DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Is there a "sixth sense"?
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 326 - 350 of 457, (reverse)
AuthorThread
08/27/2008 01:44:21 AM · #326
Originally posted by Sam94720:

Exactly. Before you go and speculate about the mechanisms behind a specific phenomenon you have to test if the phenomenon itself exists at all.

This would be extremely easy for telepathy, as I've already said many times. Yet no effect has ever been observed in a proper test. Why?

Some people wish phenomena like telepathy existed, but at the same time they oppose scientific inquiry. Why? Why shouldn't we want to understand the phenomenon better?


Samuel, you still haven't explained why you believed in the existence of your God, eventhough science could not prove it.
08/27/2008 04:45:07 AM · #327
Originally posted by crayon:

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Some people would say it's immoral not to kill a woman who has shown more than her eyes in the street.

now where did you ever get that idea from, Samuel?

You don't seem to be aware of the practice of honor killings.

Originally posted by crayon:

Samuel, you still haven't explained why you believed in the existence of your God, eventhough science could not prove it.

You seem to assume that everyone has a God they believe in. What makes you think so?

If you argue that believing in a God in the absence of any evidence is essentially the same as believing in paranormal phenomena in the absence of any evidence, I agree.

But let me add that telepathy could be tested very easily. This is more difficult for gods depending on how you define them.

Message edited by author 2008-08-27 04:46:17.
08/27/2008 05:31:31 AM · #328
Originally posted by Sam94720:

Originally posted by crayon:

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Some people would say it's immoral not to kill a woman who has shown more than her eyes in the street.

now where did you ever get that idea from, Samuel?

You don't seem to be aware of the practice of honor killings.


actually, i am aware of these claims. i just wanted you to admit that you fully believe in unsubstantiated stories and use them in your arguments. now; sixth sense stories are just as such, so why do you so strongly oppose their existence?

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Originally posted by crayon:

Samuel, you still haven't explained why you believed in the existence of your God, eventhough science could not prove it.

You seem to assume that everyone has a God they believe in. What makes you think so?


i dont, it is merely your assumption, as usual :) i only asked what makes you believe in your god.

Originally posted by Sam94720:

If you argue that believing in a God in the absence of any evidence is essentially the same as believing in paranormal phenomena in the absence of any evidence, I agree.

But let me add that telepathy could be tested very easily. This is more difficult for gods depending on how you define them.


being "difficult" to test (or be defined) should not make it an exception; unless you're saying that anything that is "difficult" to test can be taken as the truth without proof? interesting, really.
08/27/2008 05:50:32 AM · #329
Originally posted by crayon:

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Originally posted by crayon:

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Some people would say it's immoral not to kill a woman who has shown more than her eyes in the street.

now where did you ever get that idea from, Samuel?

You don't seem to be aware of the practice of honor killings.

actually, i am aware of these claims. i just wanted you to admit that you fully believe in unsubstantiated stories and use them in your arguments. now; sixth sense stories are just as such, so why do you so strongly oppose their existence?

??? I don't see the link between honor killings and the sixth sense. And I never opposed the existence of "sixth sense stories". I merely said that there is no reason to believe that paranormal forces are at work.

Originally posted by crayon:

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Originally posted by crayon:

Samuel, you still haven't explained why you believed in the existence of your God, eventhough science could not prove it.

You seem to assume that everyone has a God they believe in. What makes you think so?

i dont, it is merely your assumption, as usual :) i only asked what makes you believe in your god.

??? Please quote any post where I made such an assumption. And then please think very hard about the second sentence you wrote.

Originally posted by crayon:

Originally posted by Sam94720:

If you argue that believing in a God in the absence of any evidence is essentially the same as believing in paranormal phenomena in the absence of any evidence, I agree.

But let me add that telepathy could be tested very easily. This is more difficult for gods depending on how you define them.

being "difficult" to test (or be defined) should not make it an exception; unless you're saying that anything that is "difficult" to test can be taken as the truth without proof? interesting, really.

I never said anything like that. Things that are difficult to prove by design are not exceptions. However, something like telepathy is very easy to prove. In the absence of such proof we can say with high certainty that the phenomenon does not exist.
08/27/2008 05:53:07 AM · #330
Originally posted by Sam94720:

But let me add that telepathy could be tested very easily.

You keep saying this as if you make the rules for something you claim doesn't/cannot exist.

You also seem to be under the assumption that telepathy is something that can be demonstrated at will.

Seems kinda ridiculous.
08/27/2008 06:01:57 AM · #331
Originally posted by Sam94720:

Originally posted by crayon:

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Originally posted by crayon:

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Some people would say it's immoral not to kill a woman who has shown more than her eyes in the street.

now where did you ever get that idea from, Samuel?

You don't seem to be aware of the practice of honor killings.

actually, i am aware of these claims. i just wanted you to admit that you fully believe in unsubstantiated stories and use them in your arguments. now; sixth sense stories are just as such, so why do you so strongly oppose their existence?

??? I don't see the link between honor killings and the sixth sense. And I never opposed the existence of "sixth sense stories". I merely said that there is no reason to believe that paranormal forces are at work.


1. the link isnt important. it was merely my attempt to confirm that you believe in unsubstantiated stories
2. if anyone followed this thread, even just parts of it, would agree that you are trying to ridicule the idea that sixth sense exists.

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Originally posted by crayon:

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Originally posted by crayon:

Samuel, you still haven't explained why you believed in the existence of your God, eventhough science could not prove it.

You seem to assume that everyone has a God they believe in. What makes you think so?

i dont, it is merely your assumption, as usual :) i only asked what makes you believe in your god.

??? Please quote any post where I made such an assumption. And then please think very hard about the second sentence you wrote.


we dont need to look far. just the reply from you above (in bold, for the lazy) shows that you like to make assumptions (mostly wrong by the way) of what people wrote. i asked why you believed in your god, and you assumed i was saying everybody believes in god. so what is it i should be thinking hard about my question above? "what makes you believe in your god" ?

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Originally posted by crayon:

Originally posted by Sam94720:

If you argue that believing in a God in the absence of any evidence is essentially the same as believing in paranormal phenomena in the absence of any evidence, I agree.

But let me add that telepathy could be tested very easily. This is more difficult for gods depending on how you define them.

being "difficult" to test (or be defined) should not make it an exception; unless you're saying that anything that is "difficult" to test can be taken as the truth without proof? interesting, really.

I never said anything like that. Things that are difficult to prove by design are not exceptions. However, something like telepathy is very easy to prove. In the absence of such proof we can say with high certainty that the phenomenon does not exist.

what makes you think telepathy is easy to prove? again, that is either unsubstantiated, or another one of your assumptions.
08/27/2008 06:12:29 AM · #332
Originally posted by crayon:

1. the link isnt important. it was merely my attempt to confirm that you believe in unsubstantiated stories
2. if anyone followed this thread, even just parts of it, would agree that you are trying to ridicule the idea that sixth sense exists.

Honor killings are unsubstantiated stories? We've had quite a few of them that made the news, even in Europe.
Many of you (including NikonJeb) do not seem to distinguish between an experience and its explanation. I don't doubt any of your experiences. I merely don't understand why you prefer an extremely unlikely explanation lacking any evidence over a likely one.

Originally posted by crayon:

we dont need to look far. just the reply from you above (in bold, for the lazy) shows that you like to make assumptions (mostly wrong by the way) of what people wrote. i asked why you believed in your god, and you assumed i was saying everybody believes in god. so what is it i should be thinking hard about my question above? "what makes you believe in your god" ?

This is getting surreal. Let me make it clearer: Why do you think that I believe in a god?

Originally posted by crayon:

what makes you think telepathy is easy to prove? again, that is either unsubstantiated, or another one of your assumptions.

If two people claim to be able to communicate telepathically, this could indeed by tested very easily.
08/27/2008 06:36:23 AM · #333
do you believe in history, Mr Samuel94720?

Message edited by author 2008-08-27 06:54:47.
08/27/2008 07:06:12 AM · #334
Originally posted by crayon:

so now, you have conveniently taken some rare cases and use them as examples? i remember in another discussion, you were saying that rare cases should not be used for generalization, and that the common cases are the ones we should take into account? (hint: prison thread); well anyways... while i cant say on behalf of Mr NikonJeb, but i do believe that i have not stated my standing on the whole sixth sense discussion yet. if you must categorize me, then i'm still at the stage of choosing sides, and right now, i'm in the midst of trying to understand your allegations, which seem to raise certain questions on their credibility.

We had a little side discussion here about morality and its origins. I there used the example of honor killings to show that morality varies widely from culture to culture. I wrote
Originally posted by Sam94720:

Morals vary widely from culture to culture. Some people would say it's immoral not to kill a woman who has shown more than her eyes in the street. Most of you probably have a different concept of morality.

I think it's hard to argue with these statements. However, they have nothing to do with our sixth sense discussion (apart from some people here speculating that our morality could be some kind of a sixth sense).

Originally posted by crayon:

why do you keep assuming that i think you believe in a god?

Because you keep asking me "What makes you believe in your god?".

Originally posted by crayon:

perhaps, to keep things clear once and for all, you would like to clarify now - do you believe in your god? YES/NO/(maybe) ?

You still assume that I have a god. What would "my" god be?

Originally posted by crayon:

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Originally posted by crayon:

what makes you think telepathy is easy to prove? again, that is either unsubstantiated, or another one of your assumptions.

If two people claim to be able to communicate telepathically, this could indeed by tested very easily.

before we continue, please let me understand you a little more - do you believe in history, Mr Samuel?

What would that even mean?

If telepathy were a real phenomenon or skill it would be consistent and controllable. It would be useful and could easily be demonstrated.

However, if you claim (like NikonJeb does) that telepathy exists, but is inconsistent, uncontrollable and unpredictable, then it's not a very useful or interesting phenomenon. If it's basically equal to coincidence I don't see its merit.

Let me make an example to illustrate the point: I could claim that I can influence the outcome of elections with my thoughts. It doesn't always work, it's a bit inconsistent, uncontrollable and unpredictable. But often the candidate I prefer wins! This experience is simply a fact. But to conclude that my thoughts are responsible rather than a majority of voters sharing my preference, I would have to find further evidence.
08/27/2008 08:23:44 AM · #335
Originally posted by RonB:


Would you say that "altruism" or "compassion" would qualify as a trait "helpful for survival and reproduction", or would make it's beneficiary "more likely to reproduce", such that it would be "best-suited for their environment"?


Yes. All other things being equal, are you attracted to people who are altruistic and compassionate, or people who are selfish and uncaring?

Originally posted by RonB:

Would you say that altruism and compassion are the result of genetic drift?


The human mind is far from understood. As I understand it, emotions are largely driven by the complex interaction of multiple bodily (chemical) and brain (electrical) functions.

It is observable in the evolutionary tree (based on factual analysis) that increasingly complex brain and bodily functions have evolved gradually by genetic drift. Therefore the capacity for altruism and compassion in the human sense have been enabled through genetic drift.

The socio-biological reasons why altruism and compassion would be promoted and "survive" are embodied in my question to you above.

Message edited by author 2008-08-27 08:24:51.
08/27/2008 09:47:21 AM · #336
Originally posted by crayon:

do you believe in history, Mr Samuel94720?

I think you'll find that purposefully mocking and taunting people will eventually tire them out. Condescension and mockery can't stand in place of a sound argument.

And I'm sorry, but equating "believing" in news stories and footage with believing in paranormal phenomena is probably the worst analogy I've come across. Utterly fallacious.
08/27/2008 02:27:23 PM · #337
Originally posted by RonB:

Now assume that a random genetic mutation occurs that gives ONE man a "feeling" of altruism and compassion toward his fellow tribesmen. He cannot TEACH it to others, and when he tries, they aren't buying it ( because they don't share that genetic marker ).
WHAT survival benefit would that random genetic change provide that ONE man, to the degree that HIS genes would prevail over those of men who did NOT have altruism and compassion to such a degree that ALL of mankind would inherit it?


First, I think it's pretty obvious that all of mankind is not altruistic and compassionate. As individuals, some of us are even pathologically anti-altruistic and compassionate. As a group, however, the tendency of our species is to be able to empathize and identify with other individuals. For most of our history this has been limited to family and tribal affiliations - its much easier us as humans to cause harm or fail to alleviate harm to other humans if they are not familiar to us or not otherwise tied to us by some group identity in some way. Easier to steal from your neighbor than your spouse, easier to steal from a stranger than your neighbor, etc. As our societies have become more interconnected, you are beginning to see this empathetic ability be both stretched and challenged. Political issues of climate change, poverty, hunger, war, etc. are - at root - problems of conflicting tribal identities. Reconciling and moving past these tribal tendencies is the central challenge of the modern age - a challenge of which there is no guarantee of success.

Second, your posts show a deeply flawed understanding of genetics and evolutionary theory. We don't have "a gene" for empathy, altruism, selfishness, or any other behavioral trait. Even hair and eye color isn't dependent on single genes - so why would you expect complex social interactions to be dictated by single genes. Genes influence behavioral tendencies, how those particular tendencies manifest is heavily influenced by environment.

In your example above, your talking about tribes - so you have already skipped past and accepted the point I was talking about regarding the rise of genetic predispositions that would favor and influence group identification and "social" interactions. Indeed, in your example, the "altruistic" individual might very well be able to teach his behavior to others, and this behavioral model - as long as it does not conflict too strongly with the genetic behavioral tendencies of the larger group - may be passed down socially, through culture. Further if his tendency provides him with a social or other advantage, it might well provide an evolutionary advantage as well - i.e., women will want him and men will want to be him. This is not to say that such tendencies will be socially or evolutionarily advantageous in all situations - evolution is not a linear progression toward an ultimate goal (another misconception that those who don't understand the basics constantly get wrong).

If you are going to talk smack about evolution, you should read a few good books by biologists. I'd recommend starting with Dawkins's great "Climbing Mount Improbable," which I think is a vastly underrated work by him. Actually learning about how evolution works will provide you with better tools to critique it, and save you from making these truly pathetic and silly arguments that do nothing more than betray your own ignorance on the subject. That kind of stuff might play in front of an audience that is equally ignorant, but it falls completely flat when confronted with people who have even a decent cursory understanding of the theory and mechanisms by which it operates.

08/27/2008 02:29:08 PM · #338
Originally posted by RonB:

What is moral for God, is NOT necessarily moral for Man, because morality is a function of INTENT, not RESULTS. God's intent is ALWAYS moral; man's intent is sometime moral, sometimes not. Killing another human is sometimes moral ( self defence, accident ); sometimes not ( murder ). But be assured that if God takes a man's life, his intent is perfectly moral and righteous.

One can ACT morally at times, apart from a knowledge of God, just as one can obey the speed limit without knowing what the speed limit is. But if you KNOW the speed limit, then you have a greater ability to judge whether you are speeding or not. And if you KNOW God, then you have a greater ability to judge whether you are acting outside of God's prescribed morals or not, if you attune yourself to the leading of the Holy Spirit.


If what is moral for god is not necessarily moral for man, how can knowing god provide any guidance as to human moral behavior? We can't use god as a model, since he/she/it can act in ways that even you admit would be immoral for a human actor.

You say that you must "attune yourself to the leading of the Holy Spirit," but how do you know that you are in tune? Get any group - or heck, generally any two - religious believers in personal revelation together in a room and there will be disagreement as to what the moral action in any particular situation will be. All will claim that each knows that their preferred action is the moral choice because the "holy spirit" told them so. How do you decide which is correct, or, if you are in the room, how do you decide that your personal, sincere, and heartfelt moral intuition is the correct one, versus the other person's personal, sincere, and heartfelt moral intuition?

Others would say that they know what is moral by looking to the Bible. But the Bible is an ambiguous, contradictory, and often extremely poor moral guide if taken literally. There are parts that contain great moral teachings - the Sermon on the Mount is a radically moral teaching, for example, the dictates of which stand in sharp contrast to much of the rest of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, but even the New Testament. So how do you decide what parts you will follow - what parts are true moral teachings - and what parts you wont.

The answer, of course, is that you make moral judgments based on the general moral consensus of your community/peer group, personal experience, and direct observation, hopefully informed by your human ability to identify and empathize with others outside of yourself. Please note that this is the exactly the same way that atheists make moral judgments. Your religious belief does not define your morality, your moral beliefs define your religiosity.

08/27/2008 04:20:13 PM · #339
Originally posted by Sam94720:

Many of you (including NikonJeb) do not seem to distinguish between an experience and its explanation. I don't doubt any of your experiences. I merely don't understand why you prefer an extremely unlikely explanation lacking any evidence over a likely one.

Please stop twisting my words, stating that I said things that I didn't, and assuming that I have beliefs, or make decisions that I haven't.

I never said that I prefer an explanation when I don't have an answer; I do feel that some of my experiences indicate a possible explanation, but just because you don't share the same opinion does not make it less likely, nor does the celebrity status of your public debunker necessarily establish his veracity.

It is patently obvious that you feel that my experiences and opinions don't mean anything to you regardless of the fact that I really don't rave like an extremist, nor insist that it's all true......apparently, my recounting numerous experiences doesn't carry any weight with you whatsoever. That's fine, but just leave it at that, you've not been able to offer anything remotely credible to me to discount my experiences, so therefore you can hardly state that my explanation is any less likely.

Originally posted by Sam94720:

However, if you claim (like NikonJeb does) that telepathy exists, but is inconsistent, uncontrollable and unpredictable, then it's not a very useful or interesting phenomenon. If it's basically equal to coincidence I don't see its merit.

No, I did NOT claim that it IS, I stated that it's likely and possible, IMO.

I have been around long enough, and I am sharp enough to NOT make claims when I do not have the facts.

What I stated was that I was surprised that you would state that something that YOU do not even believe exists, should have the capability to be proven based on your assumption of how said nonexistent property will behave/happen/occur.

I pretty much do not think you have done much more than argue and try to refute things you have no experience with, do not believe to exist, and don't want to hear......that's fine, but you also seem to be completely unwilling to accept the possibility that these things could, and possibly do exist, unless your buddy Randi says so.

Good luck with that and PLEASE leave me out of it.

08/27/2008 04:53:08 PM · #340
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Many of you (including NikonJeb) do not seem to distinguish between an experience and its explanation. I don't doubt any of your experiences. I merely don't understand why you prefer an extremely unlikely explanation lacking any evidence over a likely one.

Please stop twisting my words, stating that I said things that I didn't, and assuming that I have beliefs, or make decisions that I haven't.

I never said that I prefer an explanation when I don't have an answer; I do feel that some of my experiences indicate a possible explanation, but just because you don't share the same opinion does not make it less likely, nor does the celebrity status of your public debunker necessarily establish his veracity.

It is patently obvious that you feel that my experiences and opinions don't mean anything to you regardless of the fact that I really don't rave like an extremist, nor insist that it's all true......apparently, my recounting numerous experiences doesn't carry any weight with you whatsoever. That's fine, but just leave it at that, you've not been able to offer anything remotely credible to me to discount my experiences, so therefore you can hardly state that my explanation is any less likely.

Again: I do not doubt or discount any of your experiences. You seem to have a hard time differentiating between the experience itself and its explanation. The latter issue seems to be the one where we disagree.

If I understand you correctly, your experiences lead you to believe that paranormal phenomena like a sixth sense exist. I therefore assume that you consider paranormal explanations for your experiences. You say something along the lines of "This could be an indication of paranormal events.". Alternatively, one could say "There must be a natural explanation for this." or "I have no idea what caused this, maybe one day I'll find out.". You seem to prefer a paranormal explanation over other possible explanations and I asked you why. A question you still haven't answered.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Sam94720:

However, if you claim (like NikonJeb does) that telepathy exists, but is inconsistent, uncontrollable and unpredictable, then it's not a very useful or interesting phenomenon. If it's basically equal to coincidence I don't see its merit.

No, I did NOT claim that it IS, I stated that it's likely and possible, IMO.

I have been around long enough, and I am sharp enough to NOT make claims when I do not have the facts.

What I stated was that I was surprised that you would state that something that YOU do not even believe exists, should have the capability to be proven based on your assumption of how said nonexistent property will behave/happen/occur.

I pretty much do not think you have done much more than argue and try to refute things you have no experience with, do not believe to exist, and don't want to hear......that's fine, but you also seem to be completely unwilling to accept the possibility that these things could, and possibly do exist, unless your buddy Randi says so.

Good luck with that and PLEASE leave me out of it.

It's not a question of belief. Telepathy either exists or it doesn't. So far, no credible evidence has shown up in support of its existence. I therefore assume that the phenomenon does not exist and I will base all decisions in my life (where the existence of telepathy might play a role) on the assumption that telepathy does not exist. I'm ready to change my mind the minute I'm presented with good evidence for the existence of telepathy.

There are thousands of phenomena like telepathy that lack any evidence, many of them contradicting each other. We can simply not live our lives based on the assumption that all these phenomena probably exist. What do you think of my skills to influence elections I mentioned above?
08/27/2008 05:20:07 PM · #341
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Please stop twisting my words, stating that I said things that I didn't, and assuming that I have beliefs, or make decisions that I haven't.

With respect, you've been challenged fairly, but have yet to respond directly. He is neither twisting your words, nor making assumptions about anything you yourself haven't stated.
08/27/2008 08:29:56 PM · #342
I give up.

You guys want to interpret my words in whatever manner you decide, yet when I tell you that the assumption that you made about MY explanations or understanding is incorrect, you argue with me.

My experiences and beliefs are subjective, based on the data and experiences themselves.

I've had various assorted experiences over many years under different circumstances and I'll just come to my own conclusions.

IN MY OPINION a sixth sense, as I understand the phrase, a moniker for an ethereal and unusual situation, exists, and seems to me to be the most reasonable explanation for what occurred.

I have considered more than not that there COULD be other explanations, but they really didn't work.

Despite assumptions being made here, AND as I stated REPEATEDLY before, I do NOT have to have an explanation.

Since by your own conclusions, with which I agree, there COULD be other explanations, I'm open to the possibility.......but I also don't think that these experiences fit any conventional explanation.

Knowledge has changed so much over time that I'm sorry, but just because there isn't a pat, concrete explanation that doesn't fit, it doesn't mean that there isn't something going on that we don't know.

The world isn't flat.....yet that was incontrovertible for a long time.

I have merely stated again and again that they have all the indicators to me of a sixth sense.

If you choose to decide that I'm all wet, fine, that's your choice.....BUT.....

Just because you've decided that because there's no documentation that it cannot possibly be so, you decide that I'm arriving at my conclusions based on whimsy.

All I wanted you to CONSIDER is that it's POSSIBLE.

Apparently, you won't.

Think what you will, I'm done.

Message edited by author 2008-08-27 20:36:58.
08/27/2008 09:44:18 PM · #343
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Many of you (including NikonJeb) do not seem to distinguish between an experience and its explanation. I don't doubt any of your experiences. I merely don't understand why you prefer an extremely unlikely explanation lacking any evidence over a likely one.

Please stop twisting my words, stating that I said things that I didn't, and assuming that I have beliefs, or make decisions that I haven't.

you noticed that too huh? :)
08/28/2008 03:35:12 AM · #344
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

The world isn't flat.....yet that was incontrovertible for a long time.

Yes, we know it's not flat because we have very good evidence to prove it's a sphere. This evidence was there all the time, but not easily accessible. The people claiming the world was flat had no evidence for their claim. A bit like you.

The NikonJeb of back then would have said "Based on my experiences I believe that the world is flat. It has all the indicators to me of being flat. This does not require scientific proof.".

While the Sam of back then would have said "I don't know if the world is flat or not. There's no evidence for it. Let's wait and try to find evidence for that.".

You're kinda shooting yourself in the foot with your analogy...

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I have merely stated again and again that they have all the indicators to me of a sixth sense.

Which would be? I'm interested in understanding your reasoning.

Originally posted by crayon:

you noticed that too huh? :)

If you think I misunderstood you, please correct me. Just yelling "Please stop twisting my words." is very unproductive, especially if the other person is merely asking questions.
08/28/2008 03:53:24 AM · #345
This is probably a bad time to jump in here with you boys and girls all fighting with each other over silly things, however I do have one thing to add so I will. I do not share this in support for or against a "sixth sense". It is merely an interesting and brief account of something that happened to me twenty-two years ago.

I was 7 years old and on the way to school. Sitting in the back seat of a clunky beaten up Ford Pinto. An ugly shade of mud brown. The A/C worked however.

My mother came to an intersection, the light was green. I suddenly felt sick to my stomach and yelled out to stop the car because I was going to puke. She pulled over.

A pickup truck doing what looked like 60 miles per hour flew through the red light just clipping the car that was in front of us. We would have been hit square on the side.

Each side of the road consisted of bushes and trees making it impossible to see the on coming traffic from either direction.

I felt better afterwards, though my mother continued to be shaken up by it for a few weeks.

People have explained that maybe I heard the car coming, or seen the reflection in the car in front of us, or just happened to get sick because of one too many bumps. I don't have an answer, I just know my mother and I are alive right now because I suddenly got sick.

Thanks for listening.
08/28/2008 04:06:51 AM · #346
Thanks for sharing, togtog. that's an interesting story.

08/28/2008 07:12:46 AM · #347
Originally posted by togtog:

This is probably a bad time to jump in here with you boys and girls all fighting with each other over silly things, however I do have one thing to add so I will. I do not share this in support for or against a "sixth sense". It is merely an interesting and brief account of something that happened to me twenty-two years ago.

I was 7 years old and on the way to school. Sitting in the back seat of a clunky beaten up Ford Pinto. An ugly shade of mud brown. The A/C worked however.

My mother came to an intersection, the light was green. I suddenly felt sick to my stomach and yelled out to stop the car because I was going to puke. She pulled over.

A pickup truck doing what looked like 60 miles per hour flew through the red light just clipping the car that was in front of us. We would have been hit square on the side.

Each side of the road consisted of bushes and trees making it impossible to see the on coming traffic from either direction.

I felt better afterwards, though my mother continued to be shaken up by it for a few weeks.

People have explained that maybe I heard the car coming, or seen the reflection in the car in front of us, or just happened to get sick because of one too many bumps. I don't have an answer, I just know my mother and I are alive right now because I suddenly got sick.

Thanks for listening.

Thanks for sharing, Tog. I don't doubt your story. The question is whether
- it was simply a lucky coincidence
- you somehow felt the danger (with an effect like the one described in the article BeeCee linked to)
- paranormal forces were at work.
We'll probably never know.

Please also note the following: If the truck had hit you and you had been killed, you wouldn't be around to tell us about the experience. It's a simple fact that those who listened to their "sixth sense" and got killed, those who prayed to their gods and got killed and those who tried miracle cures who killed them are not around to tell us about it. So we only hear the good stories. ;-)
08/28/2008 04:59:13 PM · #348
Well, I guess this will run and run. I thought it would have die a long time ago. But, there seems to be a group of experts here who know all the answers, regardless of what others have to say about their experiences.

If a sixth sense exists, great!!

If a sixth sense doesn't exist, then great!

Just let it rest. I thought this might have been an interesting thread, but it has become an ego trip for some and a denegration for others.

Please, can this thread be locked as it has become a mission for one or two members. Let's get back to photography!

Jeb, give it up, you are banging your head against a brick wall!

Message edited by author 2008-08-28 17:01:53.
08/28/2008 05:37:37 PM · #349
Originally posted by SteveJ:

Please, can this thread be locked as it has become a mission for one or two members. Let's get back to photography!



There's no need to try to tell other people what to do, if they want to stop, they'll stop posting and the thread will die a natural death.

If you're done here, you can just use the "ignore thread" function and it will disappear for you.

In fact, if you would like to "get back to photography", you can simply turn off the rant section of the forums.

08/28/2008 05:52:59 PM · #350
Originally posted by SteveJ:

Well, I guess this will run and run. I thought it would have die a long time ago.

It died about 10 hours ago. You just bumped it back to the home page. :-/
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 07:48:58 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 07:48:58 PM EDT.