A Failure to Communicate

[BillyJoe]

This weeks commentary has the following quote from a letter by a Believer to an Unbeliever, namely Randi (although he is a Bright now ;) ).....

I don't recall asking a question here, but were there any question I'd ask you, same as anyone else who claims they want to know something, yet can't seem to find it, it would be along the lines of the following: If there WERE something to be found of a supernatural sort, any sort, then upon finding for oneself such existed would obviously mean that if one otherwise known before thing as impossible to exist, did exist, then it stands to reason it could also be said that other impossible things could as well. True?? Sure......why not??

A question for you? Here's one since you asked for one: Why do you, and so many others now and in the past, look to one another for things that none of you neither have, nor even truly seek? Especially, when you're all as blind as the next, and led by the opposite of what you claim to seek?

The answer is obvious, Mr. Randi.... you actually could [sic] care less about finding a way to obtain an ultimate reward for yourself. As for your so-called "search".......you seek only to serve the flesh, cause it's the ONLY thing you know, and you love it more than the thought of anything beyond physical life, which is actually death in the long haul.

Too bad, sir....... regardless of whether you were truly seeking for yourself answers or not, I'd have gladly, and willingly handed over to one who could, and WOULD do the job of showing the world what I have to show them.... I cannot see you fulfilling such a task, much less ever choosing to know for yourself the truth once and for all. Too bad...Randi says he cannot decipher the meaning of these four paragraphs and fears he may have missed something important because of this failure to communicate.

Can we help him?

[BillyJoe]

I'll take the easy one...

Paragraph 3

The answer is obvious, Mr. Randi.... you actually could [sic] care less about finding a way to obtain an ultimate reward for yourself. As for your so-called "search".......you seek only to serve the flesh, cause it's the ONLY thing you know, and you love it more than the thought of anything beyond physical life, which is actually death in the long haul. Translation: You, Randi, are not interested in going to heaven. You would rather have just have sex.

Moral: Give up sex, Randi, and you can go to heaven after you die.

Okay, Mr. Randi did you miss something important here? :D

BillyJoe

[Chad Noles]

Ok,I'll take a crack at this....

Paragraph One:
I don't recall asking a question here, but were there any question I'd ask you, same as anyone else who claims they want to know something, yet can't seem to find it, it would be along the lines of the following: If there WERE something to be found of a supernatural sort, any sort, then upon finding for oneself such existed would obviously mean that if one otherwise known before thing as impossible to exist, did exist, then it stands to reason it could also be said that other impossible things could as well. True?? Sure......why not??

Translation:I don't recall (you?/or me??) asking a question here,but (if?) there were any question I'd ask you,(It would be?) the same (one,I'd ask ?) anyone else who claims (that?) they want to know something (the truth?),yet (they?) can't seem to find it. ....[breath]
It would be along the lines of :If there were (actually) something of a supernatural sort to be found...(and you found accurate results of some phenomia that was previously undiscovered,then it stands to reason that there are other previously undiscovered phenomia that could exist also.)True??Sure ........why not???

Ok,I think that is the jist of it.Break time.:teacher:

[Chad Noles]

Ok,trying again..

Paragraph Two: A question for you? Here's one since you asked for one: Why do you, and so many others now and in the past, look to one another for things that none of you neither have, nor even truly seek? Especially, when you're all as blind as the next, and led by the opposite of what you claim to seek?

Translation:A question for you?Here's (a question) one since you asked for one:Why do you,and so many others now and in the past,look to one another for things (spiritual phenomia?)that none of you (skeptics?) neither have,nor even truly seek?Especially, when you're all as blind (to spiritualism?)as the next(skeptic?) and (are?) led by the opposite(logic?,skepticism?) of what you claim to seek[investigate?].

It sounds to me like he's asking "How can a skeptic truly investigate spirituality when they have none".Again,this is what I think he's saying.Do they have a babelfish for this stuff?:p

[Chad Noles]

And finally:

Too bad, sir....... regardless of whether you were truly seeking for yourself answers or not, I'd have gladly, and willingly handed over to one who could, and WOULD do the job of showing the world what I have to show them.... I cannot see you fulfilling such a task, much less ever choosing to know for yourself the truth once and for all. Too bad...

Translation:Too bad sir...regardless of whether you were truly seeking (answers) for yourself or not,I'd have gladly and willingly,handed (you?) over to one(Jesus?) who could,and WOULD do the job of showing the world what I have to show them(exhibit salvation to the world?????)..........I cannot see you fulfilling such a task,much less ever choosing to know for yourself the truth once and for all.Too bad...

I think he's implying the Christain salvation thing,although I could be wrong.It may also be that he claims that he can prove some phenomia is real,but doubts that Randi would be the proper one to reveal the proof to the world since he is a skeptic???

This last paragraph could go several different ways.I'm not sure I got the meaning correct or not.It was just my best guess at it.:(

[DrMatt]

Here's my guess on what he's trying to say:

"If something paranormal were proved, would you accept it? and would proof of one thing paranormal make other paranormal things seem more plausible?"

The answers are, respectively, yes and no, of course, but this is a useless line of reasoning. Show us the goods!

[Suezoled]

Here's mine: if you, Mr Randi, can't see I'm a big windbag who can't ask a straight question, why can't you see I'm asking about spiritual things that you don't accept but could be real anyway? Aren't you being short sighted about your views, so could possible be wrong that way?

[BillyJoe]

DrMatt,

Originally posted by DrMatt
Here's my guess on what he's trying to say:

"If something paranormal were proved, would you accept it? and would proof of one thing paranormal make other paranormal things seem more plausible?"

The answers are, respectively, yes and no, of course, but this is a useless line of reasoning. Show us the goods! I don't know about that.
If I was shown conclusive proof of a particular paranormal event, I think I would be much more open to the possibility of other paranormal events.
Why would that not be the case for you?

BillyJoe

[Hannibal]

I suspect because there is such a high level of disparity between the various branches of the paranormal.

If I prove that "chi" exists it has no-bearing at all on UFO's. Same with ghosts. If I prove pre-cognition it has no connection with cryptzoology.

The aim is not to prove/disprove EVERYTHING under one banner - it can't be done. It is to prove/disprove things on their own merits.

[Hexxenhammer]

I think Lifegazer wrote that letter. The whole "you can't accept the truth...too bad" bit is his style.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Hannibal
I suspect because there is such a high level of disparity between the various branches of the paranormal.

If I prove that "chi" exists it has no-bearing at all on UFO's. Same with ghosts. If I prove pre-cognition it has no connection with cryptzoology.

The aim is not to prove/disprove EVERYTHING under one banner - it can't be done. It is to prove/disprove things on their own merits. Yeah but if it can be shown via evidence that, for example, psychics exists, then the laws of physics are out the window and anything goes and I would be more open to, for example, clairvoyance, telepathy, perhaps even telekinesis.

[critter42]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Yeah but if it can be shown via evidence that, for example, psychics exists, then the laws of physics are out the window and anything goes and I would be more open to, for example, clairvoyance, telepathy, perhaps even telekinesis.

I must differ. Proving that psychics exist does NOT mean that the laws of physics "are out the window". The "laws" would be expanded or modified to accomodate the new observed phenomena.

Newtonian physics weren't thrown out the window when Hertz discovered the photoelectric effect - it was set aside as currently unexplained, until Planck put forth his quantum theory and Einstein refined it, setting the groudwork for the development of quantum physics.

critter42

[BillyJoe]

critic,

Thank you for dedicating your first post to me :)

Well, in the world of our everyday experiences, Newton's laws are an extremely good approximation but there is also a sense in which they are INDEED out the window. Nevertheless I take your point. However, this line of argument is really tangential to the point of my post. But nevermind.

BillyJoe