatural forces are always at work. When one tunes in to this world, you can open a set of new eyes...

Just remember, the power of thought is immensely underestimated!






posted on May, 31 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by omg aliens are so real
I know it sounds a bit silly, but is there such thing as real life magic? becasue i've heard there are really witches and wizards.


There is no magic or miracle here, it is a MATTER YOU KNOW IT or you don't!!



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by nyxmist
 


Nyxmix, welcome!

Now, let's expand on your original statement. You say there is Magic. That's fine. Your Opinion, if you will. (I'm not going either way at the moment, just illustrating to you what ATS is all about). Let's bring it beyond Opinion to at least a Hypothesis and then perhaps a Theory. Maybe, by the end of all this, we can end with a conclusive Fact.

Remember, all things musn't be proven to be accepted (hard to have a 'Conspircy Web Site that only allows documentation) but more is needed than merely one's Opinion.

You say you have knowledge of this subject. Let's have it. Please, do give us something. A concrete Definition of Magic and how it 'truly' works. How one may be able to learn Magic and of it's powers and limits. How Magic is conducted. Magic you have witnessed, or better yet have done yourself.

I don't ask for all of these. Merely any one of these. As you say you are knowledgable of the subject, do what those with knowledge do. Teach.

You implied ignorance on many posters part, enlighten us.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dinnj
reply to post by ~Waffles~
 



Hello Djinn and thank you for your response,

To start off:
"You've expressed you don't think the definition of real isn't what I've said it to be, but you've in no means explored WHY."

If you had been reading what I said I was in fact agreeing with you, the cat in the box analogy is no different than my cake analogy.Both examples point to reality being a matter of perception.

I don't feel that you are accurately describing anything in according to the word precise and how you stated that I didn't understand the definition of the word.

"I already DID. It was very obvious, also, you said you were being very "Precise," with your words. Well, if you knew THAT much about grammar and definitions in general, not only would you realise the definition of real I took is TRUE, but you would also realise the difference between PRECISION, and ACCURACY."

" Precise: Clearly expressed or delineated; definite: (The victim gave a precise description of the suspect)."

Source:www.thefreedictionary.com...

It seems to me that it is you who do not understand definitions clearly.

"So unfortunately, as communication is a one way thing, just cause you think the definiton in the dictionary of "Real," is incorrect, tough."

I never said that I considered it incorrect, at any time.I did however state that there were varying opinions on what reality is.I also stated that the definition supplied by the dictionary may not "Define" the whole picture. The same goes both ways, you have the opinion in the absolute "accuracy" of the dictionary.Just because you think that it is infallible, doesn't mean that it is.it is a relied upon tool.Until you understand how the dictionary came to be, I suggest you rethink your attitudes.


"Waffles, I'm sure your intent is good, but you need to actually argue your corner MUCH more effectively. I need a real brain exercise at the minute, posting constant definitions of words because you don't, (Or choose not to,) understand them, is getting boring."

It was from this last part that i came to know your true intention.

I have no corner upon which to defend, if you had been reading what I originally said you should know that.I defined the two concepts and explained how they conflicted that was all.

One thing I find somewhat funny about this part is that you state clearly that i don't understand the definitions of words, yet I just got finished proving that it is in fact you who do not understand anything of what you are saying.
You have repeatedly took what I have said completely out of context.Which has led to your ignorance on what I was trying to explain prior.Your insult was clear this time, and because of this i understand that it is not intellectual conversation you enjoy( which is apparent).It is instead for the sake of arguing.You are above all an opinionated-dogmatist who views are so inflexible that you have convinced yourself that your ideas are so bullet-proof and superior to others that they have led you to be closed-minded.Your way of looking at the world is not superior it is only a single way of looking at the world, and until you understand that you will continue to perpetuate ignorance.

In this I am genuinely sympathetic, there is no sarcasm in that statement.

I feel this has no end to it, nothing constructive has come out of this.It has been a waste of time for the both of us I feel.When explaining my ideas to another person who doesn't correctly understand dictionary definitions, repeatedly takes what I say out of context,is covertly rude and insulting, and is an extreme dogmatist it just can't be helped.This is my last post to you, I wish you luck and grace in the coming years.Take care~





[edit on 31-5-2008 by ~Waffles~]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join