Psychic

[Lune]

I am curious if anyone here is capable of PSI. If you don't want to talk about it because of something that occurs because of it, I understand, but on an old site I used to help people who had some form of esp, and figure that if i'm going to be here, i should be of help .

[Rise]

Hey,

I may believe you have asked this on the wrong site. Perhaps if you asked this on a site dedicated to "psychics" or Facebook, you might be able to connect with more people

[Nostalgia]

I'm not sure what PSI is, but I have been told by a well known spiritualist medium that I do have a degree telepathy with people I am close to and that I do have some psychic abilities.

[~Mr. Self Destruct~]

They have been known to be some of the most convincing liars in history.

[RadkeLover]

i am, somewhat, prophetic in my poems sometimes, and a on my great grandmas side there was a medium

[Kate*]

I used to accurately predict death a lot, but I don't know if I still can.

[Nostalgia]

Originally Posted by ~Mr. Self Destruct~

They have been known to be some of the most convincing liars in history.

Only if you are sceptic!

[Gymnophoria]

Originally Posted by Banshee-Screamer

Only if you are sceptic!

Actually, there have been hundreds of "psychics" either proven as fake or who have come out themselves and said they made the whole lot up.

[~Mr. Self Destruct~]

Originally Posted by Gymnophoria

Actually, there have been hundreds of "psychics" either proven as fake or who have come out themselves and said they made the whole lot up.

Exactly what my response would have been.
Thanks Louise.

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by Banshee-Screamer

Only if you are sceptic!

Everyone should be a skeptic. To not be a 'skeptic' means you are ignorant and gullible. It saddens me that it has come to be seen as a negative thing to be a skeptic. Being a skeptic doesn't mean you don't believe in anything, it just means that you question what you are told and don't believe without evidence to show that you should.

[Nostalgia]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Everyone should be a skeptic. To not be a 'skeptic' means you are ignorant and gullible. It saddens me that it has come to be seen as a negative thing to be a skeptic. Being a skeptic doesn't mean you don't believe in anything, it just means that you question what you are told and don't believe without evidence to show that you should.

Not true, why should not being sceptic mean people are ignorant and gullible ?
Because let me tell you something I believe in the paranormal and believe that psychics really can talk to the dead, see them and hear them and pass on messages from the realms of spirit onto loved ones on the earth planes. You are basically saying that anyone who believes is gullible and ignorant ? Why should we need evidence to believe ? If we believe in it we believe in it we don't evidence.

When you were little you believed in Father Christmas - yet you never saw him in your house all you woke up to were presents and half eaten carrots - as a child you most likely till you found out otherwise no doubt believed that he had really visited given the reindeer a carrot and put the presents in your sack/stocking, And the tooth fairy you never saw the tooth fairy or felt the tooth fairy take your tooth which you popped under your pillow as they fell out yet in the morning woke to money and you most likely just took it as it was. without needing much evidence, you see as we grow older some people begin to question such things as whether or not others (obviously after finding out the truth about such childhood believes as the ones I mentioned above) do not need evidence, seeing is not always believing, believing is not always seeing or knowing. Believing is believing. Theres a quote I know and it is ' To the believer everything is possible, to the sceptic everything is impossible' It basically means the believer does not need evidence but yet for the sceptic evidence is needed before it is even considered to be possible. Yet for the believer they believe without any evidence. I am a believer and I am do believe that people can talk to the dead, see the dead, hear the dead etc. Why should I need evidence for something I believe. I know spirits exist, I don't need evidence to prove that.

Some people believe in god, some people don't . Some people will say the bible is enough, some people will say that for them to believe in God he would need to appear in front of them, and say 'I exist'. < I know that may be a poor example but the point is the same - you still have believers and sceptics.

[~Mr. Self Destruct~]

Originally Posted by Banshee-Screamer

Believing is believing. Theres a quote I know and it is ' To the believer everything is possible, to the sceptic everything is impossible' . Why should I need evidence for something I believe. I know spirits exist, I don't need evidence to prove that.

Alright, I don't have time to analyse the entire post, so I'll leave it to the others.
Yes, I agree, believing IS believing. Believing is not neccessarilly knowing.
And that quote, whilst a nice ideal to some, is incredibly fallacious. If skeptics, such as myself, find evidence to adequately support a concept, we will likely believe in it. That means we believe in it because we know it to be true, or true to a certain provable extent. Hence, to us, it is possible.
That's also where you can easily find a place to discern between knowledge and belief. You can believe in something you know, but you cannot always know something you believe exists (eg. God).
And actually, no, you don't KNOW spirits exist, because knowledge requires evidence. No amount of belief can equate to knowledge or evidence.

[Nostalgia]

I do know spirits exist, I have a photo of one, and I have caught a few light orbs on film. But I don't need evidence to know they exist, I knew they existed long before I caught one on film. You will most likely dispute this and tell me it was just my mind playing tricks on me but I once saw someone walk into a solid brick wall and vanish right before me. Are you now going to tell ' your mind was playing tricks on you' 'you were hallucinating' Because if you are, prove to me my mind was playing tricks on me or prove to me that I hallucinating.

I wasn't hallucinating nor was my mind playing tricks on me, What I saw was a past recording of somebody's footsteps. I know what I saw.

For me seeing is not believing and believing is not seeing, Believing is believing and I am free to believe in what I like. I'm not going inflict my believes onto others or try to convince them to believe otherwise because why should I. All I will do is put my point across. And try to get people to see my point of view.

[~Mr. Self Destruct~]

Originally Posted by Banshee-Screamer

I do know spirits exist, I have a photo of one, and I have caught a few light orbs on film. But I don't need evidence to know they exist, I knew they existed long before I caught one on film. You will most likely dispute this and tell me it was just my mind playing tricks on me but I once saw someone walk into a solid brick wall and vanish right before me. Are you now going to tell ' your mind was playing tricks on you' 'you were hallucinating' Because if you are, prove to me my mind was playing tricks on me or prove to me that I hallucinating.

I wasn't hallucinating nor was my mind playing tricks on me, What I saw was a past recording of somebody's footsteps. I know what I saw.

For me seeing is not believing and believing is not seeing, Believing is believing and I am free to believe in what I like. I'm not going inflict my believes onto others or try to convince them to believe otherwise because why should I. All I will do is put my point across. And try to get people to see my point of view.

The amount of credulity it takes to believe orbs in a photo are spirits is astounding. No, your mind wasn't playing tricks on you at all, your camera was (if you can even call it that). I've seen these many times over; mere reflections or other explanable effects due to an undesired effect of a camera's flash. If you want to learn more, read the wikipedia article or something similar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orb_(optics)
I never disagreed with your definition of "belief". I just objected to you post on the basis of your not being able to KNOW that spirits exist. Knowledge and belief are to separate schools of thought. Evidence is a means to an end, knowledge being that end.
I appreciate that you don't want to force your beliefs on others. But there is an exceptionally fine line between "putting your point across" and comitting attempted indoctrination. But remember, this is essentially a debates forum. we like to argue.

[Lv_____]

Originally Posted by Banshee-Screamer

Not true, why should not being sceptic mean people are ignorant and gullible ?
Because let me tell you something I believe in the paranormal and believe that psychics really can talk to the dead, see them and hear them and pass on messages from the realms of spirit onto loved ones on the earth planes. You are basically saying that anyone who believes is gullible and ignorant ? Why should we need evidence to believe ? If we believe in it we believe in it we don't evidence.

When you were little you believed in Father Christmas - yet you never saw him in your house all you woke up to were presents and half eaten carrots - as a child you most likely till you found out otherwise no doubt believed that he had really visited given the reindeer a carrot and put the presents in your sack/stocking, And the tooth fairy you never saw the tooth fairy or felt the tooth fairy take your tooth which you popped under your pillow as they fell out yet in the morning woke to money and you most likely just took it as it was. without needing much evidence, you see as we grow older some people begin to question such things as whether or not others (obviously after finding out the truth about such childhood believes as the ones I mentioned above) do not need evidence, seeing is not always believing, believing is not always seeing or knowing. Believing is believing. Theres a quote I know and it is ' To the believer everything is possible, to the sceptic everything is impossible' It basically means the believer does not need evidence but yet for the sceptic evidence is needed before it is even considered to be possible. Yet for the believer they believe without any evidence. I am a believer and I am do believe that people can talk to the dead, see the dead, hear the dead etc. Why should I need evidence for something I believe. I know spirits exist, I don't need evidence to prove that.

Some people believe in god, some people don't . Some people will say the bible is enough, some people will say that for them to believe in God he would need to appear in front of them, and say 'I exist'. < I know that may be a poor example but the point is the same - you still have believers and sceptics.

Originally Posted by Banshee-Screamer

I do know spirits exist, I have a photo of one, and I have caught a few light orbs on film. But I don't need evidence to know they exist, I knew they existed long before I caught one on film. You will most likely dispute this and tell me it was just my mind playing tricks on me but I once saw someone walk into a solid brick wall and vanish right before me. Are you now going to tell ' your mind was playing tricks on you' 'you were hallucinating' Because if you are, prove to me my mind was playing tricks on me or prove to me that I hallucinating.

I wasn't hallucinating nor was my mind playing tricks on me, What I saw was a past recording of somebody's footsteps. I know what I saw.

For me seeing is not believing and believing is not seeing, Believing is believing and I am free to believe in what I like. I'm not going inflict my believes onto others or try to convince them to believe otherwise because why should I. All I will do is put my point across. And try to get people to see my point of view.

I'm going to discuss each area in red as they appear in the quote above, for easy reference.

Evidence is not required to believe anything at all. In the argument of Russell's teapot, Bertrand Russell raised the point that if he were to make the claim that a teapot is orbiting the sun somewhere in space, and you could not prove it wasn't, then by the same logic you're employing now, he could say that it is out there, because he believes it, and, more importantly, you can't prove it's not. That's not to say that it is out there, or that it's not logical to doubt that it is out there, but who needs evidence? I mean, it's probably out there.

You're right, most of us will have believe in the Tooth Fairy and Father Christmas at some stage in our lives. Looking back on it now we can see that it's a childish belief that a fairy would give us money for our teeth, but our parents told us it was true, so we blindly believed them. What your examples of our old beliefs have in common is all of them turned out to be completely wrong. There was no fairy leaving us money, and there were no magical flying Reindeer eating carrots in our houses. If someone told us this story now, would you believe them? Without any evidence at all would you blindly regain your faith in fairies?

Oh boy. To a believer everything is possible? I suppose to a believer everything may seem possible. If you want to prove me wrong (and you right) then perform some impossible act with the power of belief. I don't really care what impossible act. Any will do. Saying everything is impossible for a skeptic is just absurd. I doubt it really needs addressing at all, really. I won't even bother getting technical. Breathing is a thing. Skeptics do it. Flies in the face of everything being impossible just a little.

Well, no, you don't. I'm quite willing to take your word for it that you believe spirits exist.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. If you claim you saw spirits, you have to prove that to us. It's Russell's teapot all over again. You're making a claim with no proof, and expecting us to take it as fact.

A little contradictory.

I'll end with saying that I do see your point of view and I respect your right to have your own opinions, but you haven't provided anywhere near enough proof to justify any them. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Nostalgia]

Originally Posted by ~Mr. Self Destruct~

The amount of credulity it takes to believe orbs in a photo are spirits is astounding. No, your mind wasn't playing tricks on you at all, your camera was (if you can even call it that). I've seen these many times over; mere reflections or other explanable effects due to an undesired effect of a camera's flash. If you want to learn more, read the wikipedia article or something similar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orb_(optics)
I never disagreed with your definition of "belief". I just objected to you post on the basis of your not being able to KNOW that spirits exist. Knowledge and belief are to separate schools of thought. Evidence is a means to an end, knowledge being that end.
I appreciate that you don't want to force your beliefs on others. But there is an exceptionally fine line between "putting your point across" and comitting attempted indoctrination. But remember, this is essentially a debates forum. we like to argue.

It was not my camera playing tricks on me , Explain this, known haunted location , flash not on, in one area I am between two wax works posing for a photo behind me theres a man next to the man theres a dark shadow with a yellowish bit to the top of it. Everything else is in colour apart from the black shadow. Are you really going to tell me that my camera is playing tricks on me ? Can you explain the image I have on my camera ? Can you find a explanation for it whilst everything else is in colour ? Ok I'll give you the orbs one it could well be a ball of dust or a trick of the light but dark shadowy figure ?