How many practice telekinesis?

Theweirdtophat wrote: What's with you and Gisteron? You have this weird obsession about me, following my posts nitpicking every single thing I say and go out of your way to be rude. Why is it always the rudest posts get the most applause?

Then people act as if I'm being rude when I share experiences that I know is real and I have people here just laugh at it. Surely even you can relate to that. Wouldn't you find it rude if you found something you know was real and people scoff at it. I can understand being a little skeptical but whether you want to admit it or not, you and others have pretty much ridiculed my experiences.

Almost every time I go to sites and share experiences. I have skeptics but then I have people that basically throw sophomoric insults and say what I experienced wasn't real or I was on drugs or something absurd. They don't even bother to approach with an open mind. Is rudeness on this forum celebrated or something? Because I have had a lot of it here and it seems like no one could care less.

Perhaps you're too personally invested in this? I'm glad there's people like Gist and Steamboat around here. Honestly, when I have questions about the validity of something, Steamboat is my go-to sounding board. And "What Would Gistern Say" has gone across my mind countless of times when I'm thinking about my experiences or before I make a post. Not an exaggeration. The world needs all kinds of people. Including the people that keep us honest. That make us think. Those people are very important and I adore Gist and Steam for it.

They're not being rude, they're offering you what you need to show or explain how this exists. They're giving you a chance to convince us. It's not that we don't care, perhaps more that we wish we could see more? There's nothing close minded about being a skeptic.

Connor L. wrote: Many are, Kyrin. Lots of people here who believe in this stuff are ALSO on those sites.

Jedi in the movies used Force Powers. So, it's relevant to talk about it... even if it seems ridiculous.

I understand and I have spent and still spend time exploring the nature of our existence.
But in the end are we "Movie Jedi" or Jedi trying to follow an honest path based in a reality that is as close to truth as possible?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: But in the end are we "Movie Jedi" or Jedi trying to follow an honest path based in a reality that is as close to truth as possible?

(edited to add clarification)

I'm a skeptic with a scientifically-bent mind. I am also, however, a believer. I'm a Master-level certified Reiki practitioner, which only added a piece of paper to the energy-work I've been doing for two decades. I've been an exorcist for over fifteen years. I am a firm believer in the supernatural and the occult.

As such, it has been my observation that while not scientific, those matters still obey the course of scientific inquiry. That is, I can attempt to use my experiences to piece together a cause-and-effect relationship of the supernatural/occult world as easily as I could the natural one. I take notes where applicable, and very little of what I "test" stays private; I often bring in eyewitnesses as often as possible, especially people who would otherwise not believe.

Furthermore, I'm not trying to sell my beliefs to anyone else. If others ask, I tell. If others are interested, I educate. I'm not trying to push people to them, though, because I realize that most of the evidence I have is just anecdotal, because sometimes you just don't have time to take notes. I'm okay with that.

Alright, this hasn't been my day much and I feel like I've had just enough for a little rant. So for those among you sensitive to such stuff, there's some harsh internet-spanking ahead, reader discretion advised...

Theweirdtophat wrote: Why is it always the rudest posts get the most applause?

People applaud posts they feel are either expressing their own views or speaking kindly of them. Now, yes, posts that are particularly rude tend to not be received quite so well. For instance, when I call you what you are - a liar and a fraud, that is - people don't like me putting it this way eventhough they see why I do it and often times agree. If I wanted to be rude, I'd say nobody gives a [censored] what you feel is rude. I could also be non-family-friendly and reveal what everybody knows anyway is covered by that censored-tag. You and I are not friends, so if you have no intellectual case to make, we have nothing left to talk about, I'm afraid. Of course, if you keep heating this pot up, I'll join you, because not letting people get away with bull[censored] like this is kind of what I do. A few of our fellow users may view me as a stubborn ass for it but I dare assert that is still a more flattering caricature of my being than whatever it is they envision for you at the end of this all.

Then people act as if I'm being rude when I share experiences that I know is real...

Nobody is acting as if you are rude. You under the name of Yabuturtle were the first to introduce that accusation against anyone questioning your experience that not only did you not provide anything to substantiate, we still don't even know what it is supposed to be and yet are rude for daring to reasonably doubt. Oh, and need I remind of my question how you even know what you think you know? If you cannot show it, then you do not know it.

... and I have people here just laugh at it.

Don't get me wrong, what you under both of your names have said so far is quite laughable indeed and would deserve all the ridicule we can muster. But I'd challenge you to quote any section of any post of anybody who actually laughed at or ridiculed anything you said. You would have by all means deserved it, but I cannot for the life of me remember it actually happening, so kindly remind me, if you can.

Surely even you can relate to that. Wouldn't you find it rude if you found something you know was real and people scoff at it.

Well, nobody here scoffed at anything you said, eventhough at this point I'd deem them justified if they had. But no, I would not find it rude. Silly, perhaps, uninformed. But some of the most brilliant ideas started out as laughing stocks, so that would by no means injure me. If anything, it would motivate me to research my subject and refine my hypothesis even more so as to prove the scoffers wrong. But that's me. And you are nothing like me. You instead choose to declare that having standards henceforth be considered rude. Give me an f-word break!

I can understand being a little skeptical but whether you want to admit it or not, you and others have pretty much ridiculed my experiences.

Well thanks for allowing me to not admit it, because I was going to do just that. But as a display of generosity, let us for the sake of argument assume that some of us have indeed ridiculed your experience. I think you are more owing an apology than deserving one, but let's say we forwarded ours. Now, how does that validate one single thing you said aside from the emotional appeals? How does our being rude in any way help substantiate your claims of having experienced magical powers? You keep hammering this appeal as though it was a strong point in your favour, when in reality it is but a lie and thus not only useless to your case but also positively harmful to your image, pretending for a second that it can even get any worse after the following.

Almost every time I go to sites and share experiences. I have skeptics but then I have people that basically throw sophomoric insults and say what I experienced wasn't real or I was on drugs or something absurd.

Yes, because it is "absurd" to think of you as a mere human, imperfect like the rest of us mere mortals; no, rather you are flawless and infallible and it is therefore far more plausible that magical powers exist than that your experience - what ever it even was - could have been in any way inaccurate. And you call us the arrogant and sophomoric ones? Poor shameless hypocrite, you do not have any self-awareness at all, do you?

steamboat28 wrote: I'm a skeptic with a scientifically-bent mind. I am also, however, a believer. I'm a Master-level certified Reiki practitioner, which only added a piece of paper to the energy-work I've been doing for two decades. I've been an exorcist for over fifteen years. I am a firm believer in the supernatural and the occult.

As such, it has been my observation that while not scientific, those matters still obey the course of scientific inquiry. That is, I can attempt to use my experiences to piece together a cause-and-effect relationship of the supernatural/occult world as easily as I could the natural one. I take notes where applicable, and very little of what I "test" stays private; I often bring in eyewitnesses as often as possible, especially people who would otherwise not believe.

I dont speak spanish?
If any of what you say could actually hold up to scientific inquiry and you could prove it through the scientific method you should get your results published in a scientific peer reviewed journal. You would be famous and probably rich!

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: I dont speak spanish?

"Why not both?"

If any of what you say could actually hold up to scientific inquiry and you could prove it through the scientific method you should get your results published in a scientific peer reviewed journal. You would be famous and probably rich!

Well, the issue is that these things are firmly outside the realm of science itself. As such, there is currently no way to record these data in a way that can be "proven" anywhere.

Mayhap you're confusing "science" (the method) with "Science" (the discipline of the causal relationship between things in the physical world).

Any manifestation in reality can be investigated in scientific ways. Now, we couldn't identify supernatural causation as what it is, but we could identify correlations between, say, particular actions on our end and their respective outcomes on the other, if there is any. It would remain forever a mystery why the link exists but it could nonetheless be utilized. Many things are like that, actually. We do not understand why gravity is strictly attractive and never repulsive. Mass just is and this is what it does. We would like to know why that is so because we are curious, but our spacecraft would fly all the same even while we don't. It is not a matter of the nature of the thing itself so much as of what we can do with it.

steamboat28 wrote: "Why not both?"

Well, the issue is that these things are firmly outside the realm of science itself. As such, there is currently no way to record these data in a way that can be "proven" anywhere.
Mayhap you're confusing "science" (the method) with "Science" (the discipline of the causal relationship between things in the physical world).

Ah very good. Yes I agree, there is definitely room for both!

Ok so your using a different definition for science than I might be? This may be similar to the difference between the term theory in common usage and Theory in scientific terms? One being an unproven concept and the other a highly proven hypothesis.

So a more relaxed cause and effect proof of concept is what you mean when you discuss scientific inquiry? To me this leads to a lot of personal interpretation of the data and once again it becomes useless to discuss because we can never arrive at a common foundation to start from.

I have actually gone through the Reike attunements myself for example. I have found them completely lacking in any functional usefulness. You and I can discuss this all day long but I feel that in a case like this neither side will ever budge from their position until some useful empirical evidence is presented that can not be misinterpreted one way or the other.

Of course a lack of evidence is not evidence against the existence of a thing, but just shouting at each other across a fence as we assert our positions is meaningless unless we can find some way to move forward and come together to arrive at a position that is as close to truth as possible. That's all I would like to see and to date I have found no method to accomplish this other than the strict application of the scientific method.

I would love to see a individual claiming to be capable of performing that ability to do so in front of real people and not behind the cover of a screen, that way the truth can be exposed.
However if someone really is capable of doing this, why isn't there anyone bringing this up? If someone is really capable of this then shouldn't (s)he logically get fame and be all over the news?

I hear that the only people who can do it have been involved with traditions that have done it for ages (like some ancient secret). And, then, they are forbidden by their system to "show off". John Chang got in a bunch of trouble from his old dead master for showing off on camera.