Skip to main content

Comments

Submitted by RGalassini (not verified) on 01 Oct 2016 - 13:22 Permalink

The incident which initiated Littlefield's curiosity in the first place was not an isolated event. I have heard very similar "healing tales" and anecdotes from people roughly from the same era and area as Littlefield, the American Midwest. The versions of the stories I was told didn't have any esoteric explanations, just simple inexplicable amazement and acceptance that miracles do happen.

Submitted by FrancoisTremblay (not verified) on 04 Sep 2014 - 12:32 Permalink

This site exists for entertainment purposes. You are either oblivious to that fact or you've decided it was irrelevant to your criticism.

And if you know we think it's bullshit, then why are you even bothering to contact us? What exactly is the point of your message? Do you really think we'll go "hmmm hey maybe he's right and I should consider that all my most cherished beliefs could be wrong..." If you do, then you understand nothing about human psychology.

Submitted by Alfred Armstrong on 30 Aug 2014 - 12:03 Permalink

Does there have to be a point, other than this book being plainly ridiculous? You may disagree but that's what I think of it. I don't have to make a case for my opinion if I choose not to. In this instance I think the extracts make the case for me. If you don't think they do, that's fine, but you won't prove the contrary by handwaving and bluster.
Submitted by Juraj (not verified) on 30 Aug 2014 - 11:40 Permalink

To the author: I don't get the point. Seriously. If you believe in things like astral world, not-incarnated "masters", prophecies, visions, etc, then you would need to criticise the inner inconsistency, or factual error, or methodological problems, if there are any. If you are a convinced materialist and consider all of the above-mentioned generally as bullshit, then it should be enough to categorize the book as esoteric nonsense without getting into details and pretending that you are giving some arguments. Actually you are giving none. You are just mentioning or quoting, in an ironic style, statements of the book, without really looking closer at any of them, because, of course, it is all bullshit, and so you just come to conclusion that there had to be a psychosis in control.

Let us be for a while open-minded and consider all of the above mentioned as possible, just to enable us to really provide some valid criticism. What you be your arguments then?

Submitted by FrancoisTremblay (not verified) on 04 Sep 2014 - 12:32 Permalink

This site exists for entertainment purposes. You are either oblivious to that fact or you've decided it was irrelevant to your criticism.

And if you know we think it's bullshit, then why are you even bothering to contact us? What exactly is the point of your message? Do you really think we'll go "hmmm hey maybe he's right and I should consider that all my most cherished beliefs could be wrong..." If you do, then you understand nothing about human psychology.

Submitted by Alfred Armstrong on 30 Aug 2014 - 12:03 Permalink

Does there have to be a point, other than this book being plainly ridiculous? You may disagree but that's what I think of it. I don't have to make a case for my opinion if I choose not to. In this instance I think the extracts make the case for me. If you don't think they do, that's fine, but you won't prove the contrary by handwaving and bluster.
Submitted by moleosophy.org (not verified) on 27 Feb 2014 - 20:19 Permalink

I'm sorry for you that you had to put up with Anglo-Israelites. But actual flat-earthers: sheer envy. Seriously.

Submitted by Alfred Armstrong on 27 Feb 2014 - 10:20 Permalink

Having had actual flat-earthers, Anglo-Israelites, and other defenders of mumbo-jumbo comment on here, my default position is to assume everyone is nuts. Sorry!

I have Fads and Fallacies but I kast read it so long ago that I can't recall the Littlefield stuff, but it's good to know one of the greats got there first.  

Submitted by moleosophy.org (not verified) on 27 Feb 2014 - 10:12 Permalink

It's fairly clear, I wasn't serious. By the way, Martin Gardner dedicates about two pages in his classic "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science" to Littlefield. And to the point: In the preface of his earlier book "The Beginning and Way of Life", Littlefield extends his thanks to Michael Faraday, St. Paul and St. John for dictating portions of the book from the spirit world.

Curiously enough, it seems that Littlefield practiced as a physician and surgeon until his death.

Submitted by Alfred Armstrong on 27 Feb 2014 - 10:20 Permalink

Having had actual flat-earthers, Anglo-Israelites, and other defenders of mumbo-jumbo comment on here, my default position is to assume everyone is nuts. Sorry!

I have Fads and Fallacies but I kast read it so long ago that I can't recall the Littlefield stuff, but it's good to know one of the greats got there first.  

Submitted by Alfred Armstrong on 26 Feb 2014 - 10:40 Permalink

It's clear enough what I mean, I think. Feel free to disagree if you wish. 

Submitted by moleosophy.org (not verified) on 27 Feb 2014 - 10:12 Permalink

It's fairly clear, I wasn't serious. By the way, Martin Gardner dedicates about two pages in his classic "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science" to Littlefield. And to the point: In the preface of his earlier book "The Beginning and Way of Life", Littlefield extends his thanks to Michael Faraday, St. Paul and St. John for dictating portions of the book from the spirit world.

Curiously enough, it seems that Littlefield practiced as a physician and surgeon until his death.

Submitted by Alfred Armstrong on 27 Feb 2014 - 10:20 Permalink

Having had actual flat-earthers, Anglo-Israelites, and other defenders of mumbo-jumbo comment on here, my default position is to assume everyone is nuts. Sorry!

I have Fads and Fallacies but I kast read it so long ago that I can't recall the Littlefield stuff, but it's good to know one of the greats got there first.  

Submitted by moleosophy.org (not verified) on 26 Feb 2014 - 00:53 Permalink

What exactly do you mean by saying that there are "clear signs of psychosis in these writings"?

Submitted by Alfred Armstrong on 26 Feb 2014 - 10:40 Permalink

It's clear enough what I mean, I think. Feel free to disagree if you wish. 

Submitted by moleosophy.org (not verified) on 27 Feb 2014 - 10:12 Permalink

It's fairly clear, I wasn't serious. By the way, Martin Gardner dedicates about two pages in his classic "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science" to Littlefield. And to the point: In the preface of his earlier book "The Beginning and Way of Life", Littlefield extends his thanks to Michael Faraday, St. Paul and St. John for dictating portions of the book from the spirit world.

Curiously enough, it seems that Littlefield practiced as a physician and surgeon until his death.

Submitted by Alfred Armstrong on 27 Feb 2014 - 10:20 Permalink

Having had actual flat-earthers, Anglo-Israelites, and other defenders of mumbo-jumbo comment on here, my default position is to assume everyone is nuts. Sorry!

I have Fads and Fallacies but I kast read it so long ago that I can't recall the Littlefield stuff, but it's good to know one of the greats got there first.  

Submitted by Lo Sconosciuto (not verified) on 05 Apr 2011 - 07:41 Permalink

Remarkable that the tongue we call English was not a mongrel assemblage pasted together from scraps of French, Latin, German, et al., but was in fact a noble universal language "and as such had nothing in common with any modern dialect." I guess that's the ultimate middle finger to those damnable Chinese, with their screeching speech and goofy picture language. I'm sure in in Atlantis they had some expounding on the glories of divination in sheep's entrails or casting the bones to make a decision.
Submitted by Psychopompous (not verified) on 07 Jun 2010 - 18:57 Permalink

Thank you sir! I was having a terrible morning until I read of this most wondrously fetid book. A good laugh is sometimes better than a cup of coffee.
Submitted by Aria (not verified) on 06 Jun 2010 - 19:56 Permalink

I love the word "crackpottery." I plan on throwing it into as many conversations as I possibly can. Thank you again, Mr. Armstrong.