Time for skeptics to grow up?!

[articulett]

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."

I hope others appreciate the irony. Your claim is that poverty causes superstition (the people are poor that is why they are accusing their kids of being witches.). This article is claiming the opposite. It's claiming that superstition leads to poverty. My claim is merely that when you reach a conclusion, you seem to see what you want to in others writings. The original article was only noting that belief was a factor in children being accused of being witches. Belief in witches was clearly the most direct cause. It's not the only cause...it's not saying poverty didn't play a role...it's not saying that superstition causes poverty as in the quote above. It's merely noting that belief is a factor. And so addressing superstitions and critical thinking ought to be part of the solution.

Anyhow, I'm sure anyone could find evidence for the claim "superstition causes poverty" or "poverty causes superstition" in the Jim Jones case--but there is not a direct correlation between either. Notice, the two are not the same statements though Dann often confuses such similarly worded claims leading to false conclusions and false arguments based on those false conclusions. The only direct correlation between people who abuse or neglect kids based on superstitious teachings is belief in superstitions. That is not to say that all superstitious people abuse or neglect their kids-- only that all people who neglect or abuse their kids for superstitious reasons (including religion) are people who are in need of critical thinking skills. That is not to say that they don't need other things or other things aren't part of the problem--only that their beliefs are a factor in the abuse they inflict upon their children.

 

[dann]

This is getting extremely boring, articulett: I am wrong, what I say is invalid, I make ad hominems etc. No matter how many times I and others point out the mistakes in your reasoning, it does not seem to help, but let's go again, and let me start with your questions:

Do you still believe the quote reflects an immaturity?

Yes.

Do you still believe that the author was unaware of the role/i poverty plays in accusing kids of being witches?

No, I never claimed that she was. She must at least have read the article in the CSM. I claimed that, like you, I suppose, she knew about the role poverty plays, but chooses to ignore it. These are the first words of my argument:

I am not quite sure, but it appears to me that skeptics sometimes tend to ignore quite obvious truths when looking at reality, something they appear to have in common with Christian Scientists in this case and with many others: ”superstitions (!) breed homeless people”

(A question for you: Is it a coincidence that you use almost the same words and expressions as Sandra L. Hubscher? Is there a particular reason why you are so adamant that Joelblanchette is wrong when he writes that James Randi “endorsed only the last sentence” and not Hubscher’s “entire commentary”?)

Do you understand that belief also plays a role?

Never denied it. Why do you pretend that I did? Please read my latest post today Dec. 21, 11.00 a.m. where I explain the role it plays: Do you understand my explanation? Or would you prefer to go on pretending that I deny that belief plays a role? Do you think that anybody believes this if only you repeat it often enough?
The interesting thing is not that religion plays a role, but which role it plays.

Do you understand that belief was mentioned in the article because James Randi himself believes that education and critical thinking are a way of addressing the belief component of the problem?

Well, belief was a little more than mentioned in the article, wasn't it? Do you understand that the title Time to grow up is not exactly identical with the proposition that "education and critical thinking are a way of adressing the belief component of the problem"? (the belief component of the problem, indeed!)

Do you agree that, generally speaking, people are reluctant to blame "beliefs" for any of the problems--even when people say such beliefs are the reason for committing whatever tragic act was committed?

Which people are reluctant? Which "beliefs" (and why the quotation marks?)? Which problems? And which tragic act was committed?
Could you be a little more specific? Your "generally speaking" doesn't really help. If you want to say (there is no reason to think that your questions are meant to be serious questions) that it may have occurred at one time or another that beliefs were the motive for committing tragic acts and that some people (of the same faith?) were reluctant to blame these beliefs, then, yes, happens all the time!
Are you happy now?
However, as a very firm unbeliever and a citizen of Denmark I experienced a case earlier this year when a bunch of @$$***** went out of their way to provoke the religious sentiments of a minority group for the sole purpose of forcing them to stand up and be counted either as firm believers in the Danish way of doing things or as potential terrorists. Remember the Cartoon Controversy? From the outset it was meant as an insult, as an affront against the Danish Muslim minority, but for some reason or other a lot of people here celebrated it as a major blow to religion, which it wasn't: The newspaper Jyllands Posten carefully avoided any insult to members of the established church of Denmark.
So my question to you is: Do you think that sometimes some people are far too eager to point to religion as the cause of conflicts that aren't actually religious in nature?
Did you ever consider that the conflict between the two opponents in the civil war in Northern Ireland wasn't really a question of religion, but rather a question of nationalism and distribution of wealth although religion was very often blamed? (And do you remember seeing a cartoon of Jesus with a bomb back then? I don't!)
In other words: Don't try to reduce things to being a simple question of religion: pro & contra.

Let me try to empathize with you, even though you don't make it easy: You are a biology teacher in a country where knowledge, the scientific truth about life, is ravaged by armies of religious fundamentalists, whereas I sometimes have the opposite problem: students who find evolution so obvious that they often don't even seriously consider how evolution occurs. I have sometimes had to play the devil's advocate to make them realize how ignorant they often are. I've used the Creationist argument that the eye is too complicated to be explained by means of evolutionary theory. At first they tend to say something along the lines of: 'Well, eyes are a very useful thing, so since we need it and it gives seeing creatures an advantage over blind ones, somehow nature comes up with the eye.' - as if the usefulness of a thing would create it. When I insist that they tell me how and use just a few of the Creationist arguments against them ('half an eye cannot be an advantage' etc.), I often succeed in persuading them that, no, the eye cannot be the result of evolution. (And I can assure you that it is not the last lesson of the season, but only my way of making them realize that so far they only imagine that they know about evolution.)
Similarly my students don’t have a problem with condoms. You can buy them everywhere in Denmark, they all know how to use them, and even though a few fundamentalists are probably offended by this, they don’t have a leg to stand on. The only problem with teenage sex in Denmark probably is that in the heat of passion they sometimes forget what they know, but I don’t think that Denmark has as many teenage pregnancies as you do in the USA. (Well, it's probably not the only problem. Not getting it enough used to be the biggest problem, if I remember correctly, but my students don’t confide their troubles in this respect to me, and I wouldn’t want them to!)
But back to my point: I can easily see why you have become so preoccupied with the questions of religious superstition and birth control, the same way I’m preoccupied with …. (See my sig-line!).
However, you should consider that even though knowledge of condoms and how to use them to prevent unwanted pregnancies and STDs is extremely important, it is not a panacea for all the problems in the world. And even (or particularly) in very poor countries poverty plays a decisive role in this question as well: If you have to choose between food or condoms, the choice is rather obvious, isn’t it? (The priests probably won’t distribute them liberally among the orphans! And they don't want to understand that the choice between abstinence and condoms is just as obvious!)

You can debate whether the main cause is poverty or superstition for the kids mentioned in the article, but the answer, no matter which side you are on, is only an opinion--not a sign that someone or other needs to "grow up".

So you, too, object to the title of the article Time to grow up??!

You've turned a thread meant to provoke into an attack on everyone who disagrees with you--and it all rests on a mistaken premise in the first place.

There’s a big difference between “everyone”. Go back and read your first entry again and see how the rest of them evolve from there. You appear to be very p***ed off, and in a very didactic manner you insist that it is all a question of family planning and condoms, a theme that seems to preoccupy you in other threads as well. It is very hard to accept as a serious objection to anything written by me or others.

You believe the James Randi quote following the letter writers quote means that "many skeptics need to grow up" because you think the letter shows ignorance to the role poverty plays in the equation. The letter does not reflect that at all. It only shows that belief plays a role and few people even seem to realize it.

I think you should go back and read the letter again. If it had simply claimed that belief plays a (!) role, I would not have objected to it. I have already several times explained the role it plays!

a)
1) In Congo a huge number of people abandon their children.
2) A lot of them claim that the children are witches.
3) Others don't. They may be upset merely because a child breaks a glass, and they may even threaten to put a knife in the child's eye when it asks for something to eat.
4) People in this country are destitute and starving.
5) When people starve they become desperate to the point where they may even sell their children or abandon them.
6) People know that this isn't right, it's something that they do not like to do, so they come up with a lot of stupid excuses.
7) This does not mean that they don't believe in their own excuses.
8) It just means that there is a difference between a reason and an excuse for doing something.
9) It isn't necessary to believe in witches in order to abandon your child.
10) It most likely is necessary to believe in witches when you come up with the excuse that you abandon your children because they are witches.
Conclusion: Superstition is the cause of the excuse. Poverty is the cause of the abandonment.
b)
1) A man has sex with a minor.
2) The man impregnates her.
3) Having sex with a minor is not only wrong, it is also illegal, so the man on trial.
4) People accused of crimes invent excuses, sometimes very silly ones.
5) In this case the man puts the blame on the goblins, for goblin's sake.
Conclusion: Being accused of a crime is the cause the excuse. It is not the cause of the crime, statutory rape.

 

[hammegk]

dann: See below for a more fruitful method in 'answering' articulett posts ...

I hope ... I'm sure ...

ROTFLMGDFAO!

 

[dann]

I hope others appreciate the irony. Your claim is that poverty causes superstition (the people are poor that is why they are accusing their kids of being witches.).

Not exactly. You could reduce it to that, but the religious individual has to make an effort on his or her own.
[/QUOTE]This article is claiming the opposite. It's claiming that superstition leads to poverty. My claim is merely that when you reach a conclusion, you seem to see what you want to in others writings. The original article was only noting that belief was a factor in children being accused of being witches.[/QUOTE] I would love to read that article: Belief is a factor in children being accused of being witches. However, the real calamity, as I've already pointed out several times, is that children are being abandoned. Many of these children are also accused of being witches.

Belief in witches was clearly the most direct cause.

It wasn't and isn't! (By the way, what happened to the "factor"?

It's not the only cause...

Again cause, not factor?

it's not saying poverty didn't play a role...

Now role, however, sound much more like a mere factor.

it's not saying that superstition causes poverty as in the quote above. It's merely noting that belief is a factor.

No, it isn't.

And so addressing superstitions and critical thinking ought to be part of the solution.

You are describing a non-existent, imaginary article: 'In Africa children are starving and being kicked out of their homes so they have to live in the streets. A factor in this is superstition, and therefore it part of a solution to the problem will be to address these superstitions!'
I don't think that you believes this yourself. Could you see this fictitious article with a title like Time to grow up??? I cannot!

Anyhow, I'm sure anyone could find evidence for the claim "superstition causes poverty" or "poverty causes superstition" in the Jim Jones case--but there is not a direct correlation between either. Notice, the two are not the same statements though Dann often confuses such similarly worded claims leading to false conclusions and false arguments based on those false conclusions.

Don't go back to outright lying! I often (!) confuse the claim "poverty causes superstition" with "superstition causes poverty"??! Could you show us where this happens?!

The only direct correlation between people who abuse or neglect kids based on superstitious teachings is belief in superstitions.

You do know that this doesn't make sense, don't you?! What is this sentence supposed to mean?

That is not to say that all superstitious people abuse or neglect their kids-- only that all people who neglect or abuse their kids for superstitious reasons (including religion) are people who are in need of critical thinking skills.

Well, now it makes (a little) sense, but it is still nonsensical, in spite of your attempts at applying formal logic to your line of reasoning: What you are saying is that if religion is the problem, i.e. people "abuse their kids for superstious reasons", then the solution to the problem is to education. You might as well say that if the problem is that they are hungry, then the solution is to eat! Your point, however, is to prove to us in the first place that they "neglect or abuse their kids for superstitious reasons", not how you might go about overcoming the problem if superstition actually were the cause of the problem. 'If you do something wrong for a certain reason, then you can stop it by getting rid of this reason. Who can deny it?

That is not to say that they don't need other things or other things aren't part of the problem--only that their beliefs are a factor in the abuse they inflict upon their children.

Do you actually teach this kind of thinking??! Now it has suddenly become one of many factors again.
Go back to the drawing board, articulett ...

 

[dann]

dann: See below for a more fruitful method in 'answering' articulett posts ...

ROTFLMGDFAO!

I don't think so. articulett is trying, and I think she's on the verge of realizing what is the point of this discussion. Unlike Slimething, who hasn't once tried to establish a serious argument.
Well, it's late over here. Good night!

 

[Thinktoomuch]

Originally Posted by articulett
I want you to know that I teach a freshman college class ....
I want you to know that's one of the scariest things I can think of.

What school? If I know someone there I'll try to get them to switch to an institution of higher learning in lieu of a pablum dispenser.

My sentiments entirely. Let's be fair, though, he recognises in Bush the results of such an effective education system.

For my education: could you please tell me what ROTFLMGDFAO stands for?

 

[Slimething]

Unlike Slimething, who hasn't once tried to establish a serious argument.

You responded to the first posts I put up with:

My comments are in context, Slimething. Let that sink in a minute ....

and

Strawman, Slimething!...And another one!

I reply in kind. But it don't matter no more, dannie. I've seen this argument before and it's banal beyond reason. Seen it before and I'll see it again and again and again. And it still doesn't get any better than the first time it fell flat on its face.

Oh, and let's not forget one of your better arguments. It went something like this:


At least when you pretend to be the martyr (No one listens to me, yada, yada, yada), you get within spitting distance of the truth.

 

[articulett]

Dann,
Your whole argument is that many skeptics need to grow up because apparently they don't recognize the role poverty plays in people accusing their kids of being witches--you deduced this because the newsletter didn't mention poverty--do you really conclude that the people are too dumb to realize the poverty factor because it wasn't mentioned? That Randi, the letter writer, and everyone who thought the comment made sense needs to "grow up" because they are focused on the wrong thing? The thing that never seems to get mentioned is the belief aspect. I'm not the author of the letter if that is what you are implying, and I think that Randi clearly intended to endorse the quote with his agreement noted. He did not say, "I agree with the last line." Plus, I've heard him speak in person on a number of occasions and so his position is clear to me. I presume it was clear to everyone else who didn't have a problem with it. It has nothing to do with not recognizing poverty...it has everything to do with peoples' seeming unwillingness to even admit that belief plays a role in the problem. He's very easy to talk to, and I'm sure you can call him and ask him personally what his position is. Or, if you are going to TAM, ask him there.

If you want to debate whether belief or poverty plays a more important role (factor, influence, or whatever word you want) or whether poverty is the direct cause and not a mere correlation and/or what solutions are best, then that is a different type of conversation. It involves the exchange of information--not someone accusing others of "needing to grow up" because they comment on how beliefs underlie tragedies--not attacks upon peoples' character because they disagree with you.

(And I am so flattered that you oppose me, Hammy; that puts me in excellent company apparently from what I've gathered of your posts. Have you ever actually engaged in a dialogue in any of your postings?--or is it all winks and eye rolls and childish acronyms to let everyone know how much cleverer you think you are than everyone else (you and your "intelligent designer") I will be sure and ask my students what they think regarding your assessment of my teaching abilities, but frankly, I'd fail a student with reasoning as poor as yours.).

And yes, correlation is different than causation, but a person would have to recognize that he made a false presumption because of what was NOT mentioned in an article before he would be able to understand the difference, I suspect. Just as not mentioning poverty does not mean a person is unaware of poverty (or needs to "grow up"); so too is it a logical fallacy to presume one thing caused another merely because there is a correlation. People who wear bathing suits a lot are more likely to get skin cancer, but that doesn't mean bathing suits cause skin cancer.

Poverty may be a reason (or cause, factor, etc.) for people getting rid of their kids. This in turn might make them reach for ready excuses. (I'm sure we agree up to this point). In the Congo, witchcraft is one of the excuses they are seeing more frequently as poverty increases. (I bet we agree on this as well.) But that does not mean that poverty causes people to accuse their kids of being witches--at least not directly. They have to have a belief or culture that supports such notions in the first place. (I'm sure you might even agree with this). So the only point in contention with others whom you have slandered repeatedly is the word "cause". And your only actual issue with the original article is that it didn't mention poverty which you believe to be the cause of people accusing kids of being witches...you think this failure to mention poverty means that people need to "grow up"--because somehow they're not realizing that poverty is part of the problem. The poverty part is obvious to me, Randi, and everyone else who bothered to read the article; the poverty in Africa is well known by anyone mildly up on current events--it's the belief aspect that people seem to repeatedly overlook, and Randi aims to make people more aware of this oversight. In fact, I'd say that is one of the major components of JREF.

And the endless ad homs and self aggrandizing just makes your argument look week. So does continually changing the topic or playing semantic games. (So does having Hammy in your corner, but that's besides the point.) Stick to one claim at a time.

Do you agree with this statement: Randi's comment in the newsletter indicates (to you) that neither he nor the letter writer have considered the role of poverty in the equation. This failure to mention poverty is indicative of an immaturity (to you)--because you believe that poverty is the "main reason" that people are accusing kids of being witches and that supernatural beliefs play a superfluous role in the problem. So the essence of your argument is that Randi and the letter writer and all the skeptics who need to "grow up" are emphasizing beliefs (which you believe to be superfluous) instead of mentioning poverty which you believe is the cause of the problem.

Right? See how simple that is? Is there anything you disagree with there? I think everyone understands that part...even if we don't all agree with you on your conclusions--so there is no need to beat that dead horse. Just stick with the "to you" aspects; the rest appears to have been understood from the beginning.

 

[hammegk]

I don't think so.

Live and learn, as they say ...

...articulett is trying,

Actually, very trying.

 

[hammegk]

... Usual useless blather excised ...

... Hammy ... Have you ever actually engaged in a dialogue in any of your postings?

... ditto ...

Only with people who appear to have at least two(2) brain cells to rub together.

 

[dann]

I will be sure and ask my students what they think regarding your [= hammegk's. dann] assessment of my teaching abilities, but frankly, I'd fail a student with reasoning as poor as yours.).

That is exactly the reason why you should never ask your students if they agree or disagree with you - and expect an honest answer. And if they appear to agree with ýou, you should never use this agreement as an argument for your point of view. Teachers are authorities, furnished with the power and even obligation to grade - and sometimes fail - their students. To ask a student to agree with you as a teacher is one of the accepted kinds of blackmail in our societies ...

Do you agree with this statement: Randi's comment in the newsletter indicates (to you) that neither he nor the letter writer have considered the role of poverty in the equation. This failure to mention poverty is indicative of an immaturity (to you)--because you believe that poverty is the "main reason" that people are accusing kids of being witches and that supernatural beliefs play a superfluous role in the problem. So the essence of your argument is that Randi and the letter writer and all the skeptics who need to "grow up" are emphasizing beliefs (which you believe to be superfluous) instead of mentioning poverty which you believe is the cause of the problem.

Do you agree with these statements? Poverty is the main reason why people abandon their children in the third world and elsewhere. If you feel forced to do something very bad to somebody, you may often make up the excuse that he or she, your victim, is to blame for your actions. Thus people on trial also tend to come up with (sometimes even very silly) excuses. During times of stress people are more likely to turn to the supernatural for information, consolation or excuses. It would be ridiculous to tell James Randi that having you, articulett, in his corner makes his arguments look weak.
Can you agree with these statements, articulett?

And the endless ad homs and self aggrandizing just makes your argument look week. So does continually changing the topic or playing semantic games. (So does having Hammy in your corner, but that's besides the point.) (...)

Right? See how simple that is?

 

[dann]

You responded to the first posts I put up with:

My comments are in context, Slimething. Let that sink in a minute ....

(...)
I reply in kind. But it don't matter no more, dannie.

No, Slimething, I replied in kind. You never do. Remember your own post, to which my Let that sink in was an answer?

This is a forum for exchanges among skeptics. As such, the topic at hand is the dangerous reasoning that many families in this tragic situation are using to dump their children. Let that sink in a minute.

By the way, what is the code? Am I now supposed to call you Slimie or what?

 

[dann]

PS I still think that the water buffalo was your best argument so far!

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.

 

[Gurdur]

Well, I'm extremely busy at the moment so I don't have much time to spare for these goings-ons, but a little I shall add anyway.

This is a forum for exchanges among skeptics. As such, the topic at hand

Doesn't follow. Can't see how the forum's nature determines the topic. The OP was determined quite correctly by a response to one of Randi's reply to a reader. I would have thought the OP thus determines the topic, and is in the right forum; it's kind of very odd of you to tell the OP author just what the topic is allowed to be in the middle of the thread and what his allowed comments are.

is the dangerous reasoning that many families in this tragic situation are using to dump their children. Let that sink in a minute.

You're telling this to the OP author? Bit silly, eh? Let that sink in for a moment.

Skeptics are human beings and express different feelings at different times and in different ways. This discussion group is not a discussion group about world hunger or poverty.

Pardon me; are you a JREF admin? Or even a mod of this forum? If not, this stuff is only your opinion and nothing more. Let that sink in for a moment too. Since poverty and hunger are extremely pertinent issues to the topic at hand, then they are despite your opinion very relevant to the discussion, whether you like it or not.

The topic at hand is the unthinkable justifications being used to oust these children.

And it thus involves just why those children are being ousted, which means discussiing the role of poverty and hunger in the legitimizational belief structures, whether you like it or not.

You don't like discussing suchlike? Then don't read the thread.

Keep your comments in context or don't make them at all.

Maybe you should take your own advice. Well and truly.

 

[Slimething]

No, Slimething, I replied in kind. You never do. Remember your own post, to which my Let that sink in was an answer?

I'm not going to be drawn to your level, dannie. "No, you started it!" Whatta buncha crap.

I challenged your credentials to draw the type of conclusions that you evidently have made and you answered like a college sophomore: "Is this some type of competition?" Bush league answer. You've drawn a major conclusion from one data point.

I challenged your basic premise with the Mother of all Witchhunts, the Malleus Malificarum, and you tried to dodge the issue by equating "educated" and "not ignorant". They're not the same thing, dannie. You could be the most educated person in the world but still be ignorant. As a matter of fact, no one can escape being ignorant of one thing or another, right dannie?

So, for someone who has not responded substantively, I've pretty well blown two holes in your hypothesis that you have not yet explained. All I've seen is a bunch of hand-waving. In science, we would reject this hypothesis and send you home to think about it some more, dannie. Why don't you?

By the way, what is the code? Am I now supposed to call you Slimie or what?

Kinda losing it, aren't you?

 

[Slimething]

Ah, my good friend gurdur makes a return appearance since being sent away to read up on the definition of "reductionism". What did you learn, gurdur?

Doesn't follow. Can't see how the forum's nature determines the topic. The OP was determined quite correctly by a response to one of Randi's reply to a reader. I would have thought the OP thus determines the topic, and is in the right forum; it's kind of very odd of you to tell the OP author just what the topic is allowed to be in the middle of the thread and what his allowed comments are.

Could you resend this in English or at least some form of logic that someone could follow? How is an OP determined? I also think that you may not know the difference between a forum and a thread. Back to the library with you, then.

And it thus involves just why those children are being ousted, which means discussiing the role of poverty and hunger in the legitimizational belief structures, whether you like it or not.

Another water buffalo! Now we have to discuss hunger, not only poverty! This is one heck of a ride! Can I have chips with that?

 

[articulett]

Excellent. I will take the ad homs as a sign that I have boiled down the gist of the argument: Randi's comment in the newsletter indicates (to you) that neither he nor the letter writer have considered the role of poverty in the equation. This failure to mention poverty is indicative of an immaturity (to you)--because you believe that poverty is the "main reason" that people are accusing kids of being witches and that supernatural beliefs play a superfluous role in the problem. So the essence of your argument is that Randi and the letter writer and all the skeptics who need to "grow up" are emphasizing beliefs (which you believe to be superfluous) instead of mentioning poverty which you believe is the cause of the problem.

There, we are all on the same page.

And, remember Dann, you started the ad homs--they are the tool of those who have weak arguments and big egos to protect. Your supporters seem to only support with ad homs --no substance; that makes you look like you're on the side of the actual people who "need to grow up". Now, I try not to start with ad homs, but I'm glad to join in to a rousing game of "you're mother wears army boots", and I am known to go for the jugular. (This always makes me feel a little guilty, because generally I like the members of this forum; besides I'd probably even agree with you on most things other than what the original article implied and who the skeptics are that "need to grow up" And, of course, I also noted that you confused correlation with causation. That's a common error, but you shouldn't have compounded it by acting as if you believed yourself to be more "grown up" than others--including Randi (!?). Humility can be more influential than hubris.) And though I wasn't the original letter writer, I am flattered that you thought I was. If I spoke like her, it might be because I had just gone back to read the quote that got you so worked up that you needed to start a thread about skeptics needing to grow up.

When people alter their views it's rarely by someone who attacks. People are more likely to change their views when someone they likes points out commonalities they share and then defines the actual area of disagreement. Then questions can be utilized to prod people towards your position, but you also have to show a willingness to be prodded toward theirs. Attacking people just makes them think you are a jerk and no one learns a thing. (I'm not saying that flame-wars can't be fun, but that's a game where I don't play nice.) Just think of viewpoints where you changed your mind (if that has ever happened)...Have you ever had an "evolution of thought"?--Did the thinking start with someone's assertion that you needed to grow up and be more like them? Did sarcasm and ad homs prod your thinking along. They don't do it for anyone else either. So it's important to consider your goal prior to posting.

Now, I'm guessing that despite their ability to communicate effectively, your increasingly fewer supporters buy the basic premise that skeptics who point out the suffering caused by belief are pointing out something inconsequential as opposed the more pressing matter (to you) of poverty. But from my point of view that just shows how people are almost blinded to the role belief plays in tragedies. It makes Randi and the letter writer's statement all the more significant--and your missing the point and presuming moral superiority all the more ironic. If you want to claim that poverty is the true cause of kids being called witches and/or that belief has little to do with the issue, then I suggest that you bone up on the difference between correlation and causation. Before determining that Randi, and the letter write, and all those who agree with the letter writer and all those willing to stand up to your self important post need to "grow up"--you might want to get your definitions down first. And you might want to consider the fact that you took peoples failure to mention poverty as an indication that they were unaware of the role it played. Moreover, you took their mentioning of belief as something that they mentioned for superfluous reasons. The reasons aren't superfluous. Your own post shows how people are "programmed" to overlook the damage it causes.

 

[athon]

And, remember Dann, you started the ad homs--they are the tool of those who have weak arguments and big egos to protect.

Ad hom's are always a weak means of addressing an issue. And while I don't excuse dann from using them, at least he has attempted to offer some form of argument in his posts, unlike others in this thread who continue to post without substance.

Your supporters seem to only support with ad homs --no substance; that makes you look like you're on the side of the actual people who "need to grow up".

I'm really wondering what this means. I've offered an argument on the matter which has been ignored, for reasons I can only assume that it doesn't
present as interesting debate as one that polarises the issue.

I realise it must seem jolly good fun to throw ad-hom's and childish tantrums back and forth, but as I've said from the beginning, oversimplifying the issue in an attempt to remove certain matters like poverty from the argument are useless in the face of speculating ways to address solutions.

A magic wand approach would be great, if not for the fact it is unacheivable. In the real world, while it would be great to remove superstition with a wish and a prayer, it is so tied up in social customs and socioeconomic situations that all the name calling and moral posturing in the world won't do a darn thing to address it.

Sure makes you feel good, though, I'm sure.

Now, I try not to start with ad homs, but I'm glad to join in to a rousing game of "you're mother wears army boots", and I am known to go for the jugular. (This always makes me feel a little guilty, because generally I like the members of this forum; besides I'd probably even agree with you on most things other than what the original article implied and who the skeptics are that "need to grow up" And, of course, I also noted that you confused correlation with causation. That's a common error, but you shouldn't have compounded it by acting as if you believed yourself to be more "grown up" than others--including Randi (!?). Humility can be more influential than hubris.)

I agree that dann has poorly argued his case, and has used language that has clearly upset some people, but I would have though some people would indeed be mature enough to not take affront at such a stupid thing. I consider myself a skeptic, and sure, being told to grow up is never good. But there is an argument beneath it, and in that case I tend to ignore the way it is presented and look solely at the facts. Getting emotional over it is, well, a waste of time.

I personally think it was a pointless thing to say in reference to this entire situation; for Randi to insinuate that those in the community should 'grow up' is a meaningless suggestion, insinuating that the true reason behind the abhorrent actions of these villagers is one of immaturity and ignorance, and as such, offers no real solution and inspires no real discussion on how one should tackle the matter.

Now, I'm guessing that despite their ability to communicate effectively, your increasingly fewer supporters buy the basic premise that skeptics who point out the suffering caused by belief are pointing out something inconsequential as opposed the more pressing matter (to you) of poverty.

Again, if by 'supporters' you are referring to the arguments that I have put forward, then do yourself a favour and go back and address them, rather than mistate them in an effort to make it look as if you have somehow offered a suitable response.

Athon

 

[dann]

I'm not going to be drawn to your level, dannie. "No, you started it!" Whatta buncha crap.

I challenged your credentials to draw the type of conclusions that you evidently have made and you answered like a college sophomore: "Is this some type of competition?" Bush league answer. You've drawn a major conclusion from one data point.

No, you're right. Apparently you'll never reach my "level", by means of arguments or by being dragged.
Your so-called challenging my credentials consisted in telling me that you had been to more third world countries than I had, but you tend to forget that this was never my argument (and it would have been a very childish one if I had): 'I've been to more third-world countries than Randi, Slimething and articulett, and therefore I'm right and they're wrong!' That is your kind of argument, not mine:
And for the education of others, who are not as argumentatively challenged as you appear to be, let us take a look at the way you create your strawman:

Originally Posted by dann
Cuba is the only third-world country I've been to,...

Originally Posted by Slimething
So you get on your high horse because you've been to one poor country? You really do need a reality enema, dann! I've been to at least ten times as many as you have. As a matter of fact, I've lived in the poorest country in the Wester Hemisphere. (I betcha you can't even name it!) The people there are not superstitious because they're poor. They are uneducated (ignorant).

I mention Cuba as an example of a poor country with educated inhabitants but growing superstition. You 1) only quote me for saying that I've been to Cuba, 2) ignore the rest, 3) pretend that I have assumed a position of superiority based on this, and 4) try top this by telling us that you have not only been to more poor countries, but even to the poorest one of them all, which 5) you seem to think makes you win the superiority competition, which you 6) even conclude with a guessing game!
I cannot see how it can get more childish than that!

I challenged your basic premise with the Mother of all Witchhunts, the Malleus Malificarum, and you tried to dodge the issue by equating "educated" and "not ignorant". They're not the same thing, dannie. You could be the most educated person in the world but still be ignorant. As a matter of fact, no one can escape being ignorant of one thing or another, right dannie?

Yes, you may even have been to ten poor countries, including the poorest in the western hemisphere, and still be ignorant. Like you say: No one can excape being ignorant of one thing or another, right Slimething? You mentioned the Malleus Maleficarum, and I replied that the people behind it were extremely educated, because so far that is what has been mentioned as the panacea for curing all superstition by you and articulett. However, it is a little ironic that you, of all people, seem to think that mentioning an example of persecution of heretics -

"By questioning any part of Catholic belief, one could be branded a heretic. Scientists were branded heretics by virtue of repudiating certain tenets of Christian belief (most notably Galileo, whose theories on the nature of planets and gravitational fields was initially branded heretical). Writers who challenged the Church were arrested for heresy (sometimes formerly accepted writers whose works had become unpopular). Anyone who questioned the validity of any part of Catholic belief did so at their own risk."

- will somehow benefit your cause! This is the way that fundamentalists of all persuasions, religious, political or .... skeptical, tend to behave, be they religious, political ..... or skeptical, apparently. Fundamentalism can't do without exaggeration, without hyperbole, and unfortunately this is something that even the article about the witch hunts of the middle ages does not quite escape when it says that
"It [the Malleus Maleficarum] set into the general Christian consciousness, for all time, a belief in the existence of witches as a real and valid threat to the Christian world. It is a belief which is held to this day."
Personally I don't know a single Christian who believes "in the existence of witches as a real and valid threat", but of course I also live in a country where rather few people have reason to think that their very existence is threatened. Destitution is limited which means that the preachers of hell and damnation do not have an audience. I do know that the belief in the existence of witches exists in certain corners of the Christian world, but I also know that you don't need a document from the middle ages in order to create a witchhunt: The human mind is a very creative thing, and in times of stress people are able to make up the kind of witches they need entirely on their own. Pointing your fingers at scapegoats is not a practice that depends on access to old religious myths, here or in Africa.

So, for someone who has not responded substantively, I've pretty well blown two holes in your hypothesis that you have not yet explained. All I've seen is a bunch of hand-waving.

Yes, you are indeed "someone who has not responded substantively" , which is why you've only managed to shoot yourself in the foot. [I can't believe it's come to this!]

In science, we would reject this hypothesis and send you home to think about it some more, dannie. Why don't you?

In science this would be called outright lying and misrepresentation, and people doing so would probably lose their jobs.[/QUOTE]

Kinda losing it, aren't you?

You lost it from the very beginning. Pretending that it isn't so may make you look like a winner in your own eyes, the tough, in-your-face, stick-to-the-facts, don't-take-no-crap-from-nobody kinda guy

Whatta buncha crap.

the John Wayne of Skepticism, in other words,
so keep it up and give us more examples of rational, critical thinking to hold up to the world of superstitious ignorants as an example of all that's best in rationality, science, skepticism and the tool of reason!

 

[articulett]

Athon,
Yes,you have, by far, been his most intelligent supporter. But you, like he, seem to think that the beliefs have nothing to do with kids being accused of being witches. Moreover, the newsletter in no way suggested that the people were accusing kids of being witches due to "immaturity" or ignorance. You extrapolated that.

The comment was about beliefs--and how they result in damage--and yet people seem blissfully unaware that they are even part of the problem. Certainly the priest in the quoted article didn't even question the belief system. Dann and you seem to think it's trivial. Do you think that the role faith played in the 9-11 hijackers' actions was trivial? Do you think there was a more direct "cause" than their honest belief that they were doing Allah's will and would be rewarded for it? I often think about what might have happened if someone had even asked those men how they knew souls were real. Do you think Andrea Yates belief that she was sending her kids to their eternal bliss before they could risk hell is insignificant in her actions? Nobody is talking about immaturity or ignorance--they are talking about the way beliefs cause harm. The way deference to faith causes harm. To the ways people seem oddly blinded to the role faith plays in tragedy.

Religious missions go into Africa and preach against birth control, and that the people need to accept Christ as their savior to live happily and that demons tempt people, etc. Muslim sects are also big in Africa.

Yes, religious charities feed people, but they do so in exchange for adherence to their teachings. If poor families in your country were accusing their kids of being witches and abandoning them on the street, do you really think that feeding those kids and the families they come from would be the only solution? It doesn't even address the direct cause --people see behavior they don't understand in others and attribute it to supernatural things--gods, demons, witches, evil forces, or whatever it is they have been taught via their culture. If you give them money and food, it doesn't make them suddenly think the kids they abandoned aren't witches. It doesn't make the kids called witches feel better about themselves. It doesn't keep the problem from happening again when poverty comes around again. It doesn't guide them as to the best means of handling children they can't afford nor does it help them plan their families so they're not having children they can't afford.

In order to stop witch hunts in recent history, we had to become aware of what was actually happening--And we keep learning. Remember the Preschool teachers undone my false memories implanted by psychologists? A modern day witch hunt. And nobody really is to blame are they--we didn't know about false memories before. I'm sure the psychologists who elicited these memories from kids had no idea they were leading the witnesses.

People are blind to the damage caused by the very notion that faith is good or that we should give deference to peoples' beliefs in the supernatural. And from a semantic viewpoint the belief is the most direct cause of people accusing their kids of being witches. Remember, correlation is NOT causation. Poverty may be correlated with witch accusations, but it is not the cause. If those families were refusing to give their kids blood transfusions because they believed they couldn't get into heaven without them--you'd agree that faith was a problem. If these people were poor and couldn't really afford blood transfusions and the death of a child made others have a better chance of surviving--you wouldn't be railing against people who point out that belief is the more direct cause of the childrens' deaths. You might be all for donating medical aid, but you wouldn't have solved the problem if the fear was still there.

That is ALL that is being said. Belief is a huge part of the tragedy in the article (kids being accused of witches). To call the belief factor superfluous or presume that it's a judgment upon the victims is mistaken. Moreover, it dismisses the most direct cause of the problem.

To comment on the dangers of beliefs or faith filled notions is hardly passing judgment on people. Why would you think it is? Has Randi ever appeared judgmental to you? We know that humans are, by nature, trusting and readily confuse correlation with causation resulting in confirmation bias for any beliefs they've been indoctrinated with. We know that even mature and educated people fall prey to such beliefs--because of this unspoken idea that faith is something good--or something one shouldn't question or prod. All people seem to think they are immune to being fooled. It is not blaming the victim or anyone else--just voicing the obvious. Beliefs can be dangerous. Anyone can be victims. The tools of critical thinking as Randi well knows are tools that everyone can use--tools that can be used to stop tragedies caused (in part or in whole) by faith. The beliefs ARE a major component of the tragedy in question-- just like you have to believe that people can be possessed before determining that someone is possessed--you have to believe in witches to determine somebody is a witch. How many people have been demonised because of such beliefs? It's a recipe for disaster even if the poverty is addressed--because people can still have seizures, mental illness, odd behavior, attacks of rage--and exhibit many other qualities one might expect to find in a witch. Step parents will still have primal feelings that make them overly sensitive to time, money, and effort spent on children who don't carry their genes--and for such parents, accusing a child of being a witch, will still be a ready remedy.

Lots of people are addressing the poverty. The religious group in the article was--and it was in a Christian Magazine--so the poverty angle is being covered. You are free to give whatever you want to the charities of your choice or to give directly to groups that help. I give to groups that help educate and provide family planning services without forcing superstitious beliefs in return. And I teach. Because I think critical thinking skills have been immensely valuable to me--I want everyone to have them.

I think you and others misinterpreted what was said in the original newsletter and extrapolated meaning that wasn't there. Moreover, I think you've underestimated the role that beliefs played in the tragedy--and you thought that by mentioning beliefs the original letter writer was belittling the victims or unaware of the poverty aspect of the problem. If the letter writer was like me or Randi--that is not the case. And I hope you re-read it with this information in mind.