I am a Healer - A "Click Finger" healer.

[fromdownunder]

"I am a genuine "click finger" healer.

I click my fingers and whoever I decide is healed will be healed, as long as they are known to me (by e-mail, snail mail, telepathy or any other natural or non-natural method that they happen to choose), and as long as the make me aware of the particular part of their body that is in danger."

I am asking any person on this board who accepts that there are different, and for want of a better term, unnatural cures for illnesses, or anything else for that matter, whether or not you are sceptical of my claim, or will you accept it as evidence that the Holy Word of "Click Fingering" is in fact proof that my claim is true. (I can make a video, if you like!

If you are sceptical, please explain why my claim is different to yours. If not, I have a very nice Opera House in Sydney for next weekend's Garage sale.

Norm

[Diabolos]

The million dollar prize is on its way. Who do we make the cheque out to?

[fromdownunder]

The million dollar prize is on its way. Who do we make the cheque out to?

My apologies if my OP was to subtle.

Norm

[Senex]

I'm a "pull my finger, don't ask questions" kind of person in need of healing.

I'm now a patient in need of a new audience.

[fromdownunder]

*sigh* Did anybody even understand what I was trying to say in the OP? Did anybody actually read it?

Norm

[Jackalgirl]

"I am a genuine "click finger" healer.

I click my fingers and whoever I decide is healed will be healed, as long as they are known to me (by e-mail, snail mail, telepathy or any other natural or non-natural method that they happen to choose), and as long as the make me aware of the particular part of their body that is in danger."

I am asking any person on this board who accepts that there are different, and for want of a better term, unnatural cures for illnesses, or anything else for that matter, whether or not you are sceptical of my claim, or will you accept it as evidence that the Holy Word of "Click Fingering" is in fact proof that my claim is true. (I can make a video, if you like!

If you are sceptical, please explain why my claim is different to yours. If not, I have a very nice Opera House in Sydney for next weekend's Garage sale.

Norm

Well, I'm not sure where you're going with this. Are you joking?

If not, when you ask "...any person on this board who accepts that there are different...unnatural cures for illnesses", what do you mean? By "unnatural" do you mean "magical"? Or "chemical, as opposed to 'natural' medicine"?

Then you say "...If you are skeptical, please explain why my claim is different from yours." How is being skeptical a claim? What claim do you think that someone who is skeptical of your claim has?

How does thinking that there might be "unnatural causes" (whatever "unnatural" means, in this context) for illness automatically translate into an acceptance that you can heal people by snapping your fingers?

I do think your OP is too subtle. Or just worded in too confusing and vague a manner. What are you asking?

[Rob Lister]

"I am a genuine "click finger" healer.

I click my fingers and whoever I decide is healed will be healed, as long as they are known to me (by e-mail, snail mail, telepathy or any other natural or non-natural method that they happen to choose), and as long as the make me aware of the particular part of their body that is in danger."

I am asking any person on this board who accepts that there are different, and for want of a better term, unnatural cures for illnesses, or anything else for that matter, whether or not you are sceptical of my claim, or will you accept it as evidence that the Holy Word of "Click Fingering" is in fact proof that my claim is true. (I can make a video, if you like!

If you are sceptical, please explain why my claim is different to yours. If not, I have a very nice Opera House in Sydney for next weekend's Garage sale.

Norm

I read it but could not completely parse paragraph two or sentence one of paragraph three. It appears you are being sarcastic or attempting to parody faith healing.

I'm not sure parody or sarcasm qualify for the prize.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I do not understand why the first two paragraph are enclosed in quotes.

~~ Paul

[fromdownunder]

Well, I'm not sure where you're going with this. Are you joking?

If not, when you ask "...any person on this board who accepts that there are different...unnatural cures for illnesses", what do you mean? By "unnatural" do you mean "magical"? Or "chemical, as opposed to 'natural' medicine"?

Then you say "...If you are skeptical, please explain why my claim is different from yours." How is being skeptical a claim? What claim do you think that someone who is skeptical of your claim has?

How does thinking that there might be "unnatural causes" (whatever "unnatural" means, in this context) for illness automatically translate into an acceptance that you can heal people by snapping your fingers?

I do think your OP is too subtle. Or just worded in too confusing and vague a manner. What are you asking?

OK, I failed, and badly. That's fine, I will try better next time.

You wanted to know what I was asking.

Where I was trying to go, was to establish whether or not a "type "A" woo would accept the beliefs of a "type B" woo.

I was trying to find out whether people who say, "believe" in Nosti, accept Von Daniken, Mary Ellen White, Joseph Smith, the Bermuda Triangle, aliens, Cayce, ad infinitum...actually believe in anything outside of their own personal worldview, and/or would accept the claims of the OP.

Everybody is sceptical of something. I doubt that any of the Randi $1 Million challengers would have defended my "-" OP. If there was a point to the OP (and being as self centered as I am :) , I think that there was), it comes back to the basic point that I was trying to make, which was.

Even true believers will balk, when a something they do not "believe in" steps in.

Norm

[Medb]

Wow, you've opened my eyes to the truth! The truth of something.

[casebro]

How much for the opera house? My plan would be to resell it to some tourist at a quick profit...

[Ladewig]

*sigh* Did anybody even understand what I was trying to say in the OP? Did anybody actually read it?

Norm


You have to wait more than three hours to get a number of responses. Especially when you post in the early morning hours (U.S. time) on a Saturday.

I understood the post, but even believers in alternative medicine can see a difference between ingesting some substance (even diluted substances or substances prescribed by sleeping prophets) and a person snapping one's fingers.

[Senex]

OK, I failed, and badly. That's fine, I will try better next time.

You wanted to know what I was asking.

Where I was trying to go, was to establish whether or not a "type "A" woo would accept the beliefs of a "type B" woo.

I was trying to find out whether people who say, "believe" in Nosti, accept Von Daniken, Mary Ellen White, Joseph Smith, the Bermuda Triangle, aliens, Cayce, ad infinitum...actually believe in anything outside of their own personal worldview, and/or would accept the claims of the OP.


It seems like woo is involved when a fellow is loaded for bear and no one is around to pull his finger. Pull my finger... PLEASE!

[JoeTheJuggler]

My apologies if my OP was to subtle.


To subtle or not to subtle, that is the question.

Sorry Norm, I didn't get what you were at either until your subsequent explanation.

The theme is something that interests me in the context of conventional religious belief. How can anyone who accepts on pure faith notions like virgin birth, resurrection of the body, etc. scoff at ANY other belief for which there is no supporting evidence? Yet they do--I see Catholics scoff at New Agers and psychics all the time.

What sort of filter do they have that lets some stuff in and keeps other stuff out? Surely they have to be aware that the primary reason they have the particular religious beliefs they have is because of the culture/family in which they were raised.

[fromdownunder]

Thanks Joe, The essential idea of my OP came from another Board (much quiter than this one) where I am debating a theist who reverts to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy every time a generally accepted Christian belief, or interpetation of the Bible, disagrees with his personal presuppositions.

This sort of thing becomes frustrating after a while, and led to my somewhat overly hasty written post, and using the fallacy as woo, rather than theism based.

I suppose the argument applies to conspiracy theorists as well. Does somebody who believes the 9/11 conspiracy also believe that Princess Di and Dodi were murdered etc. ?

Norm

[Oualawouzou]

Wouldn't posting on a board dominated by woos rather than by non-woos be a better way to get the answer you seek?

[Tricky]

OK, I failed, and badly. That's fine, I will try better next time.

You wanted to know what I was asking.

Where I was trying to go, was to establish whether or not a "type "A" woo would accept the beliefs of a "type B" woo.

I was trying to find out whether people who say, "believe" in Nosti, accept Von Daniken, Mary Ellen White, Joseph Smith, the Bermuda Triangle, aliens, Cayce, ad infinitum...actually believe in anything outside of their own personal worldview, and/or would accept the claims of the OP.

Everybody is sceptical of something. I doubt that any of the Randi $1 Million challengers would have defended my "-" OP. If there was a point to the OP (and being as self centered as I am :) , I think that there was), it comes back to the basic point that I was trying to make, which was.

Even true believers will balk, when a something they do not "believe in" steps in.

Norm
You probably picked the wrong forum for your experiment. This place isn't exactly swarming with believers, and the few that do come are usually trying to preach their own brand of belief. So if you start a thread with a bogus statement of belief, then you're probably going to be treated like most believers are treated here, which is to say, with skepticism. Like others here, I wasn't completely sure what you had intended by the OP. I'm glad to see that it was satire rather than yet another wooish belief.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Dawkins talks about this in The God Delusion. That the issue with "extremism" really is a problem with religion as a whole. You can't challenge or discuss the most bizarre beliefs because religion has a special place.

If you really believe the Bible (or Koran or whatever) is the revealed truth direct from God, then how come you don't join the violent extremists?

[fromdownunder]

Dawkins talks about this in The God Delusion. That the issue with "extremism" really is a problem with religion as a whole. You can't challenge or discuss the most bizarre beliefs because religion has a special place.

If you really believe the Bible (or Koran or whatever) is the revealed truth direct from God, then how come you don't join the violent extremists?

Joe, I do not accept the Bible as evidence of anything at all. However I am familiar with many Christian beliefs from both being an ex-Christian, and a Mod. on IIDB some years ago.

What I meant was that I would put a point that, for example RC's accept transubstantiation, and he would reply along the lines "then they are not true Christians. I would mention that some sects still accept (some of) the Penteteuch laws, and he would argue "well, Paul took us away from that so they are not....

You get the drift.

I specifically mentioned Christianity, because that is the area in which I am best able to formulate reponses - e.g., I am not qualified to take on the Koran, because while I have got one, I have not read it fully nor in critical detail.

Norm

[Soapy Sam]

fromdownunder.

You may not believe this- well , maybe you will- we get a lot of posts here that read very like the OP- and they are completely serious. Could be some of us have been here too long. We've become so used to genuine stupidity we no longer even suspect irony.

[fromdownunder]

Wouldn't posting on a board dominated by woos rather than by non-woos be a better way to get the answer you seek?

Had it been done without the disclaimer in para 3, and my failed joke in para 4, I would have considered that Trolling. It is easy enough to do, but it is something I have never done, and never will. Had I included the latter paras., it may have seen to be baiting..., and on boards that are not all that tolerant of genuine debate.

The other thing is what I call the "vomit factor". I am a regular reader of FSTDT, but if I was on any of the Boards from which these posts are harvested, I would be banned in, well ten minutes, if not five (except CF, where I ignore the extreme posters, and have fun with the moderates).

I know, my OP appeared to most readings that it was a pro-woo post, but it was not intended that way. That's my fault, as I have already explained, and apologised for. I genuinely thought my position was clear, and thought I had specifically addressed "true believers".

You suggested that this was not the forum to do it in, and I accept that. So, I can go nowhere with this.

Norm

[fromdownunder]

fromdownunder.

You may not believe this- well , maybe you will- we get a lot of posts here that read very like the OP- and they are completely serious. Could be some of us have been here too long. We've become so used to genuine stupidity we no longer even suspect irony.

Thanks for the response, Sam. I am beginning to wonder whether some of the very early responses even got past the first sentence of the OP, and especially, the (I thought) pretty obvious final sentence of the OP: "I have an Opera House for salel"

Hi Diabolos, Senex!

Norm

[JoeTheJuggler]

Joe, I do not accept the Bible as evidence of anything at all. However I am familiar with many Christian beliefs from both being an ex-Christian, and a Mod. on IIDB some years ago.


Sorry--I meant that as an impersonal "you" not . . um. . you.

[fromdownunder]

Sorry--

No need to Joe.

Norm

[Senex]

Thanks for the response, Sam. I am beginning to wonder whether some of the very early responses even got past the first sentence of the OP, and especially, the (I thought) pretty obvious final sentence of the OP: "I have an Opera House for salel"

Hi Diabolos, Senex!

Norm

Thanks for the
cyber finger pull. I needed it!

[Cuddles]

The obvious answer is to look at the conspiracy forum. Watching the truthers implode and start attacking each other more than anyone else should provide all the answer you need. New agers tend to be more tolerant of other people's beliefs, but take any woo and you will be able to find things they think are just too silly to believe in. The David Farrant thread is quite a nice example as well. He refuses to believe in dragons or fairies but happily believes in ghosts and mystical life energies, but cannot explain how any of these beliefs are actually any different. Or take the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I doubt you could find anyone (true Pastafarians exculded of course, all hail His noodly goodness) who doesn't immediately see this as a silly belief, but it is no different in essence from Christianity, and most other religions.

People are incredibly good at seeing flaws in other people's beliefs, but they are incredibly bad at seeing flaws in their own.