head-first
|
Re: Conclusions...Ronald Hutton
Nov 10, 2013, 21:45
|
This is a good question, and I can heartily recommend Ronald Hutton's new book by way of an answer. The title is 'Pagan Britain', and it evaluates much recent research in a very accessible way:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pagan-Britain-Ronald-Hutton/dp/0300197713/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1384119746&sr=1-1&keywords=hutton+pagan
|
Sanctuary
|
Re: Conclusions...Ronald Hutton
Nov 10, 2013, 22:21
|
|
head-first wrote:
Thanks HF, I'll certainly check that book out.
|
Astralcat
|
Re: [Off topic]
Nov 11, 2013, 07:13
|
|
nigelswift wrote: Astralcat wrote: Well.. you're all dealing with a level of reality that your materialistic construct does not allow. Me ? I'll continue to groove with the Ancients.
Actually, if we're competing as to whose level of reality is deepest and widest mine beats yours hands down because mine encompasses the possibility that you're right whereas yours doesn't include the possibility that I'M right. See? It's all about how open minded you are and I'm very, hence my stonking big materialist construct.
LOL! I never knew, and you never told me after all these years... ;-)
|
nigelswift
|
Re: [Off topic]
Nov 11, 2013, 08:20
|
No, seriously.
Dowsers always larrup "science" and "the current paradigm" for not encompassing the possibility of dowsing but of course it's not true, they do. The essence of science is a recognition that current understanding is conditional upon current evidence and may be supplanted at any moment by new evidence. It's dowsers that are the ones that won't accept any possibility they could be wrong.
|
Astralcat
|
Re: [Off topic]
Nov 11, 2013, 08:29
|
|
Problem is, and not just with dowsing, some things are outside our current understanding so adequate and appropriate testing becomes very difficult.
|
nigelswift
|
Edited Nov 11, 2013, 08:42
Re: [Off topic]
Nov 11, 2013, 08:40
|
|
Astralcat wrote: Problem is, and not just with dowsing, some things are outside our current understanding so adequate and appropriate testing becomes very difficult.
Very sorry to disagree but adequate and appropriate testing of an ability to dowse hidden objects couldn't be simpler. We don't need to know how it works to know IF it works.
|
Astralcat
|
Re: [Off topic]
Nov 11, 2013, 08:44
|
|
There's other more subtle factors involved. That's why dowsers work better in private, not under the pressure of scrutiny. There own results are what count. Contrary to how it may appear, I don't care or mind at all whatever a person does or does not give credence to in any are of the paranormal, or whether they think it's total bollocks. Fair enough, but I don't feel I have any obligation to defend what I believe within the confines and limits of what they believe either.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: [Off topic]
Nov 11, 2013, 09:15
|
|
Astralcat wrote: There's other more subtle factors involved. That's why dowsers work better in private, not under the pressure of scrutiny.
I can assure there are lots of ways of ensuring tests are entirely devoid of any pressure of scrutiny so the only thing stopping tests taking place is lack of willingness.
Astralcat wrote: There own results are what count.
Actually no, the opposite. Their own results count for nothing if a test that convinces others is required. If on the other hand they only wish to convince themselves and other dowsers then fine, self-conducted private tests are just the job.
|
Mustard
|
Edited Nov 11, 2013, 09:31
Re: [Off topic]
Nov 11, 2013, 09:28
|
|
Astralcat wrote: Mustard wrote: Astralcat wrote: It's both knowledge and tradition. Basic moral codes and guidelines, but it's up to the individual of course.
Bit like evangelical Christianity then?
Cheap shot and you know it. You're surfing you're own arrogance now.
Bye.
It seems like whenever anyone disagrees with you or asks you to explain yourself, then they're being arrogant. And eventually, you always seem to result to name-calling.
It wasn't a cheap shot. It was a serious comment. Born-again Christians would say exactly the same thing - knowledge, tradition, basic moral codes and guidelines. In exactly the same way as yourself, they are unable to produce any supporting evidence, and we are expected to accept "faith" as a substitute.
It's also interesting that you continue to call people arrogant, yet you're the one who is expecting others to accept your point of view with no supporting evidence. "I'm right, you're wrong". You have a very strange idea of arrogance.
|
Astralcat
|
Re: [Off topic]
Nov 11, 2013, 09:39
|
|
Mustard wrote: Astralcat wrote: Mustard wrote: Astralcat wrote: It's both knowledge and tradition. Basic moral codes and guidelines, but it's up to the individual of course.
Bit like evangelical Christianity then?
Cheap shot and you know it. You're surfing you're own arrogance now.
Bye.
It seems like whenever anyone disagrees with you or asks you to explain yourself, then they're being arrogant. And eventually, you always seem to result to name-calling.
It wasn't a cheap shot. It was a serious comment. Born-again Christians would say exactly the same thing - knowledge, tradition, basic moral codes and guidelines. In exactly the same way as yourself, they are unable to produce any supporting evidence, and we are expected to accept "faith" as a substitute.
It's also interesting that you continue to call people arrogant, yet you're the one who is expecting others to accept your point of view with no supporting evidence. "I'm right, you're wrong". You have a very strange idea of arrogance.
A serious comment or a dig/wind up ? I'm not sure, and as I've stated elsewhere, I don't expect anyone to have to believe what I do, and I certainly don't care about having to prove anything to them. I don't, and as for name calling, please! Arrogant ? I think it's arrogant to constantly expect someone to justify their own world view to your own personal satisfaction, or not.
|
