Share your paranormal and psychic experiences here. Do you have any stories of how you came to realize that there were other dimensions or levels of reality? NO SKEPTICS ALLOWED!
Sceptics don't accept personal experiences. My experiences with sharing personal experiences on similar threads on skeptical collectives have been extremely negative. Kind of like 'well for all I know you could be lying' when the personal experiences I made the mistake of bringing up couldn't be explained by more 'rational' explanations. Considering these experiences were extremely vivid and very personal since they involved the deaths of family and friends that were very close to me I prefer to not go down that road again.
However I will be a little brave and mention some of the minor things. When I was much younger (between maybe 6 and 10 years old) I used to have what seemed like random events occur with 'esp'. This usually involved a loud buzzing feeling in my head right before the phone would ring. This was almost like I knew the phone was going to ring a few seconds before it did, I can't really explain it any better. This happened to me quite a few times but occured randomly and it seemed I had no control on when and where it would happen, for it would just happen. Esp or something else? Who knows. I also had an odd happening involving my first pet dog named Lady. One day while walking home from school a massive thought just rushed through my head that something bad happened to my dog. This never happened to me before and I had no reason to be paranoid about anything involving Lady. I was 8 (I remember this event vividly) and I remember once this thought came to me (again I can't explain this feeling, it would be like trying to explain a color you never saw before with nothing to compare it to) running as fast as I could to my house and I was about a quarter mile away from my house when I got this rush of fear in me for no reason seemingly, I remember being about one small block from my house and watching Lady lying in the ground still alive but in obvious pain. The neighbors told me she (Lady) got hit by a pickup truck that kept on driving away. Lady never got out of the house before and we had a completely fenced in yard. I later learned that Lady ran out of the house when my grandpap was visiting unexpectedly that day (he would sometimes visit randomly since it was only a half a mile walk for him and he enjoyed walking) and left the sliding door open by accident. She died later that night from internal injuries.
Truth is stranger than fiction.
First of all, I can sympathize with your frustration but wish to correct one thing in your mental view; a true "Skeptic" will typically be less demeaning, cruel and aggressively insulting than the growing trend of Cynics & cynicism, most of which use their "rationalist" position as a soap box to promote the religion of Atheism... and trust me, it has become a religion complete with loud mouth, obnoxious evangelists.
I consider myself a Skeptic and yet, I am likewise willing to call myself a "Psychic" as the result of what I have studied on the subject that is more analytical vs. all the spiritually-based mumbo-jumbo people get gauged on by the hucksters (a.k.a. New Age hustlers).
Personal Experience has a great many "holes" in it when it comes to recollection, especially when it centers on events that took place when one is/was quite young; we simply misremember such things and as more and more time passes, we tend to unintentionally alter the perception and sequence in things. It's not because we are delusional or trying to deceive folks but rather, a matter of how things naturally happen in our mind -- it's exceptionally rare for anyone to have a "photographic" sense of recollection. Secondly, the perspective of such experiences can "shift" based on one's level of education (not so much traditional education as specialized study in those areas that would allow you to be better qualified in "SEEING" the event in a broader sense).
I have an exceptionally huge background in the world of professional stage magic so I'm quite aware of both, natural and manufactured means of creating apparent psychic/paranormal phenomena. While I still get hazed by those that absolutely refuse to believe in anything, there have been those experiences in my adult life, that cannot be explained away let alone replicated by the various rationalists and intellects that work hard at taking a dump on said tales... those that always invoke that great cop-out of "Those that make the claim have the onus to prove it so..." a.k.a. their way of distancing themselves and continue existing in a state of pure denial.
As I said, I am very much a skeptic but I leave the door opened by at least 7% when it comes to issues of "faith" and the ways of esoteric knowledge; I've simply seen and experienced far too much over the years to do otherwise. Too, I've found that the majority of the true skeptics I've known over the years (including Harry Kellar, Houdini and Thurston) all expressed a sense of faith and belief that such things could be and very well may exist; they do not walk in with an attitude of Contempt prior to honest, personal investigation (judging a book by its cover, as it were).
Sadly, a state of cynicism has come to the social fore (especially in the UK) in which rationalism has been taken to a cruel extreme and the myth that personal "Intelligence" requires one to deny the existence of God or any form of "magickle" thinking/possibility. Sad because this cold way of thinking not only hurts those they lash out at, it will ultimately rob us all of the ability to "believe" in anything and thus, put "Hope" in the grave; establishing the bulk of society as a "drone" aspect to a growing caste-like society... one that is being built on a premise in which "nothing exists" outside of humankind's own intellect, ego, and determination.
Pardon my rant (and the various voices of scorn that will undoubtedly follow) but it's just how I see things now days (I'm old and grumpy and have earned the right to be such)
You sound somewhat familiar to me with my own philosophy when it comes to psi. I try to reject the 'new age' concepts myself as well as religion. I prefer the term 'enlightened physics'. I think everything that happens has to have a scientific reason, whether it's about an unknown phenomenon of physics because of our lack of knowledge at our current point in time or for whatsoever other reason/s. In fact I reject about 95% of books on the topic of the 'paranormal'. Even though I will use the terms paranormal, ghosts, spirits, souls, afterlife, heaven, hell among others I do not enjoy using these terms. Again this makes the topic of psi sound like a religionist transcendental concept that could never be proven so we are forced into the usual cat and mouse game of 'disproving a negative' or 'faith over reason'. I will use those terms I've mentioned however so people know what the heck I'm talking about. If I used my own terminology on here believe me most wouldn't have a clue what I was talking about so I'll go with the flow on this one.
Unlike several of the other collective forums I've been a member of it does seem the quality of the sceptics on here are far more reasonable and decent than those I've dealt with on those other forums. It did get to the point where I eliminated my accounts from those sites since the disrespect and harrassment became pathetic. I would be careful about lumping atheism into the category of a 'religion' however but I understand your point. There are different types of atheists, some are enlightened, some are more agnostic and yes you have the other category of 'atheism' that is so extreme that you can call them 'religious' and I've dealt with plenty of them. I know of some atheists who actually have a philosophy of not being sure of whether a God or not exists but rejected agnosticism on the grounds that the concept of the existance of a God could never be knowable. These atheists believe that nothing should be written in stone and be considered unknowable. I've even dealt with skeptical theists who reject the 'paranormal'. Usually these types of theists consider themselves 'enlightened Christians' or deists. I've debated them as well.
I don't have a real category in which I consider myself under. I was brought up originally as a Catholic but when my mom remarried our family switched to Protestantism. I was never into religion too much however but I've always enjoyed the enviroment of a church itself however as well as appreciated the beautiful art but I never took religion seriously because even at a very young age I was a rationalist. When I hit 6 I was smart enough to realize Santa or the tooth fairy weren't real. I guess if I had to put a label on myself I would say a nonreligionist theist or spiritual but not religious, I don't know. You're correct however in stating that 'cynics' can get nasty just like the religionists when you disagree with them. Especially cynics and obscurrants. Yes atheists, agnostics and religionists who fall under the category of cynics and obscurrants definitely have their own cultlike mentality.
Truth is stranger than fiction.
You've got it mixed up a little bit. Atheism and agnosticism are not on the same scale. They describe different things. (A)theism is about belief, (A)gnosticism is about knowledge.
One can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.
You are an atheist if your answer to the question "do you believe in a deity" is anything other than "yes"
You're correct. Not knowing whether a deity exists or not but believing the truth could be knowable falls under the category of 'weak' agnosticism. Belief that the existence or nonexistence of a deity could never be known is classified as 'strong' agnosticism. I was already aware of the other definitions of agnosticism. I usually rely on my old Webster dictionary to look up definitions of terms and I rarely use the net or Wiki but that is what I got. I did know of a small handful of sceptics who originally classified themselves as agnostics but then started to classify themselves as atheists. When I sent them a pm asking them why the reason I mentioned above was their answer: They believed if there is a deity or not could eventually be knowable. I guess they were using the definition of 'strong' agnosticism instead of 'weak' agnosticism. I'm not sure why they didn't catch that unless they were just looking for an excuse to label themselves as atheists, than again I don't know why.
Most atheists however would turn your definition of atheism around to claim a 'lack of belief' in a deity rather than a 'belief no deity likely exists'. Both definitions still have the same meaning to me however but I guess the former definition makes atheism sound less like a 'religion'. Just for the record there are people who classify themselves as atheists who do believe in psi but they're in the minority compared to most other atheists. There are atheistic religions such as Buddhism and a few others. There are theists who don't believe in psi, usually deists. I find this odd because a God itself would be considered a supernatural deity but they do exist and I've debated them on different topics of paranormal phenomena.
Truth is stranger than fiction.
There's a good article on it on the Iron Chariots site: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? ... ._Agnostic
I agree it gets blury and I've had several arguments with fellow atheists about this: the so-called hard vs. soft atheism.
The standard soft atheism is: I have a lack of belief in a deity. This is not a positive assertion that no deity exists, just an assertion that I have no belief that one exists. Similarly I can say I lack a belief that there are an even number of stars in the universe. I'm not saying that there is not an even number of stars, I just have no reason to believe that there are an even number of stars.
Hard atheism is the positive assertion that there is no God. This is, IMO, a hard assertion to make as it involves proving a negative.
The way you've phrased it as : belief no deity likely exists, is a bit softer than the hard atheism definition I listed above. It probably fits closer to my beliefs and in fact was the biggest sticking point in the discussions I've had on this issue: ie: is that hard or soft atheism? The issue was not satisfacftorily resolved to my liking.
I usually consider myself a soft atheist. Though I'd also probably say: I believe it unlikely that a deity exists.
Make of it what you will!
Just for the record there are people who classify themselves as atheists who do believe in psi but they're in the minority compared to most other atheists. There are atheistic religions such as Buddhism and a few others. There are theists who don't believe in psi, usually deists. I find this odd because a God itself would be considered a supernatural deity but they do exist and I've debated them on different topics of paranormal phenomena.[/quote]
The "skeptics" that I hear debating the paranormal, UFOs, and anything considered "strange" phenomena seem to have already made up their minds that there is nothing that cannot be explained. In other words, it appears that their agenda is to debunk, not debate. We all know the evidence for such things as paranormal events and UFO manifestations is very poor, but unless we are willing to look at the available data on these subjects without bias, how can we truly learn anything?
There has been a lot of good work done in the UFO/UAP field by the likes Dr. Jacques Vallee, Dr. Peter Sturrock, and other scientists. You never hear the skeptics mention these folks when debating. Instead, you get someone that "believes" aliens are here arguing with the skeptics. It's pointless.
Unless the real skeptics are willing to review ALL of the relevant data, there is no need to even argue the issue of ET visitation or unexplained phenomena. To make matters worse, you have some skeptics like the late Philip Klass who come up with the most outrageous explanations to debunk the witnesses. This only fuels the fervent beliefs of the UFO "believers."
Of course we should be open minded. but if the evidence is poor, we must withhold judgment. Skeptics are quite comfortable with the unknown. What is unacceptable is filling in the unknown with one's personal pet beliefs.
I don't have a big interest in UFOs, so don't know about those people. But if you think they have good arguments, why not start a thread, present they're evidence (provide a summary if you can rather than point to 5 5hours of video) and we can discuss.
Set the bar a bit high haven't you? Is there anyone who knows ALL the relevant data for ANY subject? We have discussions. People present their views, we discuss. Having more data is of course better than having less, but we all have busy lives and it is not necessary that we do PHD level research for every topic out there before drawing conclusions. That's what I love about internet forums though, there are so many people contributing that information gets put forward by many people. We do the best that we can within reason. If you know of some particularly good evidence in favour of alien visitation, then present it. People will look at it. But we can't be expected to know about every UFOologist out there now can we?
I don't know Philip Klaus- his explanations might be outrageous, or maybe not. What I do know is that people are TERERIBLE observers. And that just because we can't explain something we've seen does not mean we can assume that they are aliens.
By the way, I would say there is a decent chance that there is alien life in the universe. The reason I think it is unlikely any have visited us is due to technological limitations rather than the fact that they don't exist. If they exist, they are simply VERY far away. We know of no way for them to get here. We can't just imagine they have ways of traveling multiple times the speed of light, or are able to fold space/time and pass through a wormhole to get here. Also, given the number of sightings, if we take them all at face value then not only are aliens here, but we're positively overrun by them! So why no other evidence than weird flying objects?
i don't object to the concept - but I think there is simply a lot of wishful thinking involved in the UFO crowd.
I had a disaster premonition, but because there were several huge disasters that occurred within a relatively short period of time, I saw them as one mega disaster.
The one that really stuck out for me was within a few miles of me. It was the huge natural gas explosion and fireball in San Bruno, California. It was traumatizing to experience it.
A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for.
What were your dreams like during the summer of 2000 into 2001?
I corresponded with at least two or three dozen psychics/shaman & ministers during a solid 6-18 8month period. . . 18 months out a few people were getting uneasy feelings but as we came to July & August of 2001 most of us couldn't sleep without having horrid nightmares involving a massive loss of life. The frequent theme being seismic/volcanic. The nightmares and insomnia ended however, September 12th. . .
Did you/they have the same kind of dreams leading up to April 19, 1995 (OKC)? Could they sleep leading up to January 12, 2010 (Haiti)? How about December 26, 2004 (Thailand tsunami)? March 11, 2011 (Japan earthquake)? Maybe May 18, 1980 (Mt St. Helens)? Possibly March 11, 2004 (Madrid)? And did all of these people have the same kind of dreams June 25, 1996 (Khobar Towers)? Did you/they sleep up to February 26, 1993(first WTC)? How about July 7, 2005 (London bombings)
Do I need to continue or do I make my point?
(edited to include events)
This was the only premonition I've had. I've never been very good at that sort of thing.
A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for.
Alot uv the so called 'skeptisizm' I've seen in forumz and frum scientists and professional skeptics iz based on an unwarranted confidence in wut they think they know. They will toss out all sorts uv explanationz that essentially require the witness to be either an imbicile who can't even correctly interpret wut he saw, a liar, or on LSD at the time uv the event.
A good skeptic needz to also be skeptical uv their own knowledge and lojik.
IF PEPL TuK KeR UV XeR TiM aZ DILIJeNTLE aZ XA TuK KeR UV XeR MUNE, XA WuDNT SPeND SO MUC TiM TAKING KeR UV XeR MUNE.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests