Poll: Can you view auras?

[Mizaki]

Lol I love how people think they can tell another person what they see and don't see. That's just amazing.

The notion that science can explain everything and that their idea of reality is the only one is very close-minded. Battling theory with pessimistic theory is not a form of truth. There are things many people see that they cannot explain and were not told it was there prior to seeing it, and there is no amount of intellectual elitism that can suddenly make it go away. Alot of people don't talk about it or can't explain it because of the incredibly rude attitudes people possess toward things that they don't understand.

 

[beddo]

For years people have thought I was making things up as I would tell them that I can see things around people. These things I had later defined as "AURAS" or "QI". Apparently This is not overly common. I have learned to use this in many advantageous situations, for example I have a strangely accurate ability to find people in an area even if I cant see them. I simply feel if a person is there or not. If this feeling gets strong I can see a very slight color displacement around their person (or if it is dark, where their person should be). Can anyone else elaborate their feelings on this? Maybe someone else has this unique ability, do you care to share? What do you think?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aura_(paranormal)

Why is there no option for; 'I don't believe in auras'?

You say you can find people you can't see and you do so by looking at a colour displacement around them, this is a contradiction, you either can see someone or you can't. Even if you can see people's auras, how do you distinguish one from the crowd with all that other aurial visual noise?

There is no science behind this claim. What do you think makes you special over anyone else that you can see these 'auras'? If people truely give off a field that can be seen in colour then it could be measured as visible light. If so then why is this not documented by any credible source? They must be a source of energy and would hence be observable, but they are not.

This is all a fabrication, you want to believe it to such an extent that you have deluded yourself to either manipulate what you are seeing or the interpretations thereof.

Sorry, auras do not exist.

 

[kickin wiing]

I feel people... then usally get slapped.

haha! Man that was awesome.

Anyway, I have a friend who claims to see these auras. She always tries to see mine but it usually results in her just awkwardly staring at me....and me awkwardly staring at her boobs.......*drool*

 

[UsefulPlayer 1]

Hmmmm......

Hmmmmmmmmm.......

HHHHMMMMmmMMMMMHHMHMmhmMhmhMMHMM.......

meh......



Its all good.

 

[Cliff_m85]

Delusion, pure and simple. James Randi has a cool million for you if you can prove it. He's dealt with 'aura readers' before. It's all just nonsense.

 

[Mizaki]

Why is there no option for; 'I don't believe in auras'?

Because this thread wasn't made for people who don't.

 

[PyriteOkio]

Close my eye and focus and I'll see a small colour come off em, can't visually see em. You can feel them like hell though.

 

[incrediblegeek]

There's nothing to discuss. It's bunk and that's proven.

Unless you can prove otherwise, of course.

I don't care whether its been proven or not (here's a hint Einstein: send him a link or something)....don't go flaming stuff just because you can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39PM03iVbqE
James Randi. If any one can prove they have this ability, he'll give them a million dollars. No one's won. Ever.

You honestly don't need proof? Sad.

 

[PyriteOkio]

True that theres people who can see sound. I forget the condition, but it was on discovery.

 

[Seldon2639]

Lol I love how people think they can tell another person what they see and don't see. That's just amazing.

The notion that science can explain everything and that their idea of reality is the only one is very close-minded. Battling theory with pessimistic theory is not a form of truth. There are things many people see that they cannot explain and were not told it was there prior to seeing it, and there is no amount of intellectual elitism that can suddenly make it go away. Alot of people don't talk about it or can't explain it because of the incredibly rude attitudes people possess toward things that they don't understand.

In the true fairness you seem to seek, I'd ask for an example of something that "people see but they cannot explain" which is confirmed reality. It's not a lack of *understanding* about "auras" or "premonition", merely a healthy skepticism. I fully understand the *idea* of the supernatural, there's simply no proof for its existence. Believe what you will, but you'll find this is a wretched hive of logic and evidence.

So, instead, let's put our cards on the table. I've neither seen a supernatural event myself, nor been presented with one which cannot be explained by the reality the rest of us see. Most of the time, it can be explained by simple chance. On that note, I must fall back on Ockham's Razor:

"entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity".

In this case, given that I can explain these events without having to involve the preternatural elements, what logical cause would I have to assume the preternatural elements were involved?

If you lose your wallet, is your first assumption that it was stolen by a thief? If you find that it was stolen, is your first assumption that it was stolen by a ghost thief?

Edit:

Why is there no option for; 'I don't believe in auras'?

Because this thread wasn't made for people who don't.

As far as I'm aware, you didn't post a disclaimer at the beginning saying "Can you view auras (if you believe they exist)?" You opened this discussion to the skeptics; if you want to exclude us from the discussion, and have an echo camber of "dude, this is so weird, I've seen them too. I thought I was crazy" that's fine, but don't try to pretend like you said that from the get-go.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

Naysayers it's possible.

People are hot after all (temperature wise). Heat creates radiation, all you need to see glowing people is a slightly broader range of vision than the average human.

 

[Snowalker]

Please take your bullshit elsewhere.

I'm sorry, I didn't see a sign that said you couldn't discuss this subject.

There's nothing to discuss. It's bunk and that's proven.

Unless you can prove otherwise, of course.

Actually, how is it bunk? it clearly says the person must be able to see his target, the tests consealed the targets.

 

[Seldon2639]

Please take your bullshit elsewhere.

I'm sorry, I didn't see a sign that said you couldn't discuss this subject.

There's nothing to discuss. It's bunk and that's proven.

Unless you can prove otherwise, of course.

Actually, how is it bunk? it clearly say the person must eb able to see his target, the tests consealed the targets.

Wait a tick. You're saying that if you can *see* a person, you can see them using their *aura*? If an aura is radiating off of a person, you should be able to see it around an object (the same way you could if their torso was obscured, but not their arm). Otherwise, it's just seeing the person, isn't it?

 

[Mizaki]

In the true fairness you seem to seek, I'd ask for an example of something that "people see but they cannot explain" which is confirmed reality.

This request is doomed to fail. I was just about to think of some but 'confirmed reality' is a tough thing to actually determine because perception varies from one person to another, and when one assumes theirs is the only one or that they can themselves define it, it isn't worth it to actually bring up examples, especially since the criteria required for something to be what I am asked to list makes it already something easily shot down.

It's not a lack of *understanding* about "auras" or "premonition", merely a healthy skepticism.

Skepticism is no longer healthy when it becomes condescending and rude.

I fully understand the *idea* of the supernatural, there's simply no proof for its existence. Believe what you will, but you'll find this is a wretched hive of logic and evidence.

The appetite for proof of things one already does not believe in happens to be a voracious one.

So, instead, let's put our cards on the table. I've neither seen a supernatural event myself, nor been presented with one which cannot be explained by the reality the rest of us see. Most of the time, it can be explained by simple chance.

Hence varying from person to person. If everyone could percieve things others cannot, wouldn't that make it the norm and therefore not a topic to debate?

In this case, given that I can explain these events without having to involve the preternatural elements, what logical cause would I have to assume the preternatural elements were involved?

There are always questions, always things people did not see prior to events. Even if one firmly sits in the real world and does not believe in anything else, they are also guessing if the entire event had not been presented to them. The imagination does not only have extremes. The unknown will always exist, no matter how much people think they know.

If you lose your wallet, is your first assumption that it was stolen by a thief? If you find that it was stolen, is your first assumption that it was stolen by a ghost thief

This was an attempt to make it look stupid.

And even after all that typing, I could've just reposted my first post.

EDIT: I am not the original poster.

 

[incrediblegeek]

Please take your bullshit elsewhere.

I'm sorry, I didn't see a sign that said you couldn't discuss this subject.

There's nothing to discuss. It's bunk and that's proven.

Unless you can prove otherwise, of course.

Actually, how is it bunk? it clearly says the person must be able to see his target, the tests consealed the targets.

Sounds conveniently like a way to avoid being tested and proven false.

"In another test, which was televised,[14] an "aura reader" was placed before a partition where five people were standing. He claimed that he could see their auras from behind the partition. As each person moved out, the reader was asked to identify where that person was standing behind the slot. He succeeded in identifying only 2 out of 5."

The link [14], by the way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZeQGld5QBU

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

See auras? No. Detect a presence? Yes. I can feel when people are behind me, or around me when its dark.

Which comes from smell, and sound.

 

[Seldon2639]

In the true fairness you seem to seek, I'd ask for an example of something that "people see but they cannot explain" which is confirmed reality.

This request is doomed to fail. I was just about to think of some but 'confirmed reality' is a tough thing to actually determine because perception varies from one person to another, and when one assumes theirs is the only one or that they can themselves define it, it isn't worth it to actually bring up examples, especially since the criteria required for something to be what I am asked to list makes it already something easily shot down.

It's not a lack of *understanding* about "auras" or "premonition", merely a healthy skepticism.

Skepticism is no longer healthy when it becomes condescending and rude.

I fully understand the *idea* of the supernatural, there's simply no proof for its existence. Believe what you will, but you'll find this is a wretched hive of logic and evidence.

The appetite for proof of things one already does not believe in happens to be a voracious one.

So, instead, let's put our cards on the table. I've neither seen a supernatural event myself, nor been presented with one which cannot be explained by the reality the rest of us see. Most of the time, it can be explained by simple chance.

Hence varying from person to person. If everyone could percieve things others cannot, wouldn't that make it the norm and therefore not a topic to debate?

In this case, given that I can explain these events without having to involve the preternatural elements, what logical cause would I have to assume the preternatural elements were involved?

There are always questions, always things people did not see prior to events. Even if one firmly sits in the real world and does not believe in anything else, they are also guessing if the entire event had not been presented to them. The imagination does not only have extremes. The unknown will always exist, no matter how much people think they know.

If you lose your wallet, is your first assumption that it was stolen by a thief? If you find that it was stolen, is your first assumption that it was stolen by a ghost thief

This was an attempt to make it look stupid.

And even after all that typing, I could've just reposted my first post.

EDIT: I am not the original poster.

And now we're at the core of the issue. In order to justify your position, you have to treat very close (if not past) the "all of reality is subjectively perceived" line that Hume drew. That's fine, but it's pretty much the end of any reasonable discussion. It could be that there are those who can perceive that which (a) the vast majority of humanity cannot, and (b) that no controlled test has been able to either replicate, nor confirm the perception of, but that seems less likely. Once again, we're back to Ockham, and I'll ask the question again:

Which requires fewer unnecessary entities: that these powers don't exist, or that these powers do exist, but they cannot be shown to anyone else in a controlled environment, nor confirmed in any way, shape, or form, except by the word of the person who has them?

I'm with the other guy. If you can prove you've got this power, James Randi's got a cool million for you.

Edit: 1.14 million, in point of fact.

 

[Trace2010]

There's nothing to discuss. It's bunk and that's proven.

Unless you can prove otherwise, of course.

I don't care whether its been proven or not (here's a hint Einstein: send him a link or something)....don't go flaming stuff just because you can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39PM03iVbqE
James Randi. If any one can prove they have this ability, he'll give them a million dollars. No one's won. Ever.

You honestly don't need proof? Sad.

Less sad than your last question: You misunderstood what I said and why I said it. Read my last post again, genius. Or the one before that, if you would prefer.

 

[incrediblegeek]

There's nothing to discuss. It's bunk and that's proven.

Unless you can prove otherwise, of course.

I don't care whether its been proven or not (here's a hint Einstein: send him a link or something)....don't go flaming stuff just because you can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39PM03iVbqE
James Randi. If any one can prove they have this ability, he'll give them a million dollars. No one's won. Ever.

You honestly don't need proof? Sad.

Less sad than your last question: You misunderstood what I said and why I said it. Read my last post again, genius. Or the one before that, if you would prefer.

This stuff is junk science, period. Sorry if you can't see that.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

Naysayers it's possible.

People are hot after all (temperature wise). Heat creates radiation, all you need to see glowing people is a slightly broader range of vision than the average human.

You can see energy traveling through a medium?