Purpose of "The Skeptical Druid" (was: Otherworld...)

[Huathe]

Bartholomew,

I don't always want a debate either, but I often get one. Especially here.

Many would be put off on some areas here. With all of the belief differences present here there are bound to be strife. But civility should not be that hard to achieve. While differences in druids are many I find it more productive to focus on our commonalities. In that what makes us " druids ".

Concerning the OBOD Druid Grove forum, I noticed the waiver " The opinions expressed on this board do not necessarily represent those of OBOD or it's membership ". This implies that all spoken here is not agreed upon by OBOD and it's members. Many, as myself are not OBOD. I am an NOD Druid. I have wondered what credentials DJ Drood has. I don't see an OBOD course ranking near his avatar. After all, he is among the most vocal here. He may be a " Hedge Druid " and I see nothing wrong with that.

Personally, I would not stop taking the OBOD course based on what you see on this forum. Do it for yourself. I would continue even if I stopped using the board completely. If it is the money or if you don't think it is quite what you want than I recommend the courses offered by the Grove of Dana. The New Order of Druids college school program. The basic courses are free and a reasonably priced upgrade gives you more courses and more options. And like OBOD it is Christian compatible. The courses are much simpler in layout than OBOD. They are in the form of downloadable PDF files, though you can order them in book form. There is no audio version.

http://www.druidcircle.org/nod/index.ph ... &Itemid=25

Hawthorn Ent

[Bartholomew]

Credentials don't really impress me Hawthorn-Ent I couldn't give a stuff what letters people have after their names particularly on a forum. As for things being compatible with Christianity I don't do that either. My whole life is not really compatible with Christianity which is why most Chrisitians do not talk to me. The OBOD course has been reccommended to me by a couple of people that I respect but we'll see. I would have to disagree with you and say that the course and this forum are closely linked becuase this forum acts as a platform for the values of the Druid way of living and learning.
Honour seems to be a key quality of a Druid, I don't see group hounding of one individual very honourable.The fact that other people who are not contributing to the hounding are not really objecting either, including the moderators, says an awful lot about the integrity of people here. Not my style really. I never did run with the crowd.

[Huathe]

Bartholomew,

Concerning formal credentials, I in a muted way said they did not matter that much to me either. That is why I said there was nothing wrong with a " Hedge Druid ".

Concerning this forum being linked to the OBOD opinions of druidry is not my concept. It is their waiver that I quoted. It is their view. They have it up mainly because non-OBOD members are also allowed to participate on this forum. They could easily make their forum OBOD only. I was not implying the opinions and morality of all druids as a whole. Only those of OBOD concerning their waiver on this forum. I DO agree with you that some here do not uphold druidry well and the site needs stricter " Rules of Conduct ".

And I don't run with a croud either. I am quite a loner.

H.E.

[Bartholomew]

Hmmmm,let's see.

Without meaning to be rude or disrepectful of you Hawthorn-Ent, something about you and you whole stance in regard to how this whole thread has gone doesn't ring true. For all I know you could not really be a supportive co Christian supporting me in my hour of need but in fact a fully blown Druid with another agenda. You seem to be pushing the old courses quite a bit and you are a bit defensive of the board in general. For a newcomer you seem very self assured and not many people seem to challenge you directly. It must be my sixth sense again, something aint quite right.

[skh]

Honestly though, the thread isn't the problem, it is the "attitudes" of the respondents, which is hard to police. If every time someone posted something in, say, Druid Craft & The Old Ways subforum, and some skeptical twerp would respond with "magic is irrational", "spells are shite", they would be violating the spirit of the subforum and simply be acting rude. Allowances can be made for innocent incursions, but deliberate obtuseness is hard to "!" away.

Point taken.

It may or may not help to document the nature of this forum in a more prominent place -- maybe you (pl.) could come up with a short text we can put in the red "rules" box that appears on every thread page.

There's still Lily's post in the announcements which could be a good start.

peace /|\
Sonja

[Zylah]

If you re-read my posts, and I am confident that you will, I think you will discover that I am employing "satire" rather than "sarcasm".

Satire is primarily a literary genre or form, although in practice it can also be found in the graphic and performing arts. In satire, vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement.[1] Although satire is usually meant to be funny, its greater purpose is constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon.

This is a venerable druid tradition, and I'm sure one of our reconstructionists can tell us which "Book of the Dumb Cow" a reference can be found in...blisters on the face and all that....

Sarcasm is “a sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter jibe or taunt.” [1] Though irony is usually the immediate context[2] most authorities sharply distinguish sarcasm from irony,[3] however others argue that sarcasm may or often does involve irony[4] or employs ambivalence.[5] Sarcasm has been identified as a possible bullying action.[6]

I can see how one might mistake satire for sarcasm.

I was saving this Dilbert, but I will share it now:

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2011-01-09/

Crap! I'm so frequently guilty of using the terms 'satire', 'irony', and 'sarcasm' interchangeably, despite having been told multiple times that they're not the same. I may remember from now on, though, since I looked up 'sarcasm' and was startled to discover this:

sarcasm
1579, from L.L. sarcasmos, from Gk. sarkasmos "a sneer, jest, taunt, mockery," from sarkazein "to speak bitterly, sneer," lit. "to strip off the flesh," from sarx (gen. sarkos ) "flesh," prop. "piece of meat," from PIE base *twerk- "to cut" (cf. Avestan thwares "to cut"). --The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. So in etymological terms, sarcasm is giving someone a verbal flaying. YIKES.

[Huathe]

Bartholomew,

Me, a fully blown druid? I can't be. I am to new to be such. My druidry is still in the formative stage. It is not that I am trying to push the courses. While I believe they help many I also believe one can still study on his or her own and still be a druid.

I am not being defensive of the board. I only stated what They said. I am not even an OBOD member. Like you, I see much discontent here. And I have been trying to help and support you. Even though your beliefs may be different than mine you seem to get attacked just like I have. On this post I have not gotten hit hard, yet. But undoubtedly you have missed some past ones. Christians don't seem to fit in well in some places on the Druid Grove forum. I can't help you or talk to you if you remain skeptical of me.

It is not that I am " self assured " but I think I know what I want out of druidry and I go for it. And as far as my greatest agenda, it is mother nature and my work with trees. The forest is where I am most comfortable and is what led me to druidry in the first place. Even more than Christianity.

Goodnight.

[skh]

Guys (& Gals),

This discussion has been many places and you might think it shouldn't matter anyway.

The manner how we run this board and the nature of OBOD druidry, however, are off-topic both in this thread and in the "Skeptical Druids" subforum. A better place might be the generic "Discuss Druidry", or, for some matters, possibly the PM function of the board.

Thanks for your consideration.

peace /|\
Sonja

[Explorer]

Honestly though, the thread isn't the problem, it is the "attitudes" of the respondents, which is hard to police. If every time someone posted something in, say, Druid Craft & The Old Ways subforum, and some skeptical twerp would respond with "magic is irrational", "spells are shite", they would be violating the spirit of the subforum and simply be acting rude. Allowances can be made for innocent incursions, but deliberate obtuseness is hard to "!" away.

Point taken.

It may or may not help to document the nature of this forum in a more prominent place -- maybe you (pl.) could come up with a short text we can put in the red "rules" box that appears on every thread page.

There's still Lily's post in the announcements which could be a good start.

peace /|\
Sonja

I agree, Lily's post says it all.

I don't think it should be 'rules', just a reminder about the dynamics of this forum.

There is a bit of a fundamental problem here.

In science we advance by challenging each others idea's. An idea proven wrong is bonus points for Truth. And sticking to false idea on purpose, regardless of the evidence, or undermining the process itself, usually means the end of your scientific carreer. You become a symbol for stupidity.
In religion that proces is reversed. If you stick to your point, regardless of all the counter evidence, you are regarded as a symbol of unwavering strengh. And when idea's are challenged, people feel personally humiliated and dig in even deeper. In the worst case they start holy wars and become martyrs.

And since this forum is driven by rational thought, the people who dig in their religious trenches can look like fools, and are treated as such. Which is a bit painful to watch.

I think that dynamic should be made clear in a short note the 'rules box'. (does it has to be called 'rules'?, that sounds so... 'rules').

What about this:
"This area is controlled by rational thought and guarded by scientific methods. What you say can and will be held against the light of reason. Be prepared to backup your words with evidence, or face sarcasm and ridicule. Enter at your own risk".

[skh]

I think that dynamic should be made clear in a short note the 'rules box'. (does it has to be called 'rules'?, that sounds so... 'rules').

Yeah, I know. I'll find out if that can be changed. Might be hardcoded in phpBB though.

I'm somewhat busy today and tomorrow, but I'll get back to you, if not, feel free to nag me.

peace /|\
Sonja

[Explorer]

Hmmmm,let's see.

Without meaning to be rude or disrepectful of you Hawthorn-Ent, something about you and you whole stance in regard to how this whole thread has gone doesn't ring true. For all I know you could not really be a supportive co Christian supporting me in my hour of need but in fact a fully blown Druid with another agenda. You seem to be pushing the old courses quite a bit and you are a bit defensive of the board in general. For a newcomer you seem very self assured and not many people seem to challenge you directly. It must be my sixth sense again, something aint quite right.

HAHAHAHA!!!!!
Sorry James, I know you must feel a bit about this, but this looks so funny, you being a sort of undercover secret service druid, Bartholomew looks right through your disguise with her sixth sense huh!? HAHAHA. I just wish I could see the look on your face when you read that .
Don't worry about it, it doesn't change the way we feel about you! ROFL!!

[Bartholomew]

Sorry Sonja.
Nico you are making a fool of yourself with your sneering arrogance. You have no victory here, you have not changed my opinions or beliefs. As you said you can offer no concrete scientific evidence to disprove the existence of the soul/spirit world. I am not intimidated by you or DJ. My only regret is for Ainevar and for my naivety in thinking that apparently "intelligent" skeptical people could enter into intelligent respectful debate without recourse to sarcasm and ridicule. Because as soon as you use either, you have already lost the argument. What do they say?
"Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit"
I stand in my trench.

[Explorer]

I stand in my trench.

Yes, well, that was to be expected.
My instinctive response is indeed to ridicule you, because that is what you ask for with that attitude. But everything has been said now I think.

But I also see that you have some problems. Which may in fact me more serious than I can see from a distance.
The way you turned on poor James was so funny, but perhaps I shouldn't make things worse by laughing about it.
So I will now put away both my battle axe (as Sonja put it) and my goose feather dipped in the ink of satire.

[Bartholomew]

I resent the implication that you have made about my character. I did not turn on James, I questioned his stance as his posts seemed a bit dubious to me. A bit of stirring with the Bible, then backing out altogether after conveniently being away from the computer and then coming in as a placating knight in shining armour. It just doesn't add up.
Not only do you ridicule someone's personal beliefs when you have clearly lost the argument you then turn to casting aspersions on my character. I've seen it done before by bullies Nico, all my life in fact and you are a classic bully.
You do not know me and hopefully we will never meet. How bloody dare you.

[Explorer]

I resent the implication that you have made about my character. I did not turn on James, I questioned his stance as his posts seemed a bit dubious to me. A bit of stirring with the Bible, then backing out altogether after conveniently being away from the computer and then coming in as a placating knight in shining armour. It just doesn't add up.
Not only do you ridicule someone's personal beliefs when you have clearly lost the argument you then turn to casting aspersions on my character. I've seen it done before by bullies Nico, all my life in fact and you are a classic bully.
You do not know me and hopefully we will never meet. How bloody dare you.

Well, I just think that you owe James an apology, the guy genuinly tried to help you, and you accuse him of hidden agenda's. But suit yourself.
As for the rest, perhaps it is better to continue that in PM, for the sake of everybodies serenity and sanity. Or even better, not at all.

[Bartholomew]

I would say Nico. Not at all. I won't be apologising to anyody and it is really not your place to tell me how to behave. If anybody is owed an apology here it is me from you and DJ. Who have in my opinion brought the OBOD into disgrace and has really made me question whether I want to continue studying with an organisation that produces such rude arrogant individuals as you.

[DJ Droood]

There's still Lily's post in the announcements which could be a good start.

I actually posted that very near the top of the thread...there are also some very early posts in this sub-forum, particularily by the late, great Azrienoch, that point to the intention and possible uses of Skeptical Druid. But if someone wants to ignore years of tradition, what can be done? A "junk" thread like this is a pretty good idea...everyone can toss their dog bone and eye of newt into the pot, and give it a stir, and maybe it will leave room for more focused and serious discussions elsewhere.

[Frog]

Hello everyone!

I've been reading through this thread - probably missed a few bits as I know I should be doing something else, like being outside, but something struck me with an element of curiosity.

During the thread, the comment was made about souls existing... followed by the standard "prove it" response. We also had the (Scientist) said statement... and again followed by the "prove it" comment. Whilst I do see this as a fair statement, it also seems confrontational - the quick response could also be "prove it isn't" and we're into mud throwing. There is also another angle to this (just for a laugh). Whilst we argue for "proof", we seem to allow "scientific theory" which - by definition of the word "theory"means it isn't proof, just that some bloke with a big IQ says it's so. How is that fundamentally different from reiki healers etc? After all, Newton, Pascall and all the other old-dude scientists wouldn't have studied for many years at the University of Hogwarts to get a PhD or whatever?

I apologise for the small rant - but I think there is a need to be careful that when we ask for proof - what is it that we actually want, bearing in mind that the scientific community are generally indicating that somethings are only "not proven" because they can't be repeated in clinical scientific conditions.

Frog

[Explorer]

Hello everyone!

I've been reading through this thread - probably missed a few bits as I know I should be doing something else, like being outside, but something struck me with an element of curiosity.

During the thread, the comment was made about souls existing... followed by the standard "prove it" response. We also had the (Scientist) said statement... and again followed by the "prove it" comment. Whilst I do see this as a fair statement, it also seems confrontational - the quick response could also be "prove it isn't" and we're into mud throwing. There is also another angle to this (just for a laugh). Whilst we argue for "proof", we seem to allow "scientific theory" which - by definition of the word "theory"means it isn't proof, just that some bloke with a big IQ says it's so. How is that fundamentally different from reiki healers etc? After all, Newton, Pascall and all the other old-dude scientists wouldn't have studied for many years at the University of Hogwarts to get a PhD or whatever?

I apologise for the small rant - but I think there is a need to be careful that when we ask for proof - what is it that we actually want, bearing in mind that the scientific community are generally indicating that somethings are only "not proven" because they can't be repeated in clinical scientific conditions.

Frog

Well, you've got to start somewhere.
To build a tower of complex understanding of physical reality you need to be able to trust the underlying stones that support the new stones . The scientific method, which requires evidence and proof through experiments and observation. This a quality measure to guarantee objectivity that is needed to be able to build upon it. Which doesn't mean that the tower can't tumble down if an error is discovered in the fundaments.

At the cutting edge things are more incertain. I work in astronomy, and some astronomers 'belief' in the the Big Bang, while others don't, some even think god created everything. But they all agree that they have to find evidence to try to prove their theories, otherwise you can't progress the understanding much further. What this brings is a fundamental understanding of physics, of the physical reality of the universe, backed up by proof and facts.

This may be irrelevant for the reiki master, who works through experience and who doesn't care about the fundamental physical reality of it.
But it becomes more relevant when people try to mimic science by creating instruments like aura readers, start to photograph 'orbs' or make claims about physical reality. Then that fundamental knowledge of nature becomes important to at least have some sense of knowing when you deal with frauds, naieve believers, or something real. This may not be important to everybody, but it is to me, I don't want to be led astray to far there.

That doesn't exclude a spiritual understanding of the world, quite on the contrary. Like what Eilis pointed out earlier, the discovery of DNA gave us proof that we are interconnected on a deep physical level, not only with each other, but with every living think on the planet. That spiritual concept backed up by physical proof gives it a lot more power for me than just something that somebody experienced and wrote down.

[DJ Droood]

Whilst we argue for "proof", we seem to allow "scientific theory" which - by definition of the word "theory"means it isn't proof, just that some bloke with a big IQ says it's so. How is that fundamentally different from reiki healers etc? After all, Newton, Pascall and all the other old-dude scientists wouldn't have studied for many years at the University of Hogwarts to get a PhD or whatever?

I guess restating the primary point over and over again and getting the same result could also be a sign of insanity, but hey...it beats starting my work day.

The whole DHP board..the couple of dozen other sub-forums here, are all very open to accepting reiki and spirit guides and personal gnosis, etc. as a bases of discussion to be respected. Huzzah for that! This is a druid board, after all, and one should expect a comfortable place to express your unique spirituality. This particular room, however, is a "prove it" room, and we have actual scientists here like Lily and Nico and others who have trained scientific minds that can keep discussions focused on "facts" and the scientific method. This approach isn't for everyone.

Actually, this is probably the most level playing field on the board, as "druid credentials" and OBOD rank and Wiccan degrees and even PhDs don't mean very much...it is all about building arguments based on reason and logic.

Questioning the validity of the scientific method, or dismissing things as "mere" theory, or claiming that your dreams and visions and conversations with your gods are just as valid as (or more valid than) research and testing and commonly shared reality is fine, but this isn't the place for it. There are whole sections of the board, like The Common Quest, where Christianity and the Bible and Spiritualism will get a welcome hearing. Or the Philosopher's section where words can be dissected down to their individual grunted sounds, and solipsism can be trotted out. If those are areas of interest for you, I would think it would be more satisfying to discuss it there.

If you want to be a provocateur and come in here and say, for instance, that Evolution is "just a theory" and Intelligent Design is the only fact your Spirit Master Gorgonzola will accept, you should expect vigorous opposition. Bleating like a lost sheep won't work here.

If you are a missionary trying to bring light to the savages, be brave and know that you might get tossed in the cooking pot. A stiff upper lip is becoming of a martyr.