Mike375, a couple of comments come to mind - and I will try to keep on topic and at the same time respectful.
First, atheists don't disbelieve everything. Our approach is that if you see something unusual, it is grounds for further investigation. Because we don't think we know everything. (At least most of us don't...) We are willing to test something according to organized and directed inquiry, research, testing, etc. Such inquiry might lead to a new discovery. Our belief is that new phenomena, even those that look like magic, can be studied and turned into a decent new sublect of science.
Think of it - one day, we'll talk about the Mike375 Syndrome as a reference to subject-specific precognition. (Sorry, it wouldn't be telepathy based on your description of how it works.) You might see if there is a local representative of the Rhine Institute in your area. They could help you rigorously test this ability. Be warned that if they think you are a charlatan, they can be rough on your ego. But if you are serious, they might listen.
The second comment has to do with your response to Alisa's request for evidence, to which you replied, "Just look around." I understand exactly what you are saying but the problem is that such evidence is not unequivocal. (Sorry for the implied double negative there.)
What you see around you can have occurred in either of two ways (at least), and they are moderately to totally incompatible. If God created everything around us, that's how it got that way. If everything evolved through natural forces, then that's how it got that way. But how do you tell? THAT is the real question.
Let me try to explain the problem this way. Suppose that I told you I just rolled a pair of dice that came up as boxcars (two 6-spots), say, 50 times in a row. How did that happen? The odds are astronomically against it. Which gives me two mutually exclusive choices to consider.
1. The throws were honest and I just had an incredible good string of luck.
2. I used some other trick to make it happen because chance had nothing to do with it. Such as a pair of loaded dice or a trick flip of the wrist that prevents the dice from rolling, only spinning on their vertical axes.
Assuming that you even believe I performed the 50 throws that came up 12 as I claimed, you then have to decide after the fact whether #1 or #2 was the cause.
In the case of #1, if it happened as an honest set of throws, then the odds are immaterial after the fact. Odds only talk about prediction, not about explanation of the past. If it happened, the odds are unity i.e. 100% - after the fact. Therefore, saying that something is so improbable as to be impossible to have happened in a given way is meaningless - if it really happened that way. And if it didn't happen, you were right about the odds. The point is that probability ISN'T symmetrical with respect to time. Everything that happened has a probability of 100% after the fact. That isn't true for events that haven't happened yet.
In the case of #2, some extra influence directed the result. Again, the odds don't matter because they were never a factor anyway. The result occurred because of some artifice or action that affected the movement of the dice.
Well, the analogy is that #1 is evolution and #2 is God.
When we ask for evidence, it isn't enough to say, "Well I made 50 throws of boxcars." We need to see the dice or examine your throwing technique. Saying "Look at what happened" doesn't tell us squat about how it happened. It's an apples answer to an oranges question.
Which is why when you say "Look around" as evidence, it is not evidence as to mechanism. Saying "Look around" tells us where we are, not how we got there. But "how did we get here" is the exact nature of the question between God and evolution. How did we get where we are today? Saying "look where we are today" doesn't address the issue.
Does that help you understand why Alisa's question keeps repeating itself?
matches what is comoing on the radio and you remember that.
