[Guest]

...this is a branch off of CuteSparklezGirl's 'Is there a spiritual world?' topic...please feel free 2 tell your experiences and thoughts...no teasing or arguing please...

[andromeda]

So they might not be /making up/ things, but that still in no way means anyone should think what they're broadcasting is the truth.

No I meant that they are using true facts in their documentaries and anyone has a liberty to make conclusions of their own.

It seems to me like you never watched any of it, I don't mean about psychic witnesses, but any documentaries on Discovery Channel (any kind of murder series) cause otherwise you would have known that they offer many explanations, but never claim that something is the truth unless it really has been determined exactly how something went down (again I'm not talking about psychics).

This is my final post in this topic since I'm constantly being misinterpreted so it futile to post here and constantly repeat that I'm a skeptic when it comes down to mythical creatures, but who's listening??

[Guest]

I have seen the reenactment documentary shows on Discovery channel (reenactments of real events) and if clairvoyant people are making things up, how come that they can take the law enforcement officers at the exact spot where the dead body is??

Believers in clairvoyance/remote viewing/ESP have done controlled experiments to try to discover the means by which the information is being received. They put their clairvoyants in shielded rooms to prevent all kinds of signals from getting in and found that this did not affect the clairvoyants' skill. So I offer three possible theories:

1). As you say later, science doesn't know everything, and we have just not yet discovered the "how come" that you are asking for.

2). There is no communication, just random luck. James Randi has had a standing offer to give $1,000,000 to anyone who can prove they are clairvoyant under proper observing conditions. French, Australian, and Indian groups have parallel offers of up to 200,000 euros. After more than 35 years, not one person has been able to claim these prizes. The Soviets, the Chinese, and the US CIA studied these phenomena for 25 years, hoping to use them to gain an intelligence advantage. They gave up, deciding that there was no practical value in remote viewing. I repeat: in the REAL WORLD, the skills of these people have not been proven to have any value.

3.) Clairvoyant people are possessed by doggie spirits. So they can sniff the body.

Well I don't think it works that way. The "dead" people approach the clairvoyant people not vice versa. They can't choose what to see. That's what they say at least. But you still didn't offer me an explanation. How come that some mediums know where the dead body is located?? What is your opinion, cause you basically answered my question with a question.

There are a lot of fakes so I wouldn't know?!

Like I said I was watching the "Psychic Witness" series on Discovery channel and there was some pretty awesome stuff.

Well if the psychic that works on a certain case is bogus it might easily turn out that way.

You know, just because most of them are fake doesn't mean that all of them are.

You still didn't answer my question though I didn't ask about what-ifs and maybes I asked how could have they unmistakably known where the body is?!

So no guessing, no involvement in the crime, no tipping off (??) no trial and error but unmistakably knowing where the body is! There were cases when the psychic witness knew exactly by following the directions, and remember this was on Discovery channel!

I'm not talking about wrong turns. I'm talking about a streak of right turns

I'm not saying that any of it about psychic witnesses is true, all I'm saying is that it's interesting enough to raise an eyebrow and make you wonder.

What you did say is that the show was a re-enactment. What facts did they omit? Did they explicitly say "no wrong turns?" Did they explictly say that the psychic was not given the facts of the case as the police had uncovered them? (Maybe in this case, the psychic just figured it out before the bumbling cops did. )

... Discovery only retells the stories they never claim that it's true! By mentioning Discovery I meant they have no reason to exaggerate.

Yeah... but we are not entirely familiar with everything in the real world, are we??

Well given what we do know about the real world, psychics are nothing but gibberish, but we don't REALLY know everything about the REAL world now, do we??

Read my signature! We still don't know how far the realm of science extends, do we??

And just for your information, I'm a skeptic, but I choose not to be deaf and blind!

All these statements are reasonable and consistent. And that's the best kind of skeptic: a critical thinker: one who is equally willing to consider results that disagree with their originally held position (i.e. I assume that the only thing you meant to suggest in the first post quoted at the top is that the answer to "how come" is not known, and that you are willing to consider all the answers to that question offered here by me, Izzy, James, etc. as well as your own original position that led you to raise this subject in this thread in direct response to the following comment by James:

"So, if you think your seeing ghosts, get your eyes checked.

If you are talking to ghosts, maybe go see a psychiatrist."

). Context is everything. It implies that you give some credibility to the Discovery Channel show's implied affirmation of psychic phenomena. Am I wrong?

By exaggerate I meant make up things like they do it all the time in the news, that's what I meant.

There are lots of other ways to exaggerate besides making things up. In particular their choice of what facts to highlight, what context to put them in (to make a good story), and what relevant qualifying facts and alternate explanations they downplay or conveniently don't find time to mention.

No I meant that they are using true facts in their documentaries and anyone has a liberty to make conclusions of their own.

It seems to me like you never watched any of it, I don't mean about psychic witnesses, but any documentaries on Discovery Channel (any kind of murder series) cause otherwise you would have known that they offer many explanations, but never claim that something is the truth unless it really has been determined exactly how something went down (again I'm not talking about psychics).

This is my final post in this topic since I'm constantly being misinterpreted so it futile to post here and constantly repeat that I'm a skeptic when it comes down to mythical creatures, but who's listening??

Now you're not talking about psychics? You're a skeptic about mythical creatures? How does that relate to the discussion of psychics? Anyhow, by consolidating all these posts into one, I hope I've demonstrated that "I'm listening", and that I'm not misinterpreting your words. But if I am, since you won't post on this subject again (I'll forgive you if you change your mind), I get the last word

Edited May 28, 2009 by seeksit

[andromeda]

Now you're not talking about psychics? You're a skeptic about mythical creatures? How does that relate to the discussion of psychics?

Mythical creatures* - ghosts (a myth) - psychics "communicate" with ghosts

*ghosts are not really creatures though, but they are a myth (until proven otherwise, if ever)

Edited May 29, 2009 by andromeda

[Guest]

OMG!! I just read a few older posts. Did someone say they still see dragons? WTH? I'm sorry but if you are seeing fairies and dragons and elves...nevermind i'm speachless after reading them. I think Izzy did a good enough job.

When I first saw this topic about mythical creatures, I was thinking like, Loch-ness, The Kraken, A Leprachaun, Santa Claus, Unicorns, stuff like that.

Reading earlier posts was like reading Peter Pan, King Arthur, and Cinderella all in one book, while the movie Cybill plays in the background.

Edited May 29, 2009 by James8421

[Guest]

When I first saw this topic about mythical creatures, I was thinking like, Loch-ness, The Kraken, A Leprachaun, Santa Claus, Unicorns, stuff like that.

Reading earlier posts was like reading Peter Pan, King Arthur, and Cinderella all in one book, while the movie Cybill plays in the background.

I think almost any such thing of legend is fair game in this thread: anything from Alice in Wonderland, through Lovecraft's Chthulu and Tolkein's Balrog, etc. (creatures that are becoming myth, emerging out of modern fantasy) through this Huge list of creatures from more ancient mythology, through the more "observable" Cryptids like Nessie and Bigfoot.

And I don't see why we should leave out ghosts, spirits and deities who make themselves visible, since there was talk early in this thread about personal "visitations" or "visions" that individuals have seen and named. But perhaps Atlantis should address the relevance of those.

I also note that the OP says "no teasing or arguing, please". I hope that doesn't prevent skeptics from politely offering their own point of view

[Izzy]

OMG!! I just read a few older posts. Did someone say they still see dragons? WTH? I'm sorry but if you are seeing fairies and dragons and elves...nevermind i'm speachless after reading them. I think Izzy did a good enough job.

Yay, someone else sees the fecking insanity in this. Oh well, I've given up. If Atlantis wants to continue to destroy herself psychologically, so be it. As long as taxes I pay are never used as funds to keep her in an asylum, I don't care. If she never realizes it, whatever. If she does, wait for it, I told you so.

The entire thread is worth a read if you have the time. Crazy stuff.

[Guest]

I think almost any such thing of legend is fair game in this thread: anything from Alice in Wonderland, through Lovecraft's Chthulu and Tolkein's Balrog, etc. (creatures that are becoming myth, emerging out of modern fantasy) through this Huge list of creatures from more ancient mythology, through the more "observable" Cryptids like Nessie and Bigfoot.

And I don't see why we should leave out ghosts, spirits and deities who make themselves visible, since there was talk early in this thread about personal "visitations" or "visions" that individuals have seen and named. But perhaps Atlantis should address the relevance of those.

I also note that the OP says "no teasing or arguing, please". I hope that doesn't prevent skeptics from politely offering their own point of view

I never said that anything should be left out, I was just surprised at the overwhelming posts about fairies, dragons, and elves, rather than the more talked about mythical creatures.

Also, I was not intending to tease or otherwise argue with anyone. Just stating my opinion, on what I think about people who claim to see them fairy tale creatures.

Anyways, I really don't care that much if thats what they choose to believe in. I'll just check back here every now and then to see if anyone wants to discuss more practical mythical creatures, and not fairy tale creatures, as I don't see them as a mythical creature, but rather creatures depicted in childrens books.

Does anyone believe that Unicorns may have existed? Perhaps their horns were made out of the same material as a Rhinoceros horn, therefore it would decompose while the bones were left behind.

[akaslickster]

Edited May 29, 2009 by akaslickster

[Guest]

Yay, someone else sees the fecking insanity in this. Oh well, I've given up. If Atlantis wants to continue to destroy herself psychologically, so be it. As long as taxes I pay are never used as funds to keep her in an asylum, I don't care. If she never realizes it, whatever. If she does, wait for it, I told you so.

The entire thread is worth a read if you have the time. Crazy stuff.

Actually, at the current age, if you were to give Atlantis indisputable evidence that none of this could in any way exist, she would go into shock and be put into an insane asylum. I prefer the fairies.

[Guest]

Also, I do not personally believe what Atlantis sees is real, but that does not stop me from arguing so. I simply point out the flaws on each side, getting this whole thing a little closer to the truth.

[Izzy]

Truth is she's hallucinating. Last 20-whatever pages got us to that conclusion.

[Guest]

Truth is she's hallucinating. Last 20-whatever pages got us to that conclusion.

To be more precise, it is most probable that she is. There's still a small chance that she's lying to us. There's a very small chance that it's true. We cannot be entirely conclusive of her sanity because none of us have been in the physical vicinity of Atlantis when she sees these creatures, and because she has not tried to show the creatures to us while she sees them. It is important to remember that while this seems extraordinarily insane, that is what they said, and more than said, about Democrites, Galileo, Darwin, Mendel, and many other revolutionary figures in the history of science. In order to debunk any of these claims made by Atlantis, you'd have to be there in person.

[Guest]

edit: now that I think about it, I take offense to naming this topic "Mythical Creatures". Why would you name it Mythical creatures if you believed they existed?

After all this time, I don't think anybody has addressed this. I think that Atlantis *meant* to title this thread "MYSTICAL CREATURES". People mix up mythical and mystical a lot.

edit to add: Atlantis doesn't have to be either lying or crazy, or even hallucinating in any involuntary or psychotic sort of way. She may merely be interpreting what she sees in her own individual way. Who are we to judge.

Edited May 31, 2009 by seeksit

[Guest]

After all this time, I don't think anybody has addressed this. I think that Atlantis *meant* to title this thread "MYSTICAL CREATURES". People mix up mythical and mystical a lot.

edit to add: Atlantis doesn't have to be either lying or crazy, or even hallucinating in any involuntary or psychotic sort of way. She may merely be interpreting what she sees in her own individual way. Who are we to judge.

This has been addressed, quite thoroughly, I might add. Read the whole thread.

[Guest]

I won't pretend I believe this stuff for one minute, but I am a very curious individual. So, I would be interested in getting the particulars on these creatures. See below:

What kind of wings do the fairies have?

Butterfly

Insect

Feathers

None

Other (specify.)

What special abilities to they have?

Hypnosis

Flying

Super Speed

Other (specify.)

You once said they saved your life. Explain the situation and how they helped you.

More questions to come, my

[Izzy]

Adding to that:

How big are they? Or what ranges in size.

How fast can they fly, if they can?

Do fairies give live birth or lay eggs? (Or other.)

Do their voice pitches fall within those of humans?

What do they eat?

What do they wear?

[Guest]

I won't pretend I believe this stuff for one minute, but I am a very curious individual. So, I would be interested in getting the particulars on these creatures. See below:

What kind of wings do the fairies have?

Butterfly

Insect

Feathers

None

Other (specify.)

What special abilities to they have?

Hypnosis

Flying

Super Speed

Other (specify.)

You once said they saved your life. Explain the situation and how they helped you.

More questions to come, my

Adding to that:

How big are they? Or what ranges in size.

How fast can they fly, if they can?

Do fairies give live birth or lay eggs? (Or other.)

Do their voice pitches fall within those of humans?

What do they eat?

What do they wear?

Yeah it would be nice to know what they look like, in case I need to put one down.

[Guest]

Yeah it would be nice to know what they look like, in case I need to put one down.

Usually, faeries are shown with butterfly wings. In reality, some do not have wings at all. Last year, I put a lot of my spare time researching and pondering the existence of these creatures. I have concluded that these creatures do exist even if they are not what we imagine. Sorry for sounding like a geek there.

Faeries

Size: Usually under 4 feet.

Voice: A slightly higher pitch than the average human. Not very noticable unless you think about it.

Food: Most likely, whatever humans eat.

Powers: Most common powers are flight and invisibility. To make up for their height, speed allows them to outrun a human with very little distance in between them. I have also seen, not hypnosis, but faeries are more persuasive than the average human. (The last power does not always work. I met a fairy who managed to persuade multiple people excluding me and a few others that faeries do not exist. Most likely as defence.)

[Guest]

Does anyone believe that Unicorns may have existed? Perhaps their horns were made out of the same material as a Rhinoceros horn, therefore it would decompose while the bones were left behind. laugh.gif thumbsup.gif

I will not rule anything out. Fossils are still being discovered today. Nobody had any proof of dinosaurs, or many other creatures' existences, until the bones were seen.

Unicorns are very close to our equine species and, I would not be surprised if they did exist. wink.gif

Unicorns are the most likely to exist. Excluding magical powers, I think everyone would agree that a horse with a horn is believable. It could be a birth defect passed down through generations.

[Guest]

Powers: Most common powers are flight and invisibility. To make up for their height, speed allows them to outrun a human with very little distance in between them. I have also seen, not hypnosis, but faeries are more persuasive than the average human. (The last power does not always work. I met a fairy who managed to persuade multiple people excluding me and a few others that faeries do not exist. Most likely as defence.)

I've heard this before: mind eraser powers, especially associated with Leprechauns. A sophisticated set of powers of mind erasure, evidence erasure, invisibility and/or perfect camouflage, quickness, acute alertness, etc. makes it nearly impossible for us earthly mortals to produce evidence of the existence of such mystical creatures.

A 10 December 2008 Harris Poll found that 71% of Americans believe in Angels. Given that, it's the skeptics who seem to have the burden of proof.

[Guest]

I've heard this before: mind eraser powers, especially associated with Leprechauns. A sophisticated set of powers of mind erasure, evidence erasure, invisibility and/or perfect camouflage, quickness, acute alertness, etc. makes it nearly impossible for us earthly mortals to produce evidence of the existence of such mystical creatures.

A 10 December 2008 Harris Poll found that 71% of Americans believe in Angels. Given that, it's the skeptics who seem to have the burden of proof.

Belief in something is not proving anything tho.

[Guest]

Memory eraser powers are very unlikely to work because believers will continue believing and non-believers will not have believed in the first place.

[Guest]

A 10 December 2008 Harris Poll found that 71% of Americans believe in Angels. Given that, it's the skeptics who seem to have the burden of proof.

Belief in something is not proving anything tho.

Also I would like to see the results if you asked if they believed in FAERIES. I'll bet my house that the number would be significantly lower. Angels are one thing, I understand people who believe in angels (mostly to do with reLIEgion), but faeries nahhhhhhhhhhhhh....maybe .0000001%

[Guest]

Belief in something is not proving anything tho.

Name something you can prove without any form of belief.

Let you remind you of Izzy's comment: evidence and proof are not the same. You can provide piles and piles of anecdotal evidence that you exist. But you cannot prove it, even to yourself. Descartes's "I think therefore I am" is based on a whole set of wildly unsupportable beliefs: the belief that there is something called "I", on belief that words have other than purely random meaning [see Goodman's Paradox], on the belief that it is possible for the same precise agent called "I" to "think" [an action, therefore a motion] and exist [a state, therefore a location] in any form of precision in contradiction of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, on belief that existence itself is reality rather than an illusion, ...

[Guest]

Name something you can prove without any form of belief.

Let you remind you of Izzy's comment: evidence and proof are not the same. You can provide piles and piles of anecdotal evidence that you exist. But you cannot prove it, even to yourself. Descartes's "I think therefore I am" is based on a whole set of wildly unsupportable beliefs: the belief that there is something called "I", on belief that words have other than purely random meaning [see Goodman's Paradox], on the belief that it is possible for the same precise agent called "I" to "think" [an action, therefore a motion] and exist [a state, therefore a location] in any form of precision in contradiction of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, on belief that existence itself is reality rather than an illusion, ...

I'll reply to that philosophical statement with this:

The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard provided a critical response to the cogito. Kierkegaard argues that the cogito already pre-supposes the existence of "I", and therefore concluding with existence is logically trivial. Kierkegaard's argument can be made clearer if one extracts the premise "I think" into two further premises:

"x" thinks

I am that "x"

Therefore I think

Therefore I am

Where "x" is used as a placeholder in order to disambiguate the "I" from the thinking thing.

Here, the cogito has already assumed the "I"'s existence as that which thinks. For Kierkegaard, Descartes is merely "developing the content of a concept", namely that the "I", which already exists, thinks.

Kierkegaard argues that the value of the cogito is not its logical argument, but its psychological appeal: a thinking thing must have something that exists to think it. It is psychologically difficult to think "I do not exist". But as Kierkegaard argues, the proper logical flow of argument is that existence is already assumed or pre-supposed in order for thinking to occur, not that existence is concluded from that thinking

As for the first comment. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything I have said. I was just saying, just because 71% of the people believed in angels, that does not prove that they exist. Also, as I do enjoy some philosophy topics, there are others that are just ridiculous. To me it sounds like some nutjobs trying to complicate simple ideas, such as Descartes' "Cogito, ergo sum".

I understand that in order to prove something you first need to believe in what you are trying to prove, but belief alone does not prove anything.