Maybe because not everyone has heard of him, know how to contact him, or Just generally don't really give a toss about the money. How ever I have met a guy who claimed to be telepathic and he brags about it. I asked him to prove it. I have not seen anything yet. I can understand a bit why people can be skeptical about that sort of thing.
oh and to what Nick said, Energy can not be be destroyed, it can only be changed.
What people belive is true on these forums
So only people in unreachable parts of the third world are able to have super natural abilities? Why is it that everyone who is actually observable is governed by the laws of physics, and its only these people who are a "friend of a friend of a friend" who are magical?
Trust me, if magic and the supernatural existed, there would be some real evidence of it in human history. Seriously. The fact that people honestly believe in this stuff is maddening. You are not being open minded for throwing common sense and the laws of the universe out the window and accepting that psychics, leprechauns, pink unicorns, etc. are real. You are just being an ignorant dumbass.
Trust me, if magic and the supernatural existed, there would be some real evidence of it in human history. Seriously. The fact that people honestly believe in this stuff is maddening. You are not being open minded for throwing common sense and the laws of the universe out the window and accepting that psychics, leprechauns, pink unicorns, etc. are real. You are just being an ignorant dumbass.
-
NickD
- Charlotte Brontë
- Posts: 892
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:33 pm
- Location: Berkeley, California
- Contact:
Jeff wrote:You are not being open minded for throwing common sense and the laws of the universe out the window and accepting that psychics, leprechauns, pink unicorns, etc. are real. You are just being an ignorant dumbass.
WOH!! WOH!! WOHH!!!! Damn, Jeff, you're up late tonight
well, so am I, but... Is that why youre so hyphie 
?! Jesus... That was... phew! I cant stop cracking up! LOL!!!!Edit:
Does that mean that you are in favor of our theory, or against itinvertin wrote:So Psychics are trying to keep secret, and since many people think like Jeff and NickD, no-one would believe them anyway.
?Edit... again: And please, just call me Nick... or Dominique. You chose. But it is pretty obvious (by my log-in name) that my name is Nick
.Ok, sorry Nick.
I believe that somewhere something is psychic, but I don't say that any humans are. I don't know what, where, or how many. Also, about the death debate, there was a book I read a while ago, the main character was in school and they were disecting frogs. I can't remember exactly but the teacher asked what would happen if the frog was alive again. Someone said that its heart would beat. The teacher electrecuted the frog, and the heart beated but it was still dead.
There is more to life than just the body, something else is inside us that keeps us alive... But nobody will ever know what. Whether we have spirits, or some kind of energy, it doesn't really concern us until the time of death.
I believe that somewhere something is psychic, but I don't say that any humans are. I don't know what, where, or how many. Also, about the death debate, there was a book I read a while ago, the main character was in school and they were disecting frogs. I can't remember exactly but the teacher asked what would happen if the frog was alive again. Someone said that its heart would beat. The teacher electrecuted the frog, and the heart beated but it was still dead.
There is more to life than just the body, something else is inside us that keeps us alive... But nobody will ever know what. Whether we have spirits, or some kind of energy, it doesn't really concern us until the time of death.
-
NickD
- Charlotte Brontë
- Posts: 892
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:33 pm
- Location: Berkeley, California
- Contact:
Well, the heart would beat, but if the brain stayed dead too long it would be irrepairable. The brain is what controls everything. If a frog dies and you make its heart beat, the brain with either completely snap back into action (which would be verry lucky for the frog) with a lot of faults and twitches and stuff like that. The heart would also not beat right because if just ONE cell in your heart is not on beat with all the other ones it will get confused and stop beating. In conclusion, the brain will continue to melt away and eventually die. Without thte brain nothing will function, not even the mind of the frog will think (If frogs even think). Therefore there couldn't possably be a "spirit" because there would be nothing to make it live or float or THINK or just be there at all. Also, being psychic is virtually impossible unless two people had the same exact brain. The brain cannot speak to another one unless it was close enough to interupt the messages being sent through electrcity waves. And the signal would have to be on the outside so that the other brain could touch the other brain in the same exact place (like a middle finger to a middle finger). AND they'd still have to be the same exact brain, anyways.
I think it is more that there is more to life than just a beating heart. When your heart stops beating or your lungs stop breathing, your blood can no longer carry oxygen around your body. Without oxygen, your nerve cells are damaged beyond repair, and will never come back, even if your heart starts again. This is why doctors "call" patients after their heart stops for more than a couple minutes; their nervous system has already been destroyed, and there is nothing anyone can do to bring them back.invertin wrote:Ok, sorry Nick.
I believe that somewhere something is psychic, but I don't say that any humans are. I don't know what, where, or how many. Also, about the death debate, there was a book I read a while ago, the main character was in school and they were disecting frogs. I can't remember exactly but the teacher asked what would happen if the frog was alive again. Someone said that its heart would beat. The teacher electrecuted the frog, and the heart beated but it was still dead.
There is more to life than just the body, something else is inside us that keeps us alive... But nobody will ever know what. Whether we have spirits, or some kind of energy, it doesn't really concern us until the time of death.
Saying that this example is evidence that there is more to life than just a body, does not make sense. If a car runs out of gas on the highway and then you wait ten years before refilling it, then it won't run again either; it will be rusted and falling apart and probably have a mouse family living in the engine. That doesn't mean that the car has a soul or anything, it means that bad things happen to it when it is neglected for too long.
-
Colicedus
- forom-muppat-yoda
- Posts: 2592
- Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:57 am
- Location: Where ever your mind takes you
Well Jeff, according to science, we use 11% of our brain. it is highly likely we are capable of something like telepathy, and even more than we realize can be posable.
and to call people who believe in "Magic" as you say, Ignorant Dumbass, shows how closed minded you are and shows how much you are like the Christian cults. and yes there have been recorded history. Constantinople ring a bell? the Great libraries burned to the ground.
some of the literature proved that they were close to developing the atom bomb, Magic as such is a term used by an uneducated man to explain an unexplainable thing, what is a cave man going to think of a toaster? other than that (and I hate to say) the bible has probably had some history involved in it. how ever, I understand that most of the stories were symbolic, and it has been rewritten by the ages. Things are there in the world, all you need to do is look.
oh and Nick, Energy is indestructible, it can only be changed. if you can destroy energy in a lab, filmed and all, I will give you $50NZ, not only that, you will be a famous man.
Light is energy, and heat is energy.
Darkness, and cold are a lack of energy.
and to call people who believe in "Magic" as you say, Ignorant Dumbass, shows how closed minded you are and shows how much you are like the Christian cults. and yes there have been recorded history. Constantinople ring a bell? the Great libraries burned to the ground.
some of the literature proved that they were close to developing the atom bomb, Magic as such is a term used by an uneducated man to explain an unexplainable thing, what is a cave man going to think of a toaster? other than that (and I hate to say) the bible has probably had some history involved in it. how ever, I understand that most of the stories were symbolic, and it has been rewritten by the ages. Things are there in the world, all you need to do is look.
oh and Nick, Energy is indestructible, it can only be changed. if you can destroy energy in a lab, filmed and all, I will give you $50NZ, not only that, you will be a famous man.
Light is energy, and heat is energy.
Darkness, and cold are a lack of energy.
The idea that we only use 11% (or any other small percentage) is a myth; Snopes even has an article about it.
Personally, I have no belief in the paranormal. I know that our unconscious can be very powerful, and can thus sometimes put together subtle cues into a "feeling" even if they are not consciously noticed. This is not a paranormal ability, however, it is a well-known psychological fact. I don't know how people get this idea that "science" is some monolithic entity that exists only to repress freedom of thought, that is exactly the opposite of what it does. If there was any evidence of telepathy or any other supernatural phenomenon, it would very quickly be studied and integrated into our scientific knowledge, any theories contradicting its existence would be revised, and we would perform experiments to learn more about it.
Personally, I have no belief in the paranormal. I know that our unconscious can be very powerful, and can thus sometimes put together subtle cues into a "feeling" even if they are not consciously noticed. This is not a paranormal ability, however, it is a well-known psychological fact. I don't know how people get this idea that "science" is some monolithic entity that exists only to repress freedom of thought, that is exactly the opposite of what it does. If there was any evidence of telepathy or any other supernatural phenomenon, it would very quickly be studied and integrated into our scientific knowledge, any theories contradicting its existence would be revised, and we would perform experiments to learn more about it.
-
BunnyWithStick
- Gramps, Jr.
- Posts: 4297
- Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:14 am
- Location: New Zealand
Science is freedom of thought, not freedom of belief.
As for souls, how do we exist? If there was no soul, we couldn't exist as us, our bodies would simply act out on their own, but with nobody to witness it all. I don't think the fact that being alive and seeing through your own eyes every day is part of the body.
As for souls, how do we exist? If there was no soul, we couldn't exist as us, our bodies would simply act out on their own, but with nobody to witness it all. I don't think the fact that being alive and seeing through your own eyes every day is part of the body.
-
BunnyWithStick
- Gramps, Jr.
- Posts: 4297
- Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:14 am
- Location: New Zealand
Because it exists!
If it didn't exist, if life only existed in the same way as rocks, water, the computer screen you look at right now, then we wouldn't be talking about it.
Someone has yet to prove that a robotic device of some sort has or doesn't have this experience, but if it is proven that they don't have this experience, then that's proof enough for me that life exists in this way.
If it didn't exist, if life only existed in the same way as rocks, water, the computer screen you look at right now, then we wouldn't be talking about it.
Someone has yet to prove that a robotic device of some sort has or doesn't have this experience, but if it is proven that they don't have this experience, then that's proof enough for me that life exists in this way.
Bleh, Snopes is too critical that it sounds way too bias.
It's mostly about where the origin comes from and that fakes like "telepathics" like to keep it going. Even the evidence it shows is onlystuff like, PET and fMRI scans show that the entire brain is used throughout the day. I mean, that sounds like enough but it's more of a comment rather than actually showing real evidence, it doesn't explain how or why or anything. And then the other evidence is about the myth being way too redicules, that there's an actual 90% area in your brain that is unused, rather than your brain not using full potential of its abilites, which is alot different. Of course you can't have 90% of your brain blown away, but maybe your brain could work better if it used every part of itself to it's fullest.
I'm actually more put off by the article about, "those who go swimming less than one hour after eating will be taken by a cramp and drown."
Instead of taking both sides of the story, it merely demotes its extremeties about moms who say, if you eat a popsicle don't go swimming for more than an hour. It brings up a long quote about someone relating to their child hood that going swimming after food causes cramps, why not water in general? Why not swimming? It just kind of ignores that part and continues. I just don't like their 100% rule, they take this myth literally and say, if you eat anything, even a snack, and then go into the water you would, with 100% certainty get cramps and drown. Thet could do the same thing and prove the "myth" about drinking and driving is false. "If you take, even a gulp, of alcohol, you would, with a 100% certainty, get in an accident and die." Of course, that's not going to happen, so they shouldn't only talk about getting cramps after a snack, just like they wouldn't only talk about car accidents after a beer (I worded that out funny...).
I mean, here's the actual thing, if you had sat down and relaxed yourself eating a full meal, and then started doing the 100 meter freestyle right after, you would cramp up, mostly it's your calf (which sucks, it happens all the time for me), it could be your back, but Snopes proves this wrong be going extreme again. By saying, all swimmers have to do, is stay calm and tense and relax their muscles and they'll be fine, maybe they can just float there. Well so what, all someone has to do to survive a deep gash on their leg is to provide a tourniquet, it doesn't mean it's not dangerous, so getting a back cramp in the water can't be labeled harmless just because there are ways to get around it.
I just don't think using Snopes is a good way to prove something wrong. The way they do it, they can pretty much prove anything wrong.. pretty much.
It's mostly about where the origin comes from and that fakes like "telepathics" like to keep it going. Even the evidence it shows is onlystuff like, PET and fMRI scans show that the entire brain is used throughout the day. I mean, that sounds like enough but it's more of a comment rather than actually showing real evidence, it doesn't explain how or why or anything. And then the other evidence is about the myth being way too redicules, that there's an actual 90% area in your brain that is unused, rather than your brain not using full potential of its abilites, which is alot different. Of course you can't have 90% of your brain blown away, but maybe your brain could work better if it used every part of itself to it's fullest.
I'm actually more put off by the article about, "those who go swimming less than one hour after eating will be taken by a cramp and drown."
Instead of taking both sides of the story, it merely demotes its extremeties about moms who say, if you eat a popsicle don't go swimming for more than an hour. It brings up a long quote about someone relating to their child hood that going swimming after food causes cramps, why not water in general? Why not swimming? It just kind of ignores that part and continues. I just don't like their 100% rule, they take this myth literally and say, if you eat anything, even a snack, and then go into the water you would, with 100% certainty get cramps and drown. Thet could do the same thing and prove the "myth" about drinking and driving is false. "If you take, even a gulp, of alcohol, you would, with a 100% certainty, get in an accident and die." Of course, that's not going to happen, so they shouldn't only talk about getting cramps after a snack, just like they wouldn't only talk about car accidents after a beer (I worded that out funny...).
I mean, here's the actual thing, if you had sat down and relaxed yourself eating a full meal, and then started doing the 100 meter freestyle right after, you would cramp up, mostly it's your calf (which sucks, it happens all the time for me), it could be your back, but Snopes proves this wrong be going extreme again. By saying, all swimmers have to do, is stay calm and tense and relax their muscles and they'll be fine, maybe they can just float there. Well so what, all someone has to do to survive a deep gash on their leg is to provide a tourniquet, it doesn't mean it's not dangerous, so getting a back cramp in the water can't be labeled harmless just because there are ways to get around it.
I just don't think using Snopes is a good way to prove something wrong. The way they do it, they can pretty much prove anything wrong.. pretty much.