Why are so many ppl skeptic and negative when it comes to alternative thinking?

"There are no other planes"

"Ghosts only exist in horror movies"

"We don't have powers like telepathy and astral projection"

All that saddens,angers,and frustrates me.

Cause it's just being thickheaded,close-minded.

UGHHH it's good to not have superpowers or ghosts. This world is too evil for that. starting with me. That sh*t don't exist.

"There are no other planes"

"Ghosts only exist in horror movies"

"We don't have powers like telepathy and astral projection"

All that saddens,angers,and frustrates me.

Cause it's just being thickheaded,close-minded.

GreekGameManiac

No it isn't. It's making a rational observation based on emperical evidence.

Don't you mean wishful thinking?

Plus, there's no evidence to support any of those claims. And I suggest to people who do believe in this puerile nonesense to watch John Stossel's the power of belief.

here's the first part of that special

Questioning everything is just as stupid as believing everything you're told!

Proof? oh god...things like that exist,you just won't open yourself to them.

You are blind.

And brainwashed by science and society.

what's with you thinking you're so open minded because you believe in bunch of mumbo jumbos?

Are you kidding, TC, even a child can disprove these things exist.

Are you kidding, TC, even a child can disprove these things exist.

SirWander

I'm not joking at all,sorry to disapoint you.

You're not worthy.

How is waiting until there's actually proof being thick-headed about anything?

And if it really saddens and frustrates you, you need to get over yourself.

"There are no other planes"

"Ghosts only exist in horror movies"

"We don't have powers like telepathy and astral projection"

All that saddens,angers,and frustrates me.

Cause it's just being thickheaded,close-minded.

GreekGameManiac

Im open minded to anything that I havent already debunked and experienced myself..Christianity is something im not open to very much anymore as Ive been there and done it. Funny how people will scream and holler that you have no proof of "other planes,Ghosts,Bigfoot,ect"...but they swear to their last breath that GOD/Jesus is real..LOL...

THIS OP is why people are skeptic. They are raised "more or less" with their beliefs and its hard for them to change.....ME?..im happy to be the kind of person that is open to other things. WHY just be so one way? With blinders on every day?? boring life to me ONLY living how others have taught you to live..

usually because alternative thinkers tend to be insane and use the term "alternative thinking" in the futile attempt to rationalize their inability to cope with logical reality.

I'm not joking at all,sorry to disapoint you.

You're not worthy. GreekGameManiac

Really? Tell me; do you still believe in the tooth fairy? And yes, I'm quite disappointed in you.

I'm not worthy? Of what, exactly?

Oh,what's the matter?

Is my view bothering you?

Because you're raised by society to be like that?

Not my fault!

No. Just curious. You just typed "You're not worthy" quite an odd non-sequitur.

This is a forum after all, where we discuss ideas and not blindly accept someone's beliefs just because they are an "alternative" to rational thought.

Let me guess? You were raised by a pack of wolves? Or, were they jackals?

usually because alternative thinkers tend to be insane and use the term "alternative thinking" in the futile attempt to rationalize their inability to cope with logical reality.

Skarwolf

I wonder in history, how many alternative thinkers made a difference?...dont c l a s i f y open minded thinkers with complete brainless idiots.

No. Just curious. You just typed "You're not worthy" quite an odd non-sequitur.

This is a forum after all, where we discuss ideas and not blindly accept someone's beliefs just because they are an "alternative" to rational thought.

Let me guess? You were raised by a pack of wolves? Or, were they jackals?

SirWander

Lol,that kind of rational thought is being blind to reality.

You just believe what society and sciense taught you.

:/

So don't turn the blame on me.

Well, if you want to discuss the nature of reality; that's a completely different topic than the one proposed in your opening post.

And what do you believe? that people can use telepathy to read anothers mind? have you seen anyone does this? if so can they repeat this feat in a controlled environment? Like say, a research laboratory?

If no, then why believe in it?

is it because believing so makes the a world a more magical and less scary place to live in?

Anyway, why do you think I'm blaming you? Are you paranoid, or something like that?

Well, if you want to discuss the nature of reality; that's a completely different topic than the one proposed in your opening post.

And what do you believe? that people can use telepathy to read anothers mind? have you seen anyone does this? if so can they repeat this feat in a controlled environment? Like say, a research laboratory?

If no, then why believe in it?

is it because believing so makes the a world a more magical and less scary place to live in?

Anyway, why do you think I'm blaming you? Are you paranoid, or something like that?

SirWander

THere have actually been controlled studies of TWINS being able to connect and do so...Why not other people? ALSO there is a lady the police have used to help find people,clues,dead people ect by using her physic powers "or whatever you want to call them"

AND NO...I will not LINK you to the stories...just GOOGLE

*response to my post* VanDammFan

What? you expect me to believe this when there are magazines like "The Globe" that will publish any story as long as it suits their ends?

[QUOTE="VanDammFan"]

*response to my post* SirWander

What? you expect me to believe this when there are magazines like "The Globe" that will publish any story as long as it suits their ends?

Do I expect you to? I have no idea? Dont care what you believe or where you get your information from..Why the GLOBE? thats strange?..Still these stories have truth behind them..how much truth is up to you.

You sir, are an idiot.

*response #2*VanDammFan

If you don't care in what I believe, then don't engage me in a conversation.

I chose "The Globe" because it was the first. and only, trashy magazine that publishes stories involving the supernatural that I could think of; to use as an example. I've never actually read one, just seen it in the grocery stores.

If by truth you mean people's erroneous first hand accounts; then yes.

Well, if you want to discuss the nature of reality; that's a completely different topic than the one proposed in your opening post.

And what do you believe? that people can use telepathy to read anothers mind? have you seen anyone does this? if so can they repeat this feat in a controlled environment? Like say, a research laboratory?

If no, then why believe in it?

is it because believing so makes the a world a more magical and less scary place to live in?

Anyway, why do you think I'm blaming you? Are you paranoid, or something like that?

SirWander

What's interesting about your pious claims is that science is fundamentally flawed.

Even if those that the TC discussed in the first post aren't true, that there are many, many phenomena in our universe which simply cannot be explained through logic and science.

Heck, most of the world turns to some fictitious, abstract "God" to explain what cannot be explained.

The universe is more magical than our wildest dreams. We just haven't developed the means to tap into it, yet.

[QUOTE="SirWander"]

Well, if you want to discuss the nature of reality; that's a completely different topic than the one proposed in your opening post.

And what do you believe? that people can use telepathy to read anothers mind? have you seen anyone does this? if so can they repeat this feat in a controlled environment? Like say, a research laboratory?

If no, then why believe in it?

is it because believing so makes the a world a more magical and less scary place to live in?

Anyway, why do you think I'm blaming you? Are you paranoid, or something like that?

peterw007

What's interesting about your pious claims is that science is fundamentally flawed.

Even if those that the TC discussed in the first post aren't true, that there are many, many phenomena in our universe which simply cannot be explained through logic and science.

Heck, most of the world turns to some fictitious, abstract "God" to explain what cannot be explained.

The universe is more magical than our wildest dreams. We just haven't developed the means to tap into it, yet.

Could you give a few examples of these phenomena?

[QUOTE="peterw007"]

[QUOTE="SirWander"]

Well, if you want to discuss the nature of reality; that's a completely different topic than the one proposed in your opening post.

And what do you believe? that people can use telepathy to read anothers mind? have you seen anyone does this? if so can they repeat this feat in a controlled environment? Like say, a research laboratory?

If no, then why believe in it?

is it because believing so makes the a world a more magical and less scary place to live in?

Anyway, why do you think I'm blaming you? Are you paranoid, or something like that?

tenaka2

What's interesting about your pious claims is that science is fundamentally flawed.

Even if those that the TC discussed in the first post aren't true, that there are many, many phenomena in our universe which simply cannot be explained through logic and science.

Heck, most of the world turns to some fictitious, abstract "God" to explain what cannot be explained.

The universe is more magical than our wildest dreams. We just haven't developed the means to tap into it, yet.

Could you give a few examples of these phenomena?

* The nature of beauty and structure in our universe

* The origin of our universe

* Human's capacity for intuition

* The exact cause and nature of deja vu

* The realm of forms (we can envision in our head something that doesn't exist in real life, like a triangle)

* Dark matter

* Gravity

* Why "fundamental laws of nature" came to be

* Teleportation of insanely small particles like neutrinos (jump from one place to another but don't travel the distance in-between)

* Material going faster than the speed of light

I could go on and on and on.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Could you give a few examples of these phenomena?

peterw007

* The nature of beauty and structure in our universe

* The origin of our universe

* Human's capacity for intuition

* The exact cause and nature of deja vu

* The realm of forms (we can envision in our head something that doesn't exist in real life, like a triangle)

* Dark matter

* Gravity

* Why "fundamental laws of nature" came to be

* Teleportation of insanely small particles like neutrinos (jump from one place to another but don't travel the distance in-between)

* Material going faster than the speed of light

I could go on and on and on.

I have no doubt that you could go on and on, however everthing you mentioned can be explained by logic, and others are just bollox.

[QUOTE="peterw007"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Could you give a few examples of these phenomena?

tenaka2

* The nature of beauty and structure in our universe

* The origin of our universe

* Human's capacity for intuition

* The exact cause and nature of deja vu

* The realm of forms (we can envision in our head something that doesn't exist in real life, like a triangle)

* Dark matter

* Gravity

* Why "fundamental laws of nature" came to be

* Teleportation of insanely small particles like neutrinos (jump from one place to another but don't travel the distance in-between)

* Material going faster than the speed of light

I could go on and on and on.

I have no doubt that you could go on and on, however everthing you mentioned can be explained by logic, and others are just bollox.

Yes but with logic you just end up in a cyclical argument.

Take gravity, for example. This is the logical argument for the cause of gravity:

"Gravity exists because we feel it. Because we feel it, gravity exists."

Logic doesn't explain the cause of gravity.

So, gravity remains an unexplained phenomena because science and logic both simply accept it as being a fact of life.

To me, a phenomena is explained when it can be completely documented (the cause of its existence, the methods of its existence, and probable reasons for its existence) by either science or logic (like why water turns into ice at certain temperatures).

-

Here is the argument for water turning into ice:

Cause: Ice comes from water.

Method: Water turns into ice when certain temperatures cause the molecules inside the water to freeze.

Probable reasons for existence: Because it helps build an ecosystem.

-

Here is the argument for gravity:

Cause: Gravity.

Method: Pulls objects of smaller mass towards objects of greater mass.

Probable reasons for existence: Because it creates the ability for life to thrive on planets.

-

It's the cause that remains unexplained, here.

What's interesting about your pious claims is that science is fundamentally flawed.

Even if those that the TC discussed in the first post aren't true, that there are many, many phenomena in our universe which simply cannot be explained through logic and science.

Heck, most of the world turns to some fictitious, abstract "God" to explain what cannot be explained.

The world is more magical than our wildest dreams. We just haven't developed the means to tap into it, yet.

peterw007

What the f uck are you talking about?

Science is just a means to study, categorize, and understand how something works. it's not a belief system, it's a method. Now some hypotheses proposed by some "scientist," I'm using the term here loosely, may be flawed. but not the method.

and most of the things you listed as a response to Tenaka2 have been explained by using "logic", you're just ignorant about it.

It's not, that's just wishful thinking.

Yes but with logic you just end up in a cyclical argument.

Take gravity, for example. This is the logical argument for the cause of gravity:

"Gravity exists because we feel it. Because we feel it, gravity exists."

Logic doesn't explain the cause of gravity.

So, gravity remains an unexplained phenomena because science and logic both simply accept it as being a fact of life.

To me, a phenomena is explained when it can be completely documented (the cause of its existence, the methods of its existence, and probable reasons for its existence) by either science or logic (like why water turns into ice at certain temperatures).

-

Here is the argument for water turning into ice:

Cause: Ice comes from water.

Method: Water turns into ice when certain temperatures cause the molecules inside the water to freeze.

Probable reasons for existence: Because it helps build an ecosystem.

-

Here is the argument for gravity:

Cause: Gravity.

Method: Pulls objects of smaller mass towards objects of greater mass.

Probable reasons for existence: Because it creates the ability for life to thrive on planets.

-

It's the cause that remains unexplained, here.

peterw007

Why have you convinced youself that everything exisits for a reason? In particular why are all the reasons humancentric?

Here is the argument for water turning into ice:

Cause: Ice comes from water.

Method: Water turns into ice when certain temperatures cause the molecules inside the water to freeze.

Probable reasons for existence: Because it helps build an ecosystem.

-

Here is the argument for gravity:

Cause: Gravity.

Method: Pulls objects of smaller mass towards objects of greater mass.

Probable reasons for existence: Because it creates the ability for life to thrive on planets.

-

It's the cause that remains unexplained, here.

peterw007

You know what. F uck your straw men, f uck your faulty knowledge, and f uck your ignorance.

I give up, you literally just gave me a headache.

[QUOTE="peterw007"]

What's interesting about your pious claims is that science is fundamentally flawed.

Even if those that the TC discussed in the first post aren't true, that there are many, many phenomena in our universe which simply cannot be explained through logic and science.

Heck, most of the world turns to some fictitious, abstract "God" to explain what cannot be explained.

The world is more magical than our wildest dreams. We just haven't developed the means to tap into it, yet.

SirWander

What the f uck are talking about?

Science is just a means to study, categorize, and understand how something works. it's not a belief system, it's a method. Now some hypotheses proposed by some "scientist," I'm using the term here loosely, may be flawed. but not the method.

and most of the things you listed as a response to Tenaka2 have been explained by using "logic", you're just ignorant about it.

It's not, that's just wishful thinking.

I know full-well that science is just a method.

That's exactly why science is limited in the first place.

It doesn't explain the origins of fundamentals (like gravity).

-

Logic also operates on assumptions.

Why have you convinced youself that everything exisits for a reason? In particular why are all the reasons humancentric?

tenaka2

That's a whole different debate, entirely. I'm just claiming there are unexplained phenomena because science and logic can't "not disprove beyond a reasonable doubt" the cause of the fundamentals in our universe.

I know full-well that science is just a method.

1. That's exactly why science is limited in the first place.

2. It doesn't explain the origins of fundamentals (like gravity).

-

3. Logic also operates on assumptions.

peterw007

1. Are you making the assumption that science is limited because it can't explain the supernatural? Or it is because it doesn't offer a human-centric viewpoint?

2. It actually does, well at least it offers an explanation, if you bothered to pay attention in your Earth science class, or physics class in school.

3. But if you can't observe and test these "assumptions" then they are faulty and ignored.

That's a whole different debate, entirely. I'm just claiming there are unexplained phenomena because science and logic can't "not disprove beyond a reasonable doubt" the cause of the fundamentals in our universe.

peterw007

Have you considered that without science there would be no theory of gravity to begin with? Gravity doesn't have to have a reason to be, it just is.

Your putting your own personal need for pattern and order above the obvious. The wind blows because the wind blows, the wind does not blow in order to rustle the leaves and make a nice noise for you personally to listen to.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="peterw007"]

* The nature of beauty and structure in our universe

* The origin of our universe

* Human's capacity for intuition

* The exact cause and nature of deja vu

* The realm of forms (we can envision in our head something that doesn't exist in real life, like a triangle)

* Dark matter

* Gravity

* Why "fundamental laws of nature" came to be

* Teleportation of insanely small particles like neutrinos (jump from one place to another but don't travel the distance in-between)

* Material going faster than the speed of light

I could go on and on and on.

I have no doubt that you could go on and on, however everthing you mentioned can be explained by logic, and others are just bollox.

Yes but with logic you just end up in a cyclical argument.

Take gravity, for example. This is the logical argument for the cause of gravity:

"Gravity exists because we feel it. Because we feel it, gravity exists."

Logic doesn't explain the cause of gravity.

So, gravity remains an unexplained phenomena because science and logic both simply accept it as being a fact of life.

To me, a phenomena is explained when it can be completely documented (the cause of its existence, the methods of its existence, and probable reasons for its existence) by either science or logic (like why water turns into ice at certain temperatures).

-

Here is the argument for water turning into ice:

Cause: Ice comes from water.

Method: Water turns into ice when certain temperatures cause the molecules inside the water to freeze.

Probable reasons for existence: Because it helps build an ecosystem.

-

Here is the argument for gravity:

Cause: Gravity.

Method: Pulls objects of smaller mass towards objects of greater mass.

Probable reasons for existence: Because it creates the ability for life to thrive on planets.

-

It's the cause that remains unexplained, here.

[QUOTE="peterw007"]

That's a whole different debate, entirely. I'm just claiming there are unexplained phenomena because science and logic can't "not disprove beyond a reasonable doubt" the cause of the fundamentals in our universe.

tenaka2

Have you considered that without science there would be no theory of gravity to begin with? Gravity doesn't have to have a reason to be, it just is.

Your putting your own personal need for pattern and order above the obvious. The wind blows because the wind blows, the wind does not blow in order to rustle the leaves and make a nice noise for you personally to listen to.

I'm going to operate on the assumption that what you just said is completely true, for a moment.

Things exist because things exist.

If that's true, then why do people who have faith in science constantly discredit the existence of unexplained phenomena that have been witnessed by millions of people, like ghosts?

"It doesn't exist because we can't measure it," you might reply.

But what if our technology is just not evolved enough to measure the existence of such things?

-

To help prove my point, think about phenomena (imagination, the realm of forms, etc.) that exists because we can feel it (logic), but doesn't exist because we can't determine its existence through science.

People "feel" the existence of ghosts (logic), but we can't determine it exists through science.

So why are ghosts constantly discredited by researchers, but the idea of a triangle is taken as a fact "because it exists"?

People have their mind set on how the world works and don't like it when others come in with another point of view that is contrary to their view. There are some that can openly discuss alternative viewpoints, but for the most part everyone is defensive about the world they created for themselves.

Oh no we got one of them there, "magical thinkers".

TC, would you like me to call the WHAAAmbulance? Or do you just need some cheese with that whine?

I'm going to operate on the assumption that what you just said is completely true, for a moment.

Things exist because things exist.

If that's true, then why do people who have faith in science constantly discredit the existence of unexplained phenomena that have been witnessed by millions of people, like ghosts?

"It doesn't exist because we can't measure it," you might reply.

But what if our technology is just not evolved enough to measure the existence of such things?

To help prove my point, think about phenomena (imagination, the realm of forms, etc.) that exists because we can feel it (logic), but doesn't exist because we can't determine its existence through science.

People "feel" the existence of ghosts (logic), but we can't determine it exists through science.

So why are ghosts constantly discredited by researchers, but the idea of a triangle is taken as a fact "because it exists"?

peterw007

Science makes no effort to discredit the existance of ghosts. In the same way that science makes no effort to discredit the existance of gods.

Science is used to gain a better underestanding of observed phenomenon, if ghosts were actually observed then science would study them.

There are obviously things that science does not yet understand or have reasons for.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="peterw007"]

That's a whole different debate, entirely. I'm just claiming there are unexplained phenomena because science and logic can't "not disprove beyond a reasonable doubt" the cause of the fundamentals in our universe.

Have you considered that without science there would be no theory of gravity to begin with? Gravity doesn't have to have a reason to be, it just is.

Your putting your own personal need for pattern and order above the obvious. The wind blows because the wind blows, the wind does not blow in order to rustle the leaves and make a nice noise for you personally to listen to.

I'm going to operate on the assumption that what you just said is completely true, for a moment.

Things exist because things exist.

If that's true, then why do people who have faith in science constantly discredit the existence of unexplained phenomena that have been witnessed by millions of people, like ghosts?

"It doesn't exist because we can't measure it," you might reply.

But what if our technology is just not evolved enough to measure the existence of such things?

-

To help prove my point, think about phenomena (imagination, the realm of forms, etc.) that exists because we can feel it (logic), but doesn't exist because we can't determine its existence through science.

People "feel" the existence of ghosts (logic), but we can't determine it exists through science.

So why are ghosts constantly discredited by researchers, but the idea of a triangle is taken as a fact "because it exists"?

"There are no other planes"

"Ghosts only exist in horror movies"

"We don't have powers like telepathy and astral projection"

All that saddens,angers,and frustrates me.

Cause it's just being thickheaded,close-minded.

GreekGameManiac

so not believing in things that you have absolutely no reason to its being closed minded? show proof and people will believe you can't expect people to believe because you want them to.

[QUOTE="peterw007"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Have you considered that without science there would be no theory of gravity to begin with? Gravity doesn't have to have a reason to be, it just is.

Your putting your own personal need for pattern and order above the obvious. The wind blows because the wind blows, the wind does not blow in order to rustle the leaves and make a nice noise for you personally to listen to.

blue_hazy_basic

I'm going to operate on the assumption that what you just said is completely true, for a moment.

Things exist because things exist.

If that's true, then why do people who have faith in science constantly discredit the existence of unexplained phenomena that have been witnessed by millions of people, like ghosts?

"It doesn't exist because we can't measure it," you might reply.

But what if our technology is just not evolved enough to measure the existence of such things?

-

To help prove my point, think about phenomena (imagination, the realm of forms, etc.) that exists because we can feel it (logic), but doesn't exist because we can't determine its existence through science.

People "feel" the existence of ghosts (logic), but we can't determine it exists through science.

So why are ghosts constantly discredited by researchers, but the idea of a triangle is taken as a fact "because it exists"?

Why are you categorizing ghosts--a phenomena that millions of people around the world would swear they witnessed--in the same vein as dragons or unicorns, which very few people have believed they witnessed?

People have their mind set on how the world works and don't like it when others come in with another point of view that is contrary to their view. There are some that can openly discuss alternative viewpoints, but for the most part everyone is defensive about the world they created for themselves.

_R34LiTY_

This is ironic coming from a user with the name REALITY.

On topic: When people see things for their own eyes they tend to be less skeptical. IIRC, there has been no such evidence to suggest that telepathy or telekinesis even exists. Just con men and charlatans.

How about because those baseless claims and superstitions have never gotten anybody anywhere except for them looking like a complete fool.