Time for skeptics to grow up?!

[dann]

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.

Yes, I've read some of your posts in other threads, and you have a tendency to ignore economy, also, for instance, in the question of condoms.
So you are old enough to have been alive when the members of the Jones cult killed themselves or were killed?! I don't think that anybody has claimed that you weren't. And you are well versed and I am still wrong ... and I don't see the relevance.

You are blaming poverty--I'm not saying it's not a factor--but it's not the cause.

Well, if you say so ... Let's look at your arguments:

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.

So we should expect a wave of people in the USA right now accusing their children and other people of being witches, right?
It is true that in general you have to believe in witches in order to persuade yourself that somebody is one. What you apparently don't get is that this accusation is not really necessary to abandon your children.

I'm not blaming anyone--I am just pointing out the obvious. You can give these people all the money in the world,

Please do!

and if they believe their kids can be witches, they'll be turning out the witches.

What I and others have been trying to make you understand is that if they cannot feed the children, they cannot feed the children! And apparently they are able to come up with other excuses to throw them out of the house and into the streets.

In the United States children have been beaten and killed because they were thought to be possessed.

In the USA children have been beaten and killed and still are for a number of reasons and with a number of excuses. In a very small minority of these cases witches are mentioned as the excuse. And since you point out that you "do live in the real world", I suspect you of being aware of this already.

And these are not necessarily children of poverty.

No, not necessarily, but they very often are.

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.

And you actually think that this is what the Catholic orphanages are going to teach the children when they "take in orphans that are related to their teachings"? By the way, who are We, and why do We know so little about how people get out of poverty and start using condoms that We seem to think that people who cannot afford food can afford condoms?

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!)-

Thank you for your kind teaching of human history! Apparently you don't find it hard to think that religion spawned people to suddenly think of their children as witches! Why so suddenly? Or had they been thinking that their children were witches the whole time?

-people may have made their kids work or sold them as slaves-

However, that requires either access to the means of production (like we Marxists would say), e.g. fields, or buyers of slaves.

-but they didn't accuse them of being witches because they were too poor to raise them!

Thank you, articulett, your exclamation mark totally persuaded me that you are right!

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.

Okay, if you say so! There is no such precedent. There is no such precedent. Even if you were right, your argument is wrong. Nobody hijacked planes and flew them into the Twin Towers on 9/11 since there is no precedent.

There is, however, a precedent of witch accusations-

Several precedents, actually.

-it came directly from the bible.

Christianity, and thus the Bible, didn't patent the concept, I think.

Maybe this priest in enlightened and doesn't think that kids can be witches... maybe he doesn't even believe in witches.

How could that be possible with a Bible thumper like that?

But the doctrine he stands behind does. They teach that people can be possessed too.

Yes, they do, don't they? And they are the ones that you want to take care of the orphans... I'm sorry, but I don't see your point.

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?

Yes, and, don't tell me, let me guess! ..... You don't?!

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?

No, I'm not saying that! If I wanted to, I could provide you with the number of children and adults starving to death every hour. And I don't even think that this way of "lessening the burden" is very "convenient".

The person who needs to grow up is you.

Don't forget all the primitive Africans!

The direct cause of this child abandonment is superstitious belief.

Even when the family does not call them witches and tells you that they cannot feed them?

How more clear can it be--they were accused of being WITCHES.

Yes, some of them are. Some of them are accused of BREAKING A GLASS!

Were all the people who were part of histories witch hunts just victims of poverty and control of populations?

Probably not! Why do you ask? Is it because you think that if some of them weren't, then nobody was?!

If the problem is having children people cannot afford to raise, wouldn't access to contraception and education be the answer.

Yes, of course, if the children hadn't been born in the first place, they couldn't be accused of being witches! But I thought that the problem was thinking that their children were witches?! Now it has suddenly become procreation?

Money does not cure superstition.

No, it just makes it easier to get food, if you've got it, and if you haven't got it, the price tag excludes you from eating! That's market economy lesson number one. If you have enough money, however, you probably won't dream of getting pie in the sky when you die.

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.

Make up your mind! Do you want them to take care of the orphans or not?

I resent that my own country spends millions in Africa on abstinence only education.

So do I, so do I!

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-

No, but we stopped leaving children to die in the woods.

-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.

Only it doesn't appear to be a witch hunt, no children appear to be burned at the stake. They are left to fend for themselves because their families cannot feed them.

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.

And that is indeed what Athon, Gurdur, Joshua and I have been doing the whole time: We have given deference to religion!

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!

Tons of poverty??! The first time??! I don't know about that, I just know that an extreme aggravation of poverty in the area appears to have led people to seek extreme 'solutions' to their problems. You appear to think that despite 'tons of superstition' (and tons of bibles, probably), for some weird reason this is the first time that people are calling their kids witches: Superstition suddenly reached critical mass resulting in this sudden reaction.

The priests own words. You miss the direct cause as stated by the kids themselves--they WERE accused of being witches!

And they WERE accused of breaking glasses! By the way, why do you suddenly believe "the priests own words"?

You've shown NO actual link between poverty and accusing children of being witches except for the priests words.

My point has been to show the actual link between poverty and abandoning children. The excuses for doing so are fairly uninteresting to anybody but skeptics and Christians. How many times do I have to post this for you to get the point?

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.

No, even your "utter certainty" is wrong! Sometimes people make up excuses that they don't believe in themselves. You've never seen it in the real world, have you??! I think it's called .... let me see .... hypocrisy! Psychopaths and politicians, for instance, do it habitually. I guess, you are probably one of the very few people who either think that the goblins impregnated the girl or that the statutory rapist actually believed that they did ....
But in general, people who don't believe in witches and demon possession not only don't but cannot think that their children are witches or possessed. In general, however, children don't starve because people think that they are witches.

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.

Apparently your pompous arrogance fools you. A pity.

 

[dann]

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.

And, of course, my business all along has been to claim that I have given much more to the world than Randi, right?

I think Chadd and slimething sound more logical than you and much more like someone others would like to know....

Yes, let's turn this into a I-am-much-more-logical-than-you-are comptition. That would be the mature thing to do.

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.

Yes, that is my only hobby and my only argument: I am better than you are! Right!?

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.

Whereas you are starting with the man in the mirror ...
This was a discussion about poverty, superstition and abandoned children in Africa, not about me. I look at myself in other contexts. My credentials are my arguments, that's all I need! Why are credentials suddenly so important? Did I ask you for 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.

I've become a minority now? I actually thought that you were all commies and I came here to make friends!

You've misjudged your own maturity, dialogue skills, expertise, ability to assess the facts and who knows what else.

... You do??! (It's just a qualified guess.)

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.

I thought that you already revealed all my secret shortcomings and defects of character ...

Randi wasn't missing anything. He is a strong supporter of human rights.

I'm not! Mainly because the right to get enough to eat doesn't seem to be high on the list of human rights.

And he pointed out an important truth.

Well, I humbly bow to your reference to authority. If he not only said so, but also pointed it out[/i,] then it must be the truth! (I don't even think that Randi would appreciate this kind of reverence!)

The first and foremost cause for these kids being kicked out is belief in witches.

And we all know that breaking glasses or asking for something to eat are sure signs of witchcraft in superstitious societies.

It is a requirement for "witchhunts". Poverty, never has been. .

No, that's just a requirement for having nothing to eat.

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.

Shame, shame, shame ...
(By the way, isn't that a very Christian virtue?)

 

[dann]

I recommend Cialdini's, Influence and Daniel Goleman's Social Intelligence-

Alternative IQ? No Alternative!
www.skeptica.dk/2002/simonsen5.htm#Alternativ IQ The English translation soon to appear at www.skepticreport.com, I hope.

 

[dann]

Oh--and Randi is not "right-wing" either. Is this weeks commentary the only one you've read??

No. I also read last week's commentary and this one about a demystified object.

Oh--and you are still wrong. Lots of wrongs added up together now!

Wrong ad infinitum. Once again I bow my head in shame.

Will you be apologizing for misjudging so many people?

For the rest of my life!

I hope this arrogance is just due to youth.

Flattery won't get you anywhere, but thank you. Are you sure that you didn't notice my grey hair at TAM2?
Come on, articulett! Cheer up! This is a discussion! I already know that you are much more creative than me when it comes to ad hominems, so let us see an argument, a piece of serious analysis from your hand.
So far I don't think that a single person has declared that the solution to the problem of abandoned, starving children is either unprotected sex, abstinence or more prayer meetings. And the only one who seems to think that it would be a good idea to let the church take care of the starving orphans is you! But I see nothing wrong with feeding them.

 

[dann]

Getting your friends together to say "look how smart and mature and politically correct we are" ...

Do you mean to imply that I knew Athon, Joshua and Gurdur all along, before this discussion began? And that they are all Marxists?

 

[Gurdur]

Although you are congratulating yourselves on your moral superiority

Funny. You're projecting -- you assert your moral superiority but you refuse to give any rational argument to back it up.

--you are still wrong. Although there may well be a correlation between poverty and superstition, one does not cause the other.

Got any evidence for your claim? Or do you simply issue the diktat ex cathedra? You'll forgive me if I am skeptical.

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 are rapidly becoming incoherent here, and all you are doing is huffing out unsubstantiated assertions. Got any rational argument to make?

You think you are more mature than Randi

Got any evidence for that claim? Or are you simply continuing your silly rudeness because you actually have no rational argument to make?

Perhaps you ought to brush up on your social skills

*snicker*
I'll follow your example. Lead on!

In addition to reading the basics regarding correlation and causation; I recommend

I recommend you do what I did, which was advanced biostatistics and medical statistics at uni, epidemology, as well as all the advanced postgrad stuff on psych, meaningful correlation, etc..
Just trying to be helpful.

How is that different than the Christian who comes here to tell us how wrong

How is that different to your conduct, where you arebeing petulantly rude andmaking unsubstantiated assertions, and expecting them to be accepted merely because you say them?

Oh--and Randi is not "right-wing" either.

Who said he was? Since you addressed this post to me, you can now try actually making sense. Where have I ever said Randi was "right-wing"? Or are you simply making things up again?

Is this weeks commentary the only one you've read??

OK, you're simply making things up again. Very silly of you.

Oh--and you are still wrong.

*snicker*
Do you really think your silly repetition substitutes for a rational argument?

Will you be apologizing for misjudging so many people?

*snicker*
I'll follow your example. Lead on! You have plenty of apologies to make.

 

[Gurdur]

... Getting your friends together to say "look how smart and mature and politically correct we are" ....

Now your claims are getting bizarre and well-worthy of the CT forum. Listen up: I don't know a single person active on this thread, and have never interacted in any way whatsoever with dann or Athon beforehand. So put away your silly paranoid notions about some sort of conspiracy.

this IS a skeptics forum

D'oh. So start making some rational arguments instead of your puerile abuse and unsubstantiated assertions. Be prepared to be treated skeptically and stop taking personal offence simply because you're asked to back your claims up.

.... Moreover, you are incredibly divisive...from my perspective.

Oh dear! I am incredibly sorry that I have so deeply offended you by transgressing The Official Party Line and broken Party Discipline by being "divisive" by disobeying Supreme Soviet dictates you have issued ex cathedra.

Well, no, actually, I'm not sorry at all.

 

[Beth]

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.

Good question. But I think you are the most qualified person to answer it on this thread.

 

[Gurdur]

....my grey hair .....

You too, huh? I got a bit of greying around the temples and of course in facial hair, nowhere near as much as you, but hey, leastaways I'm not balding quickly.

Strange thread. Now we get onto male neuroses about greying hair and hair loss. Self-support group time.

 

[dann]

I was alive during Jim Jones in Guyana.

Well, you'll probably not like these:
”Jim Jones decided to move his flock to Ukiah California to set up a commune that he said would be the “perfect society”. Most who followed were poor people of color.”

“If anyone wonders why so many Americans were willing to move to Guyana, the events of the past weeks have shown why. The real-life issues of race, poverty, creeping fascism, war-for-profit, corporate environmental irresponsibility, and religious extremism (Muslim, Christian, Jewish, and Hindu) are as real today as they were in the late-sixties and early-seventies when so many of us joined Peoples Temple.”

“Many of the cult followers were struggling with the social injustice and racial discrimination in the 60s and 70s.”

This one's also good, but it's not about Jonestown:
"Counts addresses the unrelenting poverty of the Kaliai people who live in northwest New Britain. The Kaliai are a horticultural people who grow coconuts to produce copra, a coconut byproduct, which they have begun selling as a cash crop in the market since the colonization of their land. With the arrival of the British people and their way of government, the Kaliai have begun experiencing serious levels of poverty. In response to the lack of help from the government, some of the Kaliai have joined a cargo cult, which tells an inspirational story. The Story says that cargo, or valuable objects, will appear in plenty in New Britain after a snowfall."

You’ll probably enjoy this one, articulett:

"Superstition: a root cause of poverty"

And this one is a practical example of how some Christians hope that they can use poverty to make people superstitious, which, by the way, is what Jones did before he had them kill/killed:
"Reasons for such poverty include the rapid shrinking of Australia’s middle class, underemployment, changes in the workforce, and the high cost of housing. As a result, many people find themselves in dire straits when unforeseen challenges come along. Reduced working hours, job layoffs, illness, or family breakdown can strip away assets and opportunity, leaving people impoverished through no fault of their own."

 

[dann]

You too, huh? I got a bit of greying around the temples and of course in facial hair, nowhere near as much as you, but hey, leastaways I'm not balding quickly.

Sorry, Gurdur, but I lied! It's a combination of make-up and a wig! And I have much more hair than that (from the same party, two hours later), but I'm 10 years older than Claus Larsen!
(And although I was at TAM2, the photo is from Denmark, not Las Vegas!)

 

[dann]

Since you [articulett] addressed this post to me, ...

Sorry that I answered that post, Gurdur, I didn't mean to intrude. It's just that it was so easy to recognize myself in her description of you:

Oh--and you are still wrong.

The number of times I've heard those words ... they bring back sweet memories!

 

[Gurdur]

Sorry, Gurdur, but I lied! It's a combination of make-up and a wig! And I have much more hair than that

Oh god. Now you're really going to feed the Conspiracy Theory affecting us.

but I'm 10 years older than Claus Larsen!

Oh god. Now that you've brought his name into it, we will probably have an anti_Claus flamewar heaped upon us as well.

Denmark

Yet another Dane? I'm quite astonished at the number of vocal Danes on this board --- you, Claus, Danish Dynamite and someone else I can't remember. I wish I could build up such a Danish contingent for my own board.

 

[dann]

Oh god. Now that you've brought his name into it, we will probably have an anti_Claus flamewar heaped upon us as well.

Anti-dann, please! Claus has had more than his share.

Yet another Dane? I'm quite astonished at the number of vocal Danes on this board --- you, Claus, Danish Dynamite and someone else I can't remember. I wish I could build up such a Danish contingent for my own board.

Hans, Mogens, Kerberos (I think), Steen, plindboe ....
Your board looks interesting. Problem is, we aren't all heathens, and we tend to be in total disagreement, except when we are talking about Karen.

 

[dann]

By the way, if any of the Danes are reading this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70852

 

[articulett]

I think people stopped reading this thread when they saw that you presumed yourself more mature than James Randi and everyone else who disagrees with you. If not then, then when you villianized others who disagreed by presuming to know their politics and presuming you knew "the truth" and thus were not capable of learning a thing. I'm sure once they realized that you are as convinced of your rightness as Kurious Cathy is of hers,they recognized that you weren't really capable of dialogue on this topic. I also suspect many people have placed you on ignore. Your awareness raising capabilities seem to be on par with hers.

So let me recap to be sure I understand you. You started this thread because you somehow believed it would raise awareness and help poor people stop calling their children witches? You presumed that most of the people on this forum and Randi had mixed up priorities while yours are "more mature"? Do you know anything about how people change their viewpoints? Randi does. And here's a clue--it's not by presuming you are more mature than everybody else and presuming all who don't agree with you are bad guys (or even WITCHES) or eager to have your "truth" shoved in their heads. You assert your moral superiority without giving anyone an inkling of what makes you likable much less moral. I don't think anyone would look to you as a role model for what their priorities should be, and I think it's hysterical that you would start a thread with that presumption.

Don't you realize that EVERYONE agrees with this statement "people who think like me are more moral than others"? That's why facts are important. And why people need to understand CONFIRMATION BIAS. Your "poverty causes witch-hunts" conclusion is not as clear cut as you've convinced yourselves it is. How in the world did you come to the conclusion that we should respect your opinions while showing no respect for anyone else's opinions?

I want you to know that I teach a freshman college class and they spotted the flaw in Dann's reasoning instantly (confusing correlation with causation), and I thank Randi and his videos for that. Moreover, they understand that this thinking is at the root of all superstitions. So you have raised awareness, but not in the way you had hoped. Also your blindness to your own bias while accusing others of all sorts of biases not warranted by what they said was also noted by a prescient 20 year old. For example, no one said superstition was the only cause (including Randi), and no one brought up politics before you cast your prejudice eye upon the group. You are the one's denying the more direct cause. You are the one's pretending to be open-minded while closing your mind to any who might show you that you are not as right as you think you are and your self congratulatory conclusions are not warranted by the facts.

This could have been a discussion about what plays the greater role and what solutions one could offer, but your own hubris negated that possibility. You are already convinced of your rightness and more mature viewpoint so reasoning with you becomes identical to reasoning with George Bush or Kurious Kathy.

To reiterate, I don't think any of the self congratulating people on this forum are morally superior to me, Randi, or any of the the vast number of people they've lumped together and prejudged (again and again mind you). I find the irony amusing--you accused others of being like George Bush--a man known to think he is always right--a man who doesn't listen to others--a man who is completely unaware of his arrogance coupled with profound scientific ignorance--a man whose actions don't accomplish his goals. And to me, that sounds Dann--but at least, some people find Bush likable and that appears to be a major role in influencing people (social clue for Dann). You also lump people together, prejudge them and dismiss the lot of them exactly like George Bush does. You put false spin on the words of others too. In fact, the more I think about it, the more ironic it seems. I hope others get a chance to appreciate the irony.

Remember: this forum is hosted by the James Randi Education Forum--you too can use it to educate yourselves. James Randi actually accomplishes his goals at educating others. Somehow, I don't think you ego rants on forums helps anyone--certainly not children accused of being witches--even as you pat yourselves on the back for your fine reasoning ability.

Oh, here's some more evidence that you can use your confirmation bias to negate: You do realize that stepchildren are often mistreated, don't you--even in wealthy families? Your proposed solution (if you offered one) might make some families less likely to toss their kids out, but as soon as times got rough, they'd be doing it again--you haven't given them the tool of reason and thus have not provided an actual solution to the problem at all. If your goal is to assure that fewer children are accused of witches, you are free to donate to the priest in the article and pretend your rant makes a difference. I already consider my maturity, morality, and priorities superior to yours. Moreover, I imagine that everyone you have insulted is probably more charitable than you. Randi certainly is.

 

[Gurdur]

I think people stopped reading this thread

Wrong again. Other responses show that people have kept on reading.

you

I don't know which "you" you mean, but it doesn't matter. You are simply being rude and not addressing the points.

I want you to know that I teach a freshman college class

Underachiever. Try harder, get ahead.

This could have been a discussion about what plays the greater role and what solutions one could offer, but your own hubris negated that possibility.

No, and this is what really bugs me. We could have had a good wide-ranging discussion on strategies for tackling poverty and superstition, but instead you descend to loooooooong rants where you simply try using empty rhetorical abuse. That bugs me, because I personally would have liked a good discussion on the actual subject, but it's impossible if you merely rant away on a personal level.

presumed yourself more mature than .... everyone else who disagrees with you.

I already consider my maturity, morality, and priorities superior to yours.

I suppose you are completely unaware of the huge unintentional irony here.

It's quite funny.

 

[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.

Actually, I've not made a single reference to the priest's claim, and make my claim based on my own experiences distinct from anything he has to say.

Perhaps you could clear this then up by clearly answering the following;

Do you think poverty and superstition are intrinsically linked?

Do you think removing superstition from an impoverished, collectivist community is a simple matter of educating them to the contrary?

Do you think that the children would have been accused of witchcraft and subsequently sent away if the community had have developed in an individualist, post-industrial nation?

I'm sure you can easily figure my stance on the above points; superstition is not an isolated factor, hence to address it, the entire picture must be taken into account.

No matter how many times you insinuate that I am trying to 'blame' poverty, it just won't match what I've actually said. So go ahead, burn that straw man. I'll bring the marshmellows.

Facts: Poverty has always been part of humanity.

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

You know this how?

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.

Again, how do you know this?

Sure, there have been exorcisms and abuses which have occured in relatively affluent societies, yet accusations of witchcraft and the active belief in superstitious blame (such as evil spirits etc.) is more prevalent in third world, collectivist communities than in the west. This is just something you can't run from; I'd sooner find somebody who claim my cold was caused by a bad spirit in an Aboriginal community than I would in a major city, that's for sure.

Let me reiterate one thing here; poverty does not necessarily directly cause superstition. I never said it did. The link is in the nature of the culture in impoverished communities who tend to rely more on social thinking than on critical thinking. I have no opinion on Dann's own point concerning whether the children were kicked out as a direct result of being poor (although I tend to think that it was a rather powerful influence). However, the accusations of witchcraft were supported by a culture that was collectivist, and further encouraged into action by poverty.

Did these people accuse their kids of being witches because they were poor? I don't think so. Did people accuse their kids of being witches because they were superstitious? Yes. So far, in agreement...

Are these people superstitious because it assists them in their culture? Yes. Is their culture superstitious because critical voices are not tolerated? Very much so. Is this lack of tolerance due to a collectivist set of values? Yes. Is this collectivist set of values selected for due to poverty? Unfortunately so.

To address the superstition, values must change. And changing the values demands that new values must take their place, lest they lose their culture (which is what has happened in many indigenous cultures all over the world), leading to massive social problems.

Walking in and suggesting they not be superstitious any more is laughable to anybody who has had to deal with such a situation.

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.

Certainly. And if the community defers to superstitious beliefs instead of your logic?

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.

Point out where superstition has been educated out of collectivist, third world community? I'll eat my words if you can show me where a community has remained poor and collectivist and yet is educated to be non superstitious.

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.

Wow. Seriously, you and Slimething must be congratulated on creating such a nice little fantasy realm. Going to add unicorns at some stage?

I tell you what, recount for us the last time you had anything to do with superstition in a pre-industrial community and how you dealt with it.

As for Randi and maturity, I have never suggested that I was more mature. I might have more experience with education, and with education in third world communities, and Randi is one person who would enjoy discussing such matters with somebody more experienced in such matters, I assure you of that.

And you are wrong.

Oh, thanks. I didn't quite grasp that from your ranting.

Athon

 

[athon]

No, and this is what really bugs me. We could have had a good wide-ranging discussion on strategies for tackling poverty and superstition, but instead you descend to loooooooong rants where you simply try using empty rhetorical abuse. That bugs me, because I personally would have liked a good discussion on the actual subject, but it's impossible if you merely rant away on a personal level.

Gurdur, I couldn't agree more.

Skepticism is about removing the emotional sentiments tying somebody to a belief, and analysing how it all works together to produce a phenomenum. When it becomes a game of accusation and dishonest misrepresentation of the argument, it's no longer an educational process where you can actually come to any useful conclusion.

It's not about maturity. It's not about blame. It's not about moral grounds. It's about considering a problem and the issues that created it in the first place in light of what could be done feasibly to prevent it from happening again in the future.

I suppose you are completely unaware of the huge unintentional irony here.

It's quite funny.

Made me laugh.

Athon

 

[Slimething]

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.

Athon, the last time I wrote you, you decided to reply by pretending not to understand a word I wrote. Now you claim to understand me with crystal clarity.

Let me reiterate my position, which has been so ably seconded by articulett. The original discussion that dann so bitterly critiqued concerned the labeling of children as witches in The Congo. Nothing else. No mention was made of, and no discussion was attempted of, underlying social issues or the socioeconomic environment that would lead to said practice. Later, dann decides that it's unfair to criticize these people because they are poor and poverty is to blame. Well, that's his/her/its opinion and has nothing to do with the original discussion.

Monthy Python once had a skit about people stopping their normal work to worry about a water buffalo somewhere that was completely irrelevant to their lives. Seems pretty much like you, dann and chums.

What really slays me is how you and your clique have decided that this is your forum and other people must agree or go read stuff or be charged with creating straw men, etc. Grow up.