Did anyone else feel like he was trying to hard to act a part of someone seeing things? For me it was early in the documentary when he was being interviewed by the psychologist and he was trying to act uncomfortable. Now I understand that someone who is not an actor might come off as a "bad actor" but to me it just felt like he was playing up a part, it did not feel genuine.
Personally I think he is faking it. What do you guys think?
This was a terrible "documentary". The dingus never even really talks about his ability--which like you, I believe he's making it all up or is mentally ill. He's a complete narcissist and a big baby. I can't stand people like him in my life, they just suck the energy out of you, they have to stand out and no one ever understands them. And who the hell supports this guy? I was under the impression he doesn't work, and yet he's traveling and exploring spirituality. I'm sure it's quite obvious how much I hated this film.
shareCouldn't agree more. I think where his money comes from the parents who adopted him. When he goes to visit them they have a huge house and are clearly rich. I'm assuming they gave him money to make this movie.
shareOf course it's fake, the question is whether he's making it all up or he has a brain disorder we don't know about yet. He obviously doesn't actually see angels or demons. The funniest part was when he went to the electromagnetic imaging place run by two random shcmo's in their apartment who don't even speak English. Clearly they're the leading men to go to for definitive proof!
He's some rich kid who had overly religious parents, so his go to for what he's seeing, which again I think are a brain or optic problem, were going to be angels. He didn't go to ghosts or aliens or light beings or something, no he went right to 'they must be angels!' because of his upbringing...
"What? Do you wanna just sit around and be wrong?" - Liz Lemon
"He obviously doesn't actually see angels or demons."
How do you know?
Because its a physical impossibility to see things that arent real...
"What? Do you wanna just sit around and be wrong?" - Liz Lemon
How do you know they're not real?
shareGood point. Do you believe in santa or the tooth fairy too? By your own logic you must...
"What? Do you wanna just sit around and be wrong?" - Liz Lemon
Not at all. Your statement doesn't logically follow. I've made absolutely no claims whatsoever.
But, you didn't answer the question. How do you know they're not real? I want to know the logical mechanism you used to arrive at that conclusion.
Good lord your dense. Because there's no scientific evidence. Now answer the question of why you think ghosts are real but Santa isn't. There's equally as much evidence of both, why is one more legitimate? I didn't say you claimed anything, I said by using the same logic you did I arrived at a dubious conclusion...
"What? Do you wanna just sit around and be wrong?" - Liz Lemon
I never said I think either is fake or real. I just wanted to establish the fact that, as I suspected, you base your assertions entirely on an informal logical fallacy - specifically, on an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
"I didn't say you claimed anything, I said by using the same logic you did I arrived at a dubious conclusion"
Anything proposed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. As I already explained, the logic of 'prove ghosts AREN'T real!' for some reason not being applied to other fantasy creatures. It's very obvious, you just don't have an answer for it and want to beat around the bush and talk technicalities rather than say 'I don't know why I don't apply the same reasoning to santa.'
PS: I know you're vs your, I was on a smartphone with autocorrect. But the grammar correction is always the last breath of a dying debate. It shows you've literally got nothing left to add to the convo and are nitpicking in order to make you look better...
"What? Do you wanna just sit around and be wrong?" - Liz Lemon
Anything proposed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
It's very obvious, you just don't have an answer for it
But the grammar correction is always the last breath of a dying debate.
I didn't make the INITIAL claim, I want to assume you can't possibly be that dense. Within the very minimal parameters of this thread I did, but not in general. You know this and are again wasting time by talking technicalities rather than admit you don't know why you don't apply the same logic to the existence of santa. A question which you've ignored enough times that I can only assume you don't have an answer. You know the proof is on those claiming paranormal entities to be real. To say otherwise is arguing logic and is therefore pointless.
Of course you don't have anything to back up so far, you haven't SAID anything yet! All you've done is ask the skeptic for proof these things DON'T exist, as if that's how it in works in any possible scenario.
You're like a child who talks in circles, my 10 year old does it all the time when called on something that doesn't make sense...
"What? Do you wanna just sit around and be wrong?" - Liz Lemon
I didn't make the INITIAL claim
He obviously doesn't actually see angels or demons.
...rather than admit you don't know why you don't apply the same logic to the existence of santa.
You know the proof is on those claiming paranormal entities to be real.
All you've done is ask the skeptic for proof these things DON'T exist, as if that's how it in works in any possible scenario.
You're like a child who talks in circles, my 10 year old does it all the time when called on something that doesn't make sense...
Okay, let me help you out. You can't prove a negative. Its logically impossible. Like, if I said, "Prove elephants were never in this room!" you couldn't do it. However, in scientific parlance, its totally okay to use a shorthand here. Like, lets say I'm plotting a flight for an airplane and somebody says, "Hey, are you taking into account Santa's flight path?" and I say, "No. You're an idiot" and he says, "Well, why not?" and I say, "Because Santa doesn't exist. You're an idiot" and he says, "How can you KNOW Santa doesn't exist?" and I say, "I can't prove that, because you can't prove a negative, but for the purpose of hard data and facts available, I can safely say, Santa doesn't exist. And you're an idiot".
So, when somebody says "Angels don't exist" what they are saying is, "No data currently exists to support the existence of angels, therefore, I can discount them out of hand until such time as data becomes available."
Now, as a matter of personal prerogative, feel free to take into account every angel, demon, Santa Claus, mermaid, whatever, into your equations. Just don't try to say you're being logical when you do it.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Being conservative isn't just about being heartless. Its also about ignoring data and facts.
I've come to the conclusion that for the purposes of science,the existence or nonexistence of God is a non-issue. Science is a system of problem solving that seeks apply the best possible observational and analytical tools to the testing of a hypothesis. It doesn't matter if we are enmeshed in a lattice of God or a lattice of chance and/or chaos the task of science is the same.
Atheism isn't a scientific assertion, it is a matter of belief or nonbelief in a potentially unprovable concept. The ability to make fun of an idea/ does not refute the idea.
"We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." Anais Ninshare
[deleted]
"Like, if I said, "Prove elephants were never in this room!" you couldn't do it."
So, when somebody says "Angels don't exist" what they are saying is, "No data currently exists to support the existence of angels, therefore, I can discount them out of hand until such time as data becomes available."
Anything proposed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
As somebody who went through something similar, I think he is being as honest as he can be while trying to describe something impossible to people who have no idea what it is like...
shareThank you, williamjknox, I was beginning to think everyone on here was a cynical, close-minded person...
You all who are saying "he's faking it there's no way he can see spirits lol" are obviously people who haven't had any spiritual experiences of any kind. I have had one pretty significant experience, which as Jonas said, was basically a switch being flipped on in my brain to a different type of consciousness. While my experience was fleeting, I saw things and felt things that almost two years later, have changed (and still are in the process of changing) my life for the better. Before this experience, I was very cynical just as you all are, and as non-religious and doubtful as they come. In a group meditation, I suddenly was hit with a startling realization, followed by a sensation, visuals, and then a flood of epiphanies in which knowledge I had never thought about or heard before suddenly came to me. For days and weeks afterwards, I was "connected" to a source that I at the time was very confused by, yet I knew in my heart that everything that was "coming to me" was true, and I wrote down mostly everything that came into my mind, and it was as if someone else was writing it. I believe now, that I was channelling something or someone, and many events since then have happened, affirming my beliefs in the other realm and what it can bring to our earthly plane.
Have I seen angels, spirits, or otherworldly beings? No, I have not. Have I seen auras, energies, lights, around people? No, I wish! For me, it is more of a feeling, an inclination, and it is very difficult sometimes to differentiate between intuition and "wishful thinking," but more often than not, these inclinations are correct. I also receive information in the form of messengers (people who deliver information relevant to me, often unknowingly) and synchronistic events, or "signs". I have come to find in my readings and studies on spirituality, psychic phenomenon, and divine communication, that there are several ways for someone to be psychic. It appears that Jonas is HEAVILY clairvoyant (meaning he sees visuals) and also clairaudient (hearing voices as well). He probably has other psychic channels open as well, such as claircognizance (suddenly knowing something without knowing how) and clairsentience (feeling emotions of others).
People are all over the psychic spectrum, even if they realize it or not - some are just more tuned into the psychic channels than others, and some have a thicker "veil" between our dimension and the other dimensions. Did any of the people in this film seem "crazy" to you? To me, they all seem like rational adults, who are actually extremely intelligent, open-minded, and even though they are firm with their beliefs - acknowledge how crazy it seems and that they actually still have a lot to learn. When I relate my experiences to others, I immediately feel like what I am saying is nuts, because in society we are conditioned to believe that anything outside of the realm of science or something that can be proven is not real. Why else do you think those "Joe Schmoes" are in that apartment doing this spiritual photography stuff? Did you think that maybe they cannot have a career in what they are doing because other people think they are looney as well? Most of the people who are on this type of path do their work for free, or just for the sheer interest and possibility of unearthing some small piece of new wisdom or experience. Who cares if they are in a "random apartment"? So much misplaced judgment and skepticism...
Also, to address the whole Santa comparison - that is not a useable analogy. Santa is KNOWN by EVERYONE (well, except children who are lied to) to be fake. He is a creation, a story, a fable, a tradition, etc. He is MADE UP. The phenomena of ghosts, angels, spirits, demons, etc. are experiences and stories that have existed throughout humankind's time on this earth. Literally every culture has had some kind of "paranormal" being or beings that they worshipped, gained knowledge from, lived by, etc. Not to mention, the ENORMOUS amount of experiences, stories, and first-hand accounts that MODERN DAY people have had (including myself), many of whom did not believe in anything spiritual beforehand, and were just thrust onto the spiritual path unexpectedly and many times reluctantly. How do you explain thousands, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people that have all had experiences with spirituality, the afterlife, energies, spiritual beings, etc.? Mass psychosis? Mass hallucinations? I suggest you watch films on near death experiences, DMT, out of body experiences, and other such things and perhaps read some books about similar matters before shutting your mind off to the idea that perhaps something greater can exist than what is right in front of you.