/fringe/ - Fringe

From a materialistic perspective, it's obviously impossible. But learn how to do it and go try it, or talk to people who do it well, before discounting it just because a biologist fancies himself a philosophic authority.

These debunkers are fucking retards more often than not who can never actually reproduce the original and genuine paranormal phenomena. For example there are debunkers who talk about how you can run across hot coals, which is indeed something anyone can do, but lets see them stand for several minutes in the midst of a raging fire while their clothing burns off and come out alive. I've read a ton of debunking and sceptic shit whenever I've found it in the past so I'm familiar with everything they got. I followed a debunking group in India and some others too. Debunkers do expose actual frauds all the time but will never touch genuine cases, preferring instead to say "I don't know how it was done, but I'm certain it was a trick" based on pure faith.

>>101881

Is there an argument there?

>>101880

Maybe you are just not gifted :^)

>>101883

May be, but neither is nobody else, apparently.

What benefit exactly do you think woulld come to anyone if dowsing was proved correct or false? It doesn't really bother me if dowsing is real or not, can't say I have looked into it enough or partook in it to really see any significance in it. What appears to me a bit odd is how all these dowsing rods appear to be very particular pieces of metal which doesn't strike me as what would of originally been used. To be fair, dowsing does seem a rather silly thing though I wouldn't be surprised if it worked I have seen the earth and universal forces do much stranger things in nature. And also equally fair to the other side the experiment was piss poor and it is much like how these atheist and sceptics frame their arguments, they will only allow it to be said or performed ON THEIR TERMS. If they actually wanted to find the truth in it I think they would have a variety of experiments in different areas all this video shows its five people trying it in a little tent somewhere in England with just Dawkins and some therapist ( no idea why he is there to conduct this experiment in dowsing) casually passing themselves off in front of simple people as self-evidently true.

If you want to learn to dowse, go read Magical Use of Thoughtforms by Dolores Ashcroft-Nowicki.

>>101889

You don't even needs rods to dowse and there is no special virtue in the material of the rods.

>>101889

>And also equally fair to the other side the experiment was piss poor and it is much like how these atheist and sceptics frame their arguments, they will only allow it to be said or performed ON THEIR TERMS.

Nice excuse. The tests done by Randi, for instance, are always prepared with the approval of the test subjects; they clearly ask them, "will you be able to do this within these conditions?" The scientists go to great extents to make sure the subjects are always comfortable and as in their "natural habitat" as possible. There have been many, MANY double blind experiments conducted on dowsing and many other kinds of psychic phenomena which prove them to be false, and those who do not look at those tests while preaching about the millions of tests that apparently exist proving said phenomena to be true are nothing but hypocrites.

>If they actually wanted to find the truth

They WANT to find the truth; this is science, it isn't based on hand waving and saying "this is how it is so, and anything else is wrong", like what you believe in is. Make no mistake, you're the close minded one here, anon. Scientists and philosophers like Hitchens and Dawkins never ran from anything that was proven to lead to accurate predictions in the universe we live in, no matter how ludicrous it might've sound; people like these always strived to understand it, not run away from it. In this world, there are no ridiculous claims, but there are extraordinary ones, and, say it with me now, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, or else our prediction model would constantly be skewed by inferior theories, which in no way would model what we can sensibly call "our universe".

As for the subject of dowsing, I'd say dowsing does work to some extent because we can pickup things we aren't aware of, like depressions in the terrain, faint smells or tastes in the hair, soil consistency, and whatever else; which would make us move the rods. In a way, the rods help us focus on said changes, but this is by no means psychic phenomena; it is as psychic as you getting a boner from the smell and sight of an attractive person of the opposite gender. Now, isn't that explanation much more open ended to study, and much more versatile than a simple "a ghost is guiding me", or "the energies emanating from this invisible plane we have never proven existed are helping us find water"? And this explanation actually meets up with experimentation in lab, which sees contestants fail over and over again in double blind tests. Why do those energies seem to shy around labs, and why do they only manifest in dumb people who can't properly show the world how they work; do they just not want "unworthy people" to know? Give me a break.

These books you read about mysticism and religion and whatever else, were, once again, written and preached by uneducated, cavern dwelling people, who had no knowledge of the mental processes that the brain is capable of. These people had no basis to identify a hallucination, they didn't know how their minds work at the subconscious level, and how that affected their actions; they knew nothing that would qualify them as an authority to such extraordinary claims, and yet, you eat it up like it was the law of the Universe, and when told off for it you basically shout "NON BELIEVER". Well, yes, I am a non believer, and not only that, but I think that most people here, with their practice and experience on meditation and such, could be using their time better actually discovering their own inner selves instead of wasting time with books which are, frankly, bullshit, and which really only shield you from actually developing your own view of things; from finding an actual subjective truth that makes you happy.

>>101889

>What benefit exactly do you think woulld come to anyone if dowsing was proved correct or false?

Wait, I forgot to address this.

What do you mean by this? Of course it would be of benefit to prove dowsing was real, are you for real? On the other hand, if dowsing isn't real, what's separating it from all the other supposedly "real" and "tried and true" phenomena people claim to experience?

Statements like these show me that people like you are actually the ones who DON'T want to find the truth; you want to believe something because you like the sound of it; nothing else. The good thinkers and scientists (I've already mentioned Dawkins and Hitchens), want to know how the universe works to as great deal of accuracy as possible, and if there comes something unexplained along the way then that's good, because now they are on the track to find another piece of the puzzle.

Some scientists are a bit closeminded to views that clash with the current ones, but those are the bad ones, and nobody actually cares about those. A real scientist is proud to say "I'm wrong", and he knows that that's by no fault of his, for before being proven wrong, there was no reason to think he was wrong. A real scientist also understands he can never be "right"; a theory cannot be proven, it can only be disproven, and that's one thing you people seem to not be aware of, and another layer of reasoning why these phenomena simply don't seem to have any basis in reality; when they're presented, they're presented as "true".

>>101899

>>101901

I think you are misreading what I am saying because I am just talking about the experiment in question in the short video OP posted. You're talking about James Randi and Hitchens and the science itself in its entirety, about models of the universe. All im talking about is this shitty clip that OP is posted. I can't even reply to this because you have made me the defender of a 100 points I never made.

The thing I meant with the argument on their terms is relating to their atheist philosophical debates on ethics without God or God's existence and they will always frame their argument inside the box of science. But philosophy answers what science doesn't, the why of things instead of the how, and they cannot comprehend persceptives which do not necessitate themselves on scientifical or logical grounds.

That was all I meant by that. And when I said what benefit would it bring if dowsing was proven false or not I didn't mean some very grandiose statement on what is "truth" I just meant what real benefit would you get from it? It just seems a bit of an odd thing to me the clip really tells you nothing about it or how everything came to be maybe ill try find a better documentary about it.

Also don't you think its a little silly to say books are a waste of time and don't help you discover your inner self then reference Randi, Dawkins, Hitchens and then adapting an scientific perspective?

>>101942

>But philosophy answers what science doesn't, the why of things instead of the how

People who can't deal with the idea that there is no inherent reason for the universe, seem to have a lot of trouble with the simple idea which says nothing happens "for", everything happens "because". In other words, asking "why" is completely meaningless; and this is philosophy. Saying God did this and did that is not philosophy, because philosophy comes about by reason, which comes about by observation.

I still fail to see how the experiment in question is a "shitty clip". I can't comprehend what you said about being a defender, I'm sorry. This test has been conducted many times, often with slight changes (there were tests which allowed the contestants to walk over the materials, for instance), and scientists are always working with believers to find good tests which both leave the subject at ease, and from which conclusive data can also be attained. Not to mention, these tests are taken by people who want to take them, and who do, most times, genuinely think they can do what they can do. There's no trickery here, there's no deceit, and should the subjects succeed, the data will be there to prove they did so, so I honestly fail to see how this is a "shitty clip" or a "shitty test". Do you think some people did succeed and they just cut it out because "science is king"? Don't you think that to be a little farfetched? I mean, this is such a controversial subject that the media would fund the shit out of anyone who could actually go through one of these tests successfully; it just makes no sense why there hasn't been anyone capable of doing so.

>and they cannot comprehend persceptives which do not necessitate themselves on scientifical or logical grounds

Much like everyone else can't either; the difference between these scientists and the religious people they criticize is, once again, that one of the groups has no problems saying "I don't know", while the other needs to handwave an explanation to feel warmer at night.

>I just meant what real benefit would you get from it?

You'd get a new field of study with limitless possibilities.

>Also don't you think its a little silly to say books are a waste of time and don't help you discover your inner self

Books are very useful in helping you discover your inner self (most books, mind you), but I must always say books like the Bible and the Kybalion aren't because the nutjobs will take it in the wrong way. I can't vouch for the bible, but the Kybalion, for instance, is a really good source of material to meditate upon. Still, that doesn't mean they are true models of the physical universe, and that doesn't mean they can be used as the basis for making predictions (at least not good ones, at any rate), outside of your inner workings - outside of subjective ones.

>>101945

I think you might be my favorite that fedora I've come across here. You have very sound logic, and present your arguments in a non-aggressive way that is conducive to mutual understanding rather than some kind of anti-theist evangelist. Thanks for being open-minded in the right way.

>>101947

Fuck dude, what can I say? I didn't choose the fedora life, the fedora life chose me; but I do try to be the best fedora I can.

Nobody even mentioning Dean Radin in this thread?

>>102041

What's so special about him?

>>102316

Dean Radin's studies are a pretty good argument for psi in any discussion because of all the peer-reviewed stuff he's done.

>>102318

randi is also a trickster and a fraud. i remember discovering this when i researched him a couple years ago.

proof of all kinds of psi phenomena has existed for many many years now, but with the social sciences it's culture that determines the mainstream, not whether your ideas holds or not. people like james randi and other "skeptics"(tell me again, why does science need anyone but scientists again?) are put there to ensure it stays that way. he who wants to find the truth must either set out himself to see or go to he who has researched it, not one of the gatekeepers if he wants the truth.

>>102318

Peer reviews mean little if your peers aren't worth while. Unfortunatelly, there are plenty of PHD's who are, quite frankly, dumb as rocks. Then again, this goes into "my peers are better than your peers" territory, and we both know that doesn't lead anywhere. Personally, unless the study is conducted or at least heavily reviewed by people who I find sound of reasoning and honest - people like Dawkins - which in most cases leads to the conclusion these "scientists" and "PHDs" really don't know much about the scientific method, then frankly the study is of very little worth for me.

>>102327

Again, if such is true, why is it so hidden? Why not use the media - which is quite honestly hungry for those things - to publish the tests in a way the masses would understand them? Only good could come of that, since then, if the sceptic scientists were avoiding some particular study because it didn't go according to what they wanted the truth to be, they would have no choice but to address it. It only seems natural, unless you believe there's some kind of conspiracy going on, which is grasping at straws in my humble opinion.

The thruth seems to be that the ones hiding are these scientists which can allegedly prove psychic phenomena, not the critics or sceptics.

>>102327

Also, pardon, but how is Randi a frawd?

>>102373

Go to the source man. You can theorize all you want but you won't ever know until you look for yourself…

And you need to get out of the mindset you are in. You are elevating people to think /for you/, instead of going balls to the walls and getting dirty like any detective or journalist would do. That makes you vulnerable. Unplug yourself from the matrix. Have wholly your own thoughts. Stay humble but not pussy-humble. Investigate yourself. It's the only way to become free in this world.

>>102327

DEAN RADIN, not Randi. You're thinking of the wrong person.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew

>>102682

Ouija boards have been used by psychologists to essentially talk to a patients subconscious. Really interesting stuff, and they often communicate backwards as well.

Sorry, man, there's nothing paranormal or psychic about it, just like there's nothing paranormal about dowsing.

Why do you think oija boards seem to work best in dark, spooky rooms? Is it because spirits somehow have a set of arbitrary rules that says they can only hang out in those places? Please. They only work in spooky conditions because it feeds fear and assumptions to the mind, which in turn feeds the ideomotor effect. That's the reason why it moves with conscious people as well.

Not only do you completely fail to understand proper psychology, you also, of all things, actually hinge on spirits to make your point, which is one thing whose existence is widely debated among psychic and magic researchers.

Look in the mirror, you're no different from the people on the OP's video.

If I ever played with a ouija board, though, I'd be as serious as possible, since I actually wanted to have fun and let myself go onto the experience; doing what you told me to do, would be like playing a scary game while not taking things seriously, i.e. a waste of my time.

>>101952

You are so far up your own ass right now you can't even tell you are being mocked. The irony is actually quite sad.

>>102727

What are you even doing in this board? If you really thought this was all nonsense, you wouldn't be losing your time here with us losers. You are probably denying something really hard, otherwise you would just move on.

Tell us. Were you confronted with some experience or something you just cannot accept but can't rationalize away either, and that's why you are in denial? Or is it that you just want to believe really badly but can't find a justification to?

If it's the former, stick around and you'll eventually find your path. Most of us have been there.

If it's the latter, don't bother. Carry on with your life. I suggest you hang out here instead. Plenty of intelligent, critically thinking people here: http://www.skepticforum.com/

To this guy's merit, there is plenty of evidence that spirits might not be what they appear to be, but rather thoughtforms.

Check out this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Origins-Psychic-Phenomena-Poltergeists-Unconscious/dp/1594771642

There is plenty of documented evidence there suggesting spirits, while having an actual objective existence, are not always discarnate entities independent of us nor dead people, but coalesced thoughtforms. This happens to the point that psychic researchers made up a spirit and ended up evoking it. Poltergeist phenomena ensued.

Which is to say spirits are liars and tricksters.

>>102743

Wouldn't that interpretation mean that spirits and sub-conscious are essentially one synonymous body? I guess when you get into Hermetic axioms such as "As above; So below" or "All is Mental" then we cross into these lines already: How much of reality is a projection from the individual? Do we have a collective spirit which resonates over us all or in smaller groups? How powerful is the mind?

I have always percieved spirits to be linked to the sub-conscious, there are certain connections which enable stronger bonds between some and others. I think this is largely dependent on the mind, some spirits are more inclined to latch on to some mentalities than others and those unconscious bonds seem like a sensible driving force behind that. But if such a thing as spirits are mere thoughtforms capable of performing poltergeist activities then what is to say that the rest of the percieved world is not just another thought-form? Are we not then like Gods ourselves capable of creating life and universes all through the eyes of the mind?

Its quite interesting to notice that through an easy shift in context from spiritual to psychological you could state the same ends just with a different means and words. Spirits can be interpreted in this way to have the same affect as personality types, temperments, and attitudes and their bonding can be rephrased the same way. You can notice this stuff a lot more in Jungian psychology than most but it is still easy to see the anologies spread right across it. Spirit and psyche become one thing and different schools express different perspectives to ultimately reach the same end. Whilst spirituality personifies archetypal forces reflected in the individual and the universe, psychology illustrates them as the inner workings of the mind and living within each person - it almost equates to that micro/macro viewpoint again spread across Hermetic thought.

>>102737

>Seem to think you know a whole lot about it from someone who has never used one.

If I touch fire I'll get burned. I don't need to touch fire to know this, I can extrapolate it from watching many others touch file and getting burned. This whole "you didn't try it, so you don't know" reasoning is quite bullshit, since if you know it probably is false then you'd probably be wasting a ton of time testing out those probably false theories after a ton of them have been debunked already.

Your line of reasoning is that spirits are something somehow more believable than a well studied, and honestly quite interesting and fun, aspect of your brain.

>Why does it not seem possible that spirits would favor certain places over others?

That's not what I was getting at. I was saying that if you take a haunted house and lit it up it would cease to be haunted (except to the people who had previously experienced the 'hantings', since now their subconscious will factor into it as well). I'm also not saying that spirits don't happen to prefer what we call dark, scary environments, but then that'd be stretching it, since we know how much those environments affect us psychologically, making it hard to draw conclusions, and honestly presenting us with a much more plausible explanation to the whole phenomena.

>Pray tell, what is "proper psychology"?

Psychology is the attempt at making predictions about human behaviour from statistics related to said behaviour and associated states. There.

>You're entire argument is based on abstract ideas such as consciousness

Qué? The fuck are you on about? Shit, you seem to know more about my argument than I do, I'm fucked.

>What about all the 100,000s of psychologist who believe in the idea of spirit?

Unfortunately that is something that happens, and I've previously stated my disgust for the average PHD. And once again, it seems you're just stringing me along into another "my peers are better than your peers" discussion, on which I've stated my opinion in a previous post as well. Besides, in my humble opinion, most worthwhile psychologists never claim this or that is true, they look at data and they formulate models of human behaviour from it, and that is far from any sort of metaphysical, otherworldly meaning.

This whole thread was based on the question "why do psychic powers only seem to come to the uneducated and impressionable?" It has been shifting from that to another question, since you guys passionately defend the existence of such phenomena: "why do true psychics never want to be found?" And this is a point that I've argued extensively to be quite fishy, if you think about it; refer to my previous posts, please.

Then you can tell me "dowsing may be bullshit, telepathy may be bullshit, x may be bullshit, y may be bullshit, but the Oija board is the real deal" or something to that effect, and, I'm sorry, but I'm just not going to waste my time testing your claims, since previous claims have been made and debunked before; get your shit together, and THEN try to make us believe; not to mention how many actual good scientists have had a stab at such claims and found nothing substantial.

>You talk down to people in a haughty up-your-own-ass manner

Please, that was not my intention, other than the first post, I've tried to be as civil as possible and word my concerns about this whole thing as concisely as possible. That poster called me, and I quote, one of the

>troll-tard debunker idiots

or at least he heavily implied it; so civic, respectful and innocent of him.

>dismissing any ideas other than your own

I've clearly stated my reasons for dismissing said ideas, one of them being the OP's video, so you can't really fault me for this. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; deal with it. Don't expect me to have faith in something I don't need to sleep well at night.

>>102741

Thinking the way people think in this board is detrimental to both science and to the individual in question. People genuinely interested in the mind could be making wonderful research dealing with what their brains could do, and not labelling it as magic. Of course, it's so amazing that it might as well be magic, the difference here is that one side of the argument dabbles in dogmas and faith, the other in reason, understanding of the subjective, and common patterns.

I care about people, I want us to live in as happy a world as I can make it.

>>102741

Oh, and to answer your other question, never have I been confronted with something I couldn't accept, but I can't explain lots of things, in fact, I can't explain anything! One thing I'll never do: I'll never delude myself into thinking I can; that's the difference between us.

You're calling edgy fedora dual weilding fags to people who know they know jack about this existence, while you, the supposed "enlightened" ones, boast about how much you actually know about the origins of it all.

Ever read Moby Dick? You guys are Gabriel.

>>102747

You haven't even tackled or even garnered the reasoning in my post, once again you misconcieve and automatically presume I think and say things I didn't even say I did. By showing the stupidity in your own reasoning I am doing just that, it is you who can't see anything beyond "This guy disagrees with me or shows how my reasoning is wrong so he must believe in oujia boards and think he is some enlightened being." Can you show me anywhere I said anything like that? You circumvent the core of everything I say to insert your own assumptions then have the audacity to say that all anyone else does is just use faith and dogma whilst you use reasoning and understanding - you don't use reasoining you use rhetoric - and even when I debunk your lines of reasoning you can't confront it and continue to digress into meandering rhetoric seperate from the point. Your answers to the points made only furtherly show how they are wrong, you don't refute it you say things like "Unfortunately that is something that happens and they are stupid if they believe in spirits". You define psychology as something which isn't used the same as the last post you made. You are not being smart nor being philosophical you are being a rhetoric ass and there is no point in trying to communicate with you if the only way you can operate is by cherry pickin minute parts of statements and ignoring the rest of the context of the post. You have refuted nothing at all, presented no rationale which opposes what I say, instead just go on another pseudo-intellectual rant, creating strawmen and cherry picking to your own self-indulgent content. You jump to conclusion and say I am trying to tell you dowsing and ghosts and all sorts of other things exist when I am just refuting you plain and simple. You can't pretend to know my beliefs simply for showing how your lines of reasoning are illogical and self-contradictory.

>I care about people, I want us to live in as a happy a world as I can make it

>you idiots

>I'm a nice guy

Get off yourself m8, you are blatantly lying to yourself.

Look at the size of this post >>102727 how much of it is argument and how much of it is rhetoric and insulting? One line at the top is the only thing substantial, - you made one point - thats it the rest is just condescending and telling people "because I say so" the rest is entirely rhetoric. >>102737 My entire post refutes every part of your post, and what do you say in return? Pure meaningless DRIVEL which refutes NOTHING I have said. Pseudo-intellectual to the utmost extreme. Yeah okay, you've read Hitchens and Dawkins, you're a self-proclaimed edgy fuckwad who doesn't believe in any higher power and likes to argue with people because he has nothing better to do.

Congratulations.

>>102748

>I can't explain anything!

wtf are you even talking about then? You're not thinking straight man I hope you realise it soon.

>>102745

Damn well expressed, anon.

>>102747

>the difference here is that one side of the argument dabbles in dogmas and faith, the other in reason, understanding of the subjective, and common patterns

Oh, but you are so wrong. I started 20 years ago from a purely materialistic and atheistic premise. I proved everything I believe to be real in spite of my reticence. Dogma and faith is something you cannot accuse me of in any way. If you can't get past the fact that one can hold "our" view of things using reason and logic, you are definitely out of your depth here.

>I'll never delude myself into thinking I can; that's the difference between us

Again, you'd be surprised.

>while you, the supposed "enlightened" ones, boast about how much you actually know about the origins of it all

I'm starting to think you are taking me for someone else (someone with the same flag as me, perhaps). I make a point of not believing anything to the point of not being able to revise it.

You have no idea who are you talking to and neither do I, so try to give me a bit more credit. I'll do the same.

In any case, I don't get why the hell we're having such a pointless discussion. If you are not here because you have encountered something "paranormal" that you can't explain and are exploring alternative points of view, just write us off as delusional nutjobs and move on.

>Ever read Moby Dick? You guys are Gabriel.

Go be a condescending child elsewhere.

>>102755

What reasoning? the "you didn't do it so you aren't qualified to talk about it" reasoning? The one I argued against? Your post refutes nothing about my post; in no way you stated or even hinted as to, why my purely psychological explanation was inferior to a psychic one. Ironically, you spoke very little of actual spirits in that post of yours, it was a complete bash on my post, together with calling me a hypocrite and ignorant ad nauseam; it was, I feel, the most vapid post in the whole thread.

And then you call me pseudo-intellectual when you ask things like "what is proper psychology", which I gave you a very clear and easy to understand definition of, by the way. Also, one interesting part of that post was this:

> What about all the 100,000s of psychologist who believe in the idea of spirit? Are we to assume because "proper psychologists" believe it then that makes it true?

I can't even believe I let that slide. So if 1 000 000s of psychologists didn't believe in ghosts, are we to assume that because there are 100, 000s of psychologists believe it then that makes it true? That falacy must have a name.

>>102768

>Oh, but you are so wrong. I started 20 years ago from a purely materialistic and atheistic premise.

There's a lot of money waiting for you, my friend.

Again, another post filled with nothing but anecdotal evidence and telling me I'm ignorant.

The big spaghetti monster in the sky is starting to become a good analogy for all this, sadly.

>Go be a condescending child elsewhere.

I didn't mean to be condescending for fucks sake. Gabriel is just a dude who shows up from another boat that has claimed he was the angel Gabriel and who performed a bunch of "miracles" as to turn the crew over to his side, and practically gain control of the ship. There, I've explained it. You guys aren't like Gabriel because you are not con men, but you still spread bullshit and taint the knowledge pool.

>>102781

I'm not even going to bother, you can't even read if that is what you are saying back, I trust everyone else has the reading comprehension and the basic ability to gather context to realise you are completely full of shit, employ circular logic, and are hardly even listening to anything I am saying.You're waste of time I might aswell bash my head of a brick wall before trying to talk to you.

>I didn't mean to be condescending

If you really mean that you need to analyse some parts of your character and the way you talk to people because if you think its just because of some Moby Dick reference you are way off.

>>102781

I never said you are ignorant, and I didn't give any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise. I just asked you to not make assumptions about me and promised I would try and do the same (technically I did say you are ignorant, of my nature, but you get what I mean).

You are very condescending and all around unnecessarily aggressive with your posts. If you didn't mean it, that's all right. I shouldn't have called you a child.

In any case, and since I'm not at all interested in proving you anything (nor I usually "taint" nobody's "knowledge pool" unless I'm specifically asked to), I'm going to withdraw from this thread, since it's spiraling into circular arguments and a lot of negativity.

Life is very long (ideally), and I hope yours gives you the chance to feel the amazement and wonder of having everything you believe to be true proven false.

>>102781

>There's a lot of money waiting for you, my friend.

I'd like to share one last thought about this. Again, you have no idea. I have a lot of money, all the money I could want, actually. And I acquire it without the need to expose myself publicly or risk embarrassment by failure in front of a skeptical audience (although James Randi withdrew his challenge years ago, according to Wikipedia).

In fact, most people in the world have the same potential power, to get anything they desire. And I mean anything. But it's much easier to hide behind the fact that it's "impossible".

Leaving magic aside. Be honest with yourself for a minute and think about something you really want and don't have. Again, forget about magic. Think about how you could have it if you really wanted, if you really needed it. If your life depended on it, or your mom's or whatever. Is this not true? Is there anything you desire that you couldn't achieve if you really put yourself to it?

Why don't you have it then?

Those are the lies we tell ourselves without realizing. They consist in false explanations that help us hide things we don't want to face. There are many such lies.

I hope you don't pretend to never lie to yourself. Very few people don't. So try to make a list of unexpected lies you tell yourself and see where that gets you. Start with 10.

If you do this and want to talk about it, then we can talk and make something out of this thread. Otherwise I have nothing more to add.

>>102791

I meditate daily, I know about all that.

>Again, forget about magic.

Yes, lets, because the kind of happiness and richness you're talking about has nothing to do with it. This just reinforces my point that magic is just polluting the knowledge pool, and is completely unneeded.

>Those are the lies we tell ourselves without realizing.

Make no mistake; this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

>although James Randi withdrew his challenge years ago, according to Wikipedia

He did, but in a previous post I mentioned how hungry for these things the media is; you wouldn't need James Randi.

>And I acquire it without the need to expose myself publicly or risk embarrassment by failure

Everyone fails sometimes. Do it on video, for instance, that'll leave you at ease, then share it with well known (and actual believable) sources, like some magicians and physicists.

>>102790

>having everything you believe to be true proven false.

That has already happened once, but it wasn't some book written by an uneducated cave dweller that catalysed it.

Also, come to think of it, it's funny that many of the arguments people give for these things floats around the idea of new knowledge first being ridiculed and then accepted, when not only is that a huge fallacy, but in the context of magic and psychic phenomena, it was the accepted thing ages ago. I dong get it.

But you are lying to yourself. You want to believe in fairytales more than anyone in here. It's pathetic, as in pity-inducing. Just fuck off already if you can't roleplay like the rest of us without sperging out.

None of it is real. Stop BEGGING us to help you believe.

>>102855

*tips fedora*

If magick doesn't real why can mental states influence physiological states?

https://www.psychomagnetism.org/