Time for skeptics to grow up?!

[dann]

And if you doubt my level of expertise, go to Web extras --> Maps: Happiness levels of countries
Apparently I live in the happiest country in the world! (It's probably just the inhabitants who are miserable!)

 

[TheChadd]

Who cares which delusions Blair, Bush and their rich friends might suffer from in private? Who cares if the FBI have a machine which does not help them discover refugees hidden in a container or another one that cannot tell them who is lying or not?
Well, I know who does, but I don't ...

Why don't you care, or is it just relatively you care fairly little? I can't imagine why you wouldn't be concerned as to which fantasies the most powerful people in the world indulge in.

Well, you can all try to end the homelessness problem in the Congo by teaching the Congolese that there's no such thing as witchcraft.

Well if you're applying this to me, this is a big straw man. I have never advocated that if they didn't believe in witchcraft there would be no homelessness in their country.

I suppose it's supposed to follow that without the excuse of witchcraft, none of these kids will be "put out" (again, we're pretending here - keep up)

It doesn't need to follow from before... but yes, that under different circumstances they would not have had the excuse and the kids would have been slightly better off.

so the families will stay together and happy while they split their monthly pound of grain five ways instead of four, and they all become even more emaciated and susceptible to illness than they would've been, and they all end up dying sooner.

Yes it would put more pressure on them in an already difficult situation, however we don't know that what food they had in no way could support their lives as well as the lives of that extra child.

Or, we could try to feed these people, and make families healthy and self-sustaining to the point where they don't need any excuse - witchcraft or otherwise - to throw anybody out just to keep themselves alive.

But my point isn't that they used witchcraft to justify what they wanted to do, it's that while they didn't want to have to look after the kids - They would have - until they came to the conclusion they're witches.

Of course it's important to remember their circumstances.
Of course it's important to note their poverty.
Of course we'd all like to eliminate such poverty.

However, I do think commenting on the role of superstition in this case is a worthwhile endevour for skeptics. I agree that the title was quite rude, but I can't find too much fault with the main proposition - That if they didn't believe such things, their situation (while still being terrible) would be practically better.

 

[articulett]

We know that people in Africa and all over the world have been poor for many centuries. We hear from the Christian Science Monitor that this is the first time that they are turning the children out as witches. So, in the past, the poverty did not make people turn out their children--they may have believed in witches but apparently they didn't think their kids could be witches. Now the kids are accused of being witches. I think that shows that the problem is superstitious thinking more than it is poverty. If increasing poverty anywhere had the result of parents claiming their children were witches then I'm sure we would have heard. We know a lot about poverty...we know a lot about humans handle poverty...Claiming that your own children are witches is pretty rare--and you have to live in a very superstitious community for this to become the case, correct. It's pretty much unheard of--even amongst the poorest of the poor--the priest even says that it's unprecedented.

So I think it's just plain nuts to excuse the belief system for the problem. It reminds me of people who don't see religion as being implicated in the 9-11 attacks or people who don't think religious teachings had anything to do with Andrea Yates killing her kids to ensure their salvation. This blind respect for gods and religions where people can't seem to imagine that it is to blame for anything even when people vocally say exactly that (e.g."I'm getting rid of my kid because they are a witch"). I am aghast at this blindness and the way people have learned to excuse faith based atrocities or see it as having another cause.

Where else in the world is increasing poverty associated with families accusing their children of being witches? Why not blame the reason given for turning these kids out--they're families think they are witches--why? because they've been lead to believe their kids could be witches.

How you and the priest manage to blame poverty is beyond me. I think telling the folks that there is no such thing as witches might be a good start--of course a priest would never do that.

 

[athon]

We know that people in Africa and all over the world have been poor for many centuries. We hear from the Christian Science Monitor that this is the first time that they are turning the children out as witches.

This doesn't really cut it as an argument. They've also believed in witches and the paranormal for many centuries. Seems like drawing a long bow that this is a novel advancement that kids could be considered witches now, but couldn't before.

What new influences have created this situation? Well, I'd like to know for sure, although I might hazard a guess that we're not seeing the entire picture here. Perhaps in the past there have been greater connections between community members, assisting in child raising. Perhaps the region is suffering from new conditions that it hasn't encountered before. Who knows?

If increasing poverty anywhere had the result of parents claiming their children were witches then I'm sure we would have heard. We know a lot about poverty...we know a lot about humans handle poverty...Claiming that your own children are witches is pretty rare--and you have to live in a very superstitious community for this to become the case, correct. It's pretty much unheard of--even amongst the poorest of the poor--the priest even says that it's unprecedented.

Bit of a straw man argument, I'm afraid.

We do know that superstition is linked with collectivist groups. We know that collectivist groups tend to be amongst the poorest of communities. The link is not necessarily causal, but there is a relationship. To claim that this specific situation is novel (which it isn't -- similar situations occur in regions in Papua New Guinea, where it has been claimed that children have been cannibalised in superstitious rituals) has nothing to do with the greater argument that it's never a simple case of just combatting superstition -- you also have to combat the circumstances in which it flourishes.

So I think it's just plain nuts to excuse the belief system for the problem. It reminds me of people who don't see religion as being implicated in the 9-11 attacks or people who don't think religious teachings had anything to do with Andrea Yates killing her kids to ensure their salvation. This blind respect for gods and religions where people can't seem to imagine that it is to blame for anything even when people vocally say exactly that (e.g."I'm getting rid of my kid because they are a witch"). I am aghast at this blindness and the way people have learned to excuse faith based atrocities or see it as having another cause.

Why the need to simplify it to direct cause and effect? This blame mentality is useless, as it creates a security blanket which you can hold to make yourself feel better that there is a simple solution.

Of course religion plays a role. It is a system of shared beliefs that joins you to a larger cause, allowing you to short circuit rational arguments in order to carry out selfish behaviours. Would 9-11 have happened without it? Perhaps not, but 9-11 wouldn't have happened without a lot of other things as well.

Where else in the world is increasing poverty associated with families accusing their children of being witches? Why not blame the reason given for turning these kids out--they're families think they are witches--why? because they've been lead to believe their kids could be witches.

Well, let's analyse that last statement.

This is a community where interpersonal relationships are valued. African communities aren't known for being cold, impersonal places. One can assume that children aren't normally rejected heartlessly without cause. One can assume that a child is seen with at least a modicum of love and affection.

A witch is seen as a figure who is brings bad events to a community. Normally they are figures who are already disliked by the community for some reason, as was the case in the infamous western witch hunts. Hence it's not a random roll of the dice as to who is nominated as a witch.

Why would a child be nominated a witch, then? Of course they believe that bad things are the result of a witch, and in these communities superstition is a way of life, supported by the fact that they are a collectivist community where dissent is as good as being ostracised. Perhaps the advent of bad times came when a child was born?

For whatever reason, the situation of poverty both inspires action on superstitious explanations for the situation, and it further encourages those who are critical to not speak against the situation for fear of being rejected by the community.

Hence simply excising superstition from the situation is far from a simple matter.

How you and the priest manage to blame poverty is beyond me. I think telling the folks that there is no such thing as witches might be a good start--of course a priest would never do that.

Blame offers such simple answers. I'm glad you feel good about knowing what to do. Mind you, those of us who deal with reality know it's never such a simple solution.

Athon

 

[joelblanchette]

I've seen a lot of "read the quote" comments here, and would suggest that everybody do so again. In particular, note the following (emphasis mine):

"...many of these children were living with step-parents or extended family members who no longer wanted to have to support them..."

I'm not going to deny that poverty and starvation plague much of Africa, because they do. However, this statement doesn't claim that these children couldn't be supported, but rather that those who should be supporting them do not want to.

That claim may not be correct. Remember, this is a reader's opinion of an article in the Christian Science Monitor. I think that Randi was agreeing to the last sentence: "We certainly don't need to force people to be sensible, but neither should we remain quiet when we see truth and logic being assaulted." I fully agree with that statement as well, but I suspect that the accusations of witchcraft are made in good faith, so to speak. The accusers honestly believe their claims to be true, in other words. A destitute, poorly-educated population steeped in superstition and targetted by agressive evangelicism (probably Christian in the case of the Congo) for centuries can hardly be expected to respond to a crisis like mass starvation in a rational manner.

Whether starvation or a belief in witchcraft is the real problem here, that's really a "chicken VS egg" dilemma. If these people were well-fed, the number of children accused of witchcraft would be zero. If these people didn't believe in witchcraft, the number of children accused of witchcraft would be zero. The difference is that in the first case, if things take a turn for the worse, there is almost no chance of the problem being solved.

If witchcraft is blamed for mass starvation, then people have created a whole different problem. Starvation becomes a symptom, witchcraft becomes the "real" problem, and the proposed solution will be to get rid of the witches. Obviously, this isn't likely to make things better. Eventually enough people will die that starvation will not be a problem (even in the worst case, with a 100% die-off, the problem is still technically solved). If people are being rational, however, they at least have the opportunity to identify the real source(s) of the problem, and they might be able to implement some solutions that don't require everybody dieing.

Belief in woo may not be the cause of starvation in Kinshasa, but it makes a real solution almost impossible.

 

[dann]

Who cares which delusions Blair, Bush and their rich friends might suffer from in private? Who cares if the FBI have a machine which does not help them discover refugees hidden in a container or another one that cannot tell them who is lying or not?
Well, I know who does, but I don't ...

Why don't you care, or is it just relatively you care fairly little? I can't imagine why you wouldn't be concerned as to which fantasies the most powerful people in the world indulge in.

Your thinking is that of a subject of a powerful ruler: 'Since I depend on his behaviour, I have to be concerned about the expenditures, whether or not he is behaving rationally etc.', which, by the way, is the reason why we have the kind of media coverage we do: Only because people actually care about this, do we have newspapers following every little move of politicians and other ‘celebrities’, the slightest sneeze from Bush, what happened to Paris Hilton's dog or Britney's panties. They are the ones who count, we are not.
YES, we all have reason to be concerned when the decider makes a new decision, be it based on the ordinary calculating cynicism or on whatever "fantasies the most powerful people in the world indulge in". This is what is wrong with the world, this is what ought to be changed! I don't like Bush no matter what! I don't like him when he is following the advice of his geo-strategic advisers, and I don't like him when he's preaching about God. I didn't like Reagan either, no matter which experts advised him: the scientists in his Star Wars project, the sci-fi authors Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven or his wife's astrologer, and I have no reason to believe that the advice he got from the astrologer was any worse for the rest of the world than the things he heard from the others.
I say - again: Sc** the most powerful people in the world and the fantasies they indulge in. My concern is how to change that way of running the world and the subjects' way of thinking that enables the deciders to make these decisions. I know a lot of people who are very proud of their democracies - most Danes, for example - but somehow they tend to forget that their elected leaders through the election are liberated from the concerns of the people who empower them. I live in a country where it was hardly even debated whether or not it should go to war in Iraq (Afghanistan, the Balkans ...). The local decider decided to side with Bush, and that was all that was required.
You honestly think that I ought to waste my time considering whether or not he also goes to church or if he prefers to performs satanical rituals in his back yard?
Well ...... I don't, but I don’t really think that you’ll get it. Like most of your compatriots you appear to have other concerns - and I don't mean to imply that the ones found among the subjects over here are any better ....

 

[dann]

"...many of these children were living with step-parents or extended family members who no longer wanted to have to support them..."

I'm not going to deny that poverty and starvation plague much of Africa, because they do. However, this statement doesn't claim that these children couldn't be supported, ...

How about this one, then?

"This country is a disaster," Mr. Ifaka says. "Parents are abandoning children, and the reasons involve money and food. When we get in touch with the family, they say, 'Look, I already have children here to take care of, and you want me to take that one, too.' "

"A witch! A witch! Burn her, burn her!"
"How do you know she's a witch?"
"She looks like one!"
"Burn her, burn her!"

 

[TheChadd]

You honestly think that I ought to waste my time considering whether or not he also goes to church or if he prefers to performs satanical rituals in his back yard?

It's important to look at not only his actions that have a direct and obvious effect, but actions which could be a precurser to future actions. If George Bush believes that a war against the middle east is necessary to begin armeggedon etc then I want to know.

Well ...... I don't, but I don’t really think that you’ll get it. Like most of your compatriots you appear to have other concerns - and I don't mean to imply that the ones found among the subjects over here are any better ....

You mean Australians, or people of similar political ideologies as me or what? I don't quite understand your point.

 

[dann]

You mean Australians, or people of similar political ideologies as me or what? I don't quite understand your point.

Sorry, my bad! I just assume that everybody here is American, which, of course, we aren't!

It's important to look at not only his actions that have a direct and obvious effect, but actions which could be a precurser to future actions. If George Bush believes that a war against the middle east is necessary to begin armeggedon etc then I want to know.

I don't really know if it makes much of a difference to people in the Middle East or elsewhere, but it is a good example of the way that we tend to look at politicians: as if we were talking about a kind of weather report! What can we expect in the next couple of weeks? What will we be exposed to from the powers that be, so we can take our precautions?
(And it's not as if he's in dire need of excuses to invade countries in the Middle East and other parts of the world: WMDs etc.)
When we think in this manner, our attitude to the rulers is not very different from that of our ancestors to nature when they were trying to prophesy natural phenomena: 'They are beyond our control, so we have to try to at least foretell what will happen so we can secure our belongings or try to get away in time.'
'Which way is he going to blow,' becomes our concern, instead of the question: If mankind is now able to control nature, if not completely, at least in the way that you can make buildings that protect you from the next hurricane or earthquake, then it should not be a problem to take control of politics, i.e. to make politics serve your purposes instead of your having to be the object and tool of those in power.
That is the only way of removing the need to look through the keyhole to get a glimpse of the superior a**hole on the other side to get an idea of what he'll come up with next, modern subservience.

 

[Gurdur]

We know that people in Africa and all over the world have been poor for many centuries. We hear from the Christian Science Monitor that this is the first time that they are turning the children out as witches. So, in the past, the poverty did not make people turn out their children--they may have believed in witches but apparently they didn't think their kids could be witches.

You would be far better off with anthropological research than with the CSM. Such poverty-caused legitimizational beliefs are very common the world over in history.
For example:
In London's East End (London, Britain), in 1912, it was commonly believed that the ear was a third excretory organ, owing to the huge and pandemic number of chronic middle-ear infections among the East Enders with consequent excretion of pus. The rate of chronic ear infections was owing to extreme urban poverty, with consequent over-crowding and lack of hygiene, leading to such a woo belief.

Or to take anotehr example, the Maasai of East Africa used to believe twins were a sign of withcraft and would therefore kill the twins -- the actual reason was again poverty and the resultant inability of a woman to be able to breastfeed twins.

I think that shows that the problem is superstitious thinking more than it is poverty.

Your argument does not follow.

If increasing poverty anywhere had the result of parents claiming their children were witches then I'm sure we would have heard.

If you studied the anthropological literature on this, you would have heard.

... This blind respect for gods and religions where people can't seem to imagine that it is to blame for anything

This is a massive strawman; you seem to be wanting to twist things to your own crusade. No-one is saying superstition is OK; so don't pretend otherwise.

Where else in the world is increasing poverty associated with families accusing their children of being witches?

Children have been the victims of beliefs used to legitimize coping with abject poverty to my knowledge in the UK (see above example), China, the Polynesian islands, Australasia, India, and other places --- just the places I can think off-hand with examples. I am sure if you did a proper search of the anthropological literature you would find many more examples, again world-wide.

I think telling the folks that there is no such thing as witches might be a good start--of course a priest would never do that.

Quite apart from you being dead wrong about that, the problem is it is largely irrelevant to the actual situation. It is no accident that malignant superstitions are very often most marked in areas of continual abject poverty.

 

[dann]

Great, Gurdur!

We know that people in Africa and all over the world have been poor for many centuries. We hear from the Christian Science Monitor that this is the first time that they are turning the children out as witches. So, in the past, the poverty did not make people turn out their children-

No, as long as they were dealing with the ordinary extent of poverty, it ‘just’ made them get rid of old people!

-they may have believed in witches but apparently they didn't think their kids could be witches. Now the kids are accused of being witches. I think that shows that the problem is superstitious thinking more than it is poverty.

What is it in the following quotation, already posted above, that you don’t understand?

CSM: Peace has brought its own challenges, as refugee families flow into the capital, Kinshasa, and find they cannot feed themselves. Out of survival, many are using witchcraft as an excuse to expel their most vulnerable members: children.
"Witchcraft has been there for a while, but it was never used against children in the past. Families that have old people used to accuse that old person of being a witch, when they were no longer productive," says Javier Aguilar, a child protection officer for the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) in Kinshasa.

You are actually accusing the church of focussing on poverty as the explanation, instead of on superstition? Wouldn’t it be much more in line with the way of thinking of the church Exorcism Inc. to come up with superstitious explanations, i.e. that parents and/or children have been possessed by evil spirits?

Please, articulett, read Steve Kowit's article about the Xhosa mass-suicide before you post again!

 

[Slimething]

Great, Gurdur!

Please, articulett, read Steve Kowit's article about the Xhosa mass-suicide before you post again!

Articulett, you must know that reductionism is not allowed in this thread. Buy a magazine article and all will be revealed!!!

How dare you disagree with dann? If these people were not poor, then the fact that they are human/right handed/slow-footed/grumpy/affable/dormant/etc would be to blame for the witchcraft crap.

Did I get that right, dann?

 

[Gurdur]

Articulett, you must know that reductionism is not allowed in this thread.

What's with the stupid strawmen?
You also seem to have a very wrong idea about what reductionism actually is -- I suggest you actually use reductionism instead of silly snideness and strawmen

If these people were not poor, then the fact that they are human/right handed/slow-footed/grumpy/affable/dormant/etc would be to blame for the witchcraft crap.

Now you are simply being ridiculous. Wassup? Can't make a decent argument?

 

[athon]

Articulett, you must know that reductionism is not allowed in this thread. Buy a magazine article and all will be revealed!!!

How dare you disagree with dann? If these people were not poor, then the fact that they are human/right handed/slow-footed/grumpy/affable/dormant/etc would be to blame for the witchcraft crap.

Did I get that right, dann?

Wow. You seriously have some issues. I've seen no real argument from you at all, but a lot of emotion on this topic. Try taking a walk and clearing your head before sitting and responding in the future.

The same error keeps getting repeated by people in this thread; it is one where a single blame is required, and that being witchcraft. Remove the blame (as if it in itself is a simple thing to do), and the problem is solved.

It's ridiculous notion that carries no water. And your constant reference to reductionism is a red herring that demonstrates you have no idea what's going on.

Either offer something to discuss or go find a hobby that doesn't boil your blood so much.

Athon

 

[articulett]

Great, Gurdur!

No, as long as they were dealing with the ordinary extent of poverty, it ‘just’ made them get rid of old people!
What is it in the following quotation, already posted above, that you don’t understand?
You are actually accusing the church of focussing on poverty as the explanation, instead of on superstition? Wouldn’t it be much more in line with the way of thinking of the church Exorcism Inc. to come up with superstitious explanations, i.e. that parents and/or children have been possessed by evil spirits?

Please, articulett, read Steve Kowit's article about the Xhosa mass-suicide before you post again!

Well, you sure are self important. You know nothing of me or what I do. I do live in the real world. I know quite a bit about groupthink and mass suicide--I was alive during Jim Jones in Guyana. I have fairly well versed in "When Prophesy Fails" as well as groupthink as illustrated by Ron Jones and his "wave" and the Zimbardo studies. And you are still wrong.

You are blaming poverty--I'm not saying it's not a factor--but it's not the cause. If increasing poverty made any other group of people in history turn accuse their kids of being witches, you might have a case. What we know about witch burnings is that the bible tells you to kill witches and accusing people of being witches was fairly common until the 1600s--because of a single biblical passage. Accusing people of being witches is a religious thing. You have to believe in witches.

I'm not blaming anyone--I am just pointing out the obvious. You can give these people all the money in the world, and if they believe their kids can be witches, they'll be turning out the witches. In the United States children have been beaten and killed because they were thought to be possessed. And these are not necessarily children of poverty. I think that charities that go in and teach Christianity in exchange for their help ought to take in orphans that are related to their teachings--and related to their preaching against condoms and birth control. We know that education and birth control are a major help in getting people out of poverty. We also know that education mitigates the power of superstition. You can feel free to give religion a pass or pretend that poverty spawned people to suddenly think of their children as witches (though it's never been a reaction to poverty at any time in human history!)--people may have made their kids work or sold them as slaves--but they didn't accuse them of being witches because they were too poor to raise them! If we had a historical precedent where people kicked out their kids via superstitious accusations when times got tough, then you would have an argument. There is no such precedent. There is, however, a precedent of witch accusations--it came directly from the bible. Maybe this priest in enlightened and doesn't think that kids can be witches...maybe he doesn't even believe in witches. But the doctrine he stands behind does. They teach that people can be possessed too.

Do you actually think that if people delivered food and services to family member who booted out their kids, they'll suddenly take them back in? Are you saying that no humans have ever been this poor and because they are so poor they've found a convenient way of lessening the burden? The person who needs to grow up is you. The direct cause of this child abandonment is superstitious belief. How more clear can it be--they were accused of being WITCHES. Were all the people who were part of histories witch hunts just victims of poverty and control of populations? If the problem is having children people cannot afford to raise, wouldn't access to contraception and education be the answer. Money does not cure superstition. God, apparently does give people more than they can handle. I think the missionaries are as much a cause of the problem as a solution. I resent that my own country spends millions in Africa on abstinence only education. If the goal is to prevent child abandonment, then the answer is family planning and education. We didn't stop burning witches in Europe or the USA because of a sudden financial windfall--it was an evolution of thought that stopped this barbarism. It is not poverty that is at the heart of "witch hunts"--but rather, it's groupthink--superstitious fearmongering and groupthink.

You read a little before you call others immature or wrongheaded. You have only provided evidence which convinces those who already think like you--people who have been taught to ignore the obvious, give extra deference to religion, and never ever blame it for any harm. You used the priests quote that poverty was the cause while ignoring the fact that, despite tons of poverty, this is the first time that people are calling their kids witches! The priests own words. You miss the direct cause as stated by the kids themselves--they WERE accused of being witches! You've shown NO actual link between poverty and accusing children of being witches except for the priests words. Not very scholarly. You've also shown no connection between amelioration of poverty leading to the amelioration of superstitions. Whereas we can say with utter certainty that people who don't believe in witches, won't ever accuse their kids of being witches. People who don't believe in demon possession will never presume their kid is possessed.

Your pompousness fools no-one but you. And saying it over and over doesn't make it so. You are blinded by your own arrogance in this particular case.

 

[articulett]

Wow. You seriously have some issues. I've seen no real argument from you at all, but a lot of emotion on this topic. Try taking a walk and clearing your head before sitting and responding in the future.

The same error keeps getting repeated by people in this thread; it is one where a single blame is required, and that being witchcraft. Remove the blame (as if it in itself is a simple thing to do), and the problem is solved.

It's ridiculous notion that carries no water. And your constant reference to reductionism is a red herring that demonstrates you have no idea what's going on.

Either offer something to discuss or go find a hobby that doesn't boil your blood so much.

Athon

Actually, no one is saying that a single blame is required except the people blaming poverty. It seems like you are ignoring the actual cause and extrapolating an abstract cause because of what the priest said.

Facts: Poverty has always been part of humanity.

Poverty has never been associated with accusing children of being witches except for this once.

People have accused people of being witches before.

People have killed their children because they thought they were possessed.

Neither of these historical events are tied to poverty.

Both are tied to religious superstition.

The Jonestown mass suicide where people fed their kids poison kool-aid was also related to superstion.

The kids say they were turned out because they were thought to be witches.

People who don't believe in witches never accuse their kids of being witches.

People who don't believe in possession are never afraid that their kids will be possessed.

Money doesn't fix superstition.

Education played in an important role in ending witch accusations in European and American history--not financial aid.

And if poverty is a factor, then the best way to approach it from that angle is to help people get out of poverty by giving them access to family planning.

Your insulting of people is ironic given your failure to understand these basic facts while imagining your reasoning to be superior to everyone else.

What--you think that sending would fix something in the equation? Has money ever stopped people from accusing others of being witches? I'm sure the Catholic Priest will share your argument--and I'm sure the churches will keep supporting their missions. But I give my support to humanist groups that actually educate others.

You've assumed superiority on a subject where no one seems to find you particularly authoritative except Dann. And from where I sit your judgment would be better aimed at your own flailing argument. Whoever made you feel like you knew something ought to be flogged for your hubris. You aren't more mature than Randi or anyone else on this forum--you just THINK you are.
And you are wrong.

 

[dann]

Did I get that right, dann?

I thought you always got it right! Do you really need to ask?

 

[articulett]

Was and still is, Joshua. Thank you!

The "Darwinist, Dawkinsist and Randi-ist" way refers to articulett's profile. I would probably be more of a Stephen Jay Gouldist, Richard Lewontinist and Marxist myself, i.e. I don't want to put down the essence of Darwinism or Atheism. It's just that sometimes people of this persuasion appear to be more than a little right-wing biased, unable to see that conditions for poor people don't necessarily improve if they succeed in persuading them to become Social-Darwinists like themselves - and not because the poor people are inferior to the elitist skeptics in a Darwinian sense of the word.
And that is a pity since the poor people are the only relevant victims of religious superstition and thus addressees of educational work about this theme. Who cares which delusions Blair, Bush and their rich friends might suffer from in private? Who cares if the FBI have a machine which does not help them discover refugees hidden in a container or another one that cannot tell them who is lying or not?
Well, I know who does, but I don't ...

I'm hardly an elitist or right wing--you just seem to jump straight to all sorts of conclusions. In fact, I bet I have worked much more closely with the poverty stricken than you. And I suspect Randi has given much more to the world than your egotistical self. I think Chadd and slimething sound more logical than you and much more like someone others would like to know...

Yes, this is a skeptics forum--and we get a lot of people here telling us how wrong we are not to believe all sorts of claims--including the claim that poverty causes people to accuse their kids of being witches! No one is saying it's not a factor--but you seem to ignore the obvious because you want to feel morally superior. You've cast a wide net of judgment on everyone but failed to even look at yourself. What are your credentials that make you such a scholar of "that which makes parents accuse their kids of being witches". Why is it the most arrogant people calling others arrogant or immature or wrongheaded. What is it that you can see the sliver in everyone else's eye while missing the giant log in yours.

You have misjudged Randi, me, Chadd, multiple people on this forum and, on top of that, you've elevated yourself to a position that not many other people seem to agree with. You've misjudged your own maturity, dialogue skills, expertise, ability to assess the facts and who knows what else. You haven't educated or enlightened anyone or solved the problem on any front while building yourself up to be the holier than thou. Tell me the secret of your bravado and ego. Randi wasn't missing anything. He is a strong supporter of human rights. And he pointed out an important truth. The first and foremost cause for these kids being kicked out is belief in witches. It is a requirement for "witchhunts". Poverty, never has been. Shame on you and your pseudo piety. Frankly, I think you sound self important and ignorant like both Blair and Bush--you just have too much hubris to notice the similarities. You can't learn anything new because you are so sure you already know all.

 

[articulett]

It was also bloody obvious, right from the OP.
I am amazed by some of the personal attacks and the evasions in this thread; the whole point was so easily gained, and that is immense poverty breeds self-serving justificatory "superstitions"; i.e., beliefs meant to legitimize practical actions. Therefore, in such situations, poverty is the problem rather than "superstition". Maybe some skeptics really do need to grow up, if they can't easily grasp such a simple point.

Tsk, but I forgive you. It IS possible to be in the middle.

Although you are congratulating yourselves on your moral superiority--you are still wrong. Although there may well be a correlation between poverty and superstition, one does not cause the other. The correlation is due to the lesser education of both groups. And maybe the self important need to grow up if they do not know the difference between correlation and causation. Do you really think that you know all and have nothing to learn. You think you are more mature than Randi and everyone who disagrees with you. Now THAT is immature. And jumping to conclusions. And you are still not helping anybody in any way--just practicing self aggrandizement while insulting others. Perhaps you ought to brush up on your social skills if you hope to influence others or actually add to the world more than your asinine, poorly thought out conclusions. In addition to reading the basics regarding correlation and causation; I recommend Cialdini's, Influence and Daniel Goleman's Social Intelligence--but I realize you already believe yourselves to know everything and you think us skeptics just need a good hammering of your notions. How is that different than the Christian who comes here to tell us how wrong we are not to believe in Jesus--or the local woo woo having a tantrum because we're not grateful for that which they came to "teach" us?

Oh--and Randi is not "right-wing" either. Is this weeks commentary the only one you've read?? You are doing worse than Sylvia Brown on your divining of political leanings. Moreover, you are incredibly divisive and offensive from my perspective. Oh--and you are still wrong. Lots of wrongs added up together now! Will you be apologizing for misjudging so many people? I hope this arrogance is just due to youth.

 

[articulett]

The mistake was made when people weren't reading the OP in depth, and assumed that this was just another thread whining about how intolerant "skeptics" are. Some people, including skeptics, don't like to be accused of being intolerant. They'll admit to being so, and (often rightly) justify their intolerance by insisting that whatever it is they don't tolerate is harmful or dangerous; nevertheless, "intolerance" is a negative buzzword that nobody likes associated with them.

Of course, the OP had nothing to do with intolerance, it was about setting priorities straight - and it was correct, in my opinion.

I disagree. The OP was about intolerance--the poster was intolerant and doesn't seem to be aware of it. And, although I'm sure everybody thinks their priorities are straight--this IS a skeptics forum. And so evidence trumps comeuppances and scoldings and unsupported claims and self important do-nothing pompousness. Getting your friends together to say "look how smart and mature and politically correct we are" doesn't educate anyone--and thinking you already know everything there is to know on the topic and then designating yourself the preacher and judge of others doesn't facilitate understanding. How is that better or different than the politicians they lambaste? To me, they have the same deaf ear to others and over-confidence in their rightness. --Hardly someone to act as a role model for "maturity" or "priority designation".