Stop the Saatchi Bill
Accolades & Quackolades

"Best blog of the day IMHO."
Simon Singh


"This blogpost is simply brilliant."
Mark Burnley


"You are a rude argumentative bully. You are a typical "skeptic" - not sceptical at all."
Andrew, anti-vaxer


"Your piece about House of Commons Science and Technology sub-Committee’s ‘evidence check’ on homeopathy was one of the best I’ve seen. Strength to your elbow."
Tony


"...an individual calling themselves ‘scepticat’ or ‘sceptikat’- a highly volatile dictatorial site run by a wannabe megalomaniac. A truly disturbed person with a anger management issue venting via their little site to their own personal herd of sycophants."
Centella, one of Dr Andrew Jones personal herd of sycophants.


"Excellent report, which I can vouch for completely."
Jack of Kent


"The ludicrous nature of the complaint, and some of the responses by Dr Ranj and the BBC, has already been expertly documented on the Skepticat UK blog".
Dean Burnett


"Choke on your own vomit and die in agony..."
r wesley edwards, aka @CommonCormorant, author


"A very good rebuttal…"
Anna Watson, anti-vaxer Arnica UK


"A staggering amount of pathological disbelief allied with a staggering amount of arrogance."
AJP, homeopath


"I just love this blog, and this post is a fine example of it’s content – ‘Inside the spine wizard’s den’ – Skepticat. Why do some of us feel that we are above challenging argument and peer review? I just wish that I could write as well as some of these bloggers!"
Jonathan Hearsey, osteopath


"Skepticat is a particularly venomousness (sic) skeptic, a humanist who lives by the "golden rule", she refused to let me follow her on twitter because I am "bonkers" which may endear her to many in the chiropractic profession..."
Richard Lanigan, chiropractor


"Die Die die die!"
r wesley edwards, aka @CommonCormorant, author


"Loved that article. It really shows what chiropractors are really all about. What I call the "chiro show" Exposing people to totally unnecessary X-rays should be criminal. Thank you!"
mt


"I think skepticat is plain mad at not having children of her own. Hatred projected out to the world. It's sad to see someone with so much self hatred, destroying themself internally without even realising it."
Bebo, chiropractor


"Hooray for Reason! Just want to thank you for writing this. Even though the arguments presented are tired, and played out, they still must be refuted."
Elijah


"I understand that you have been traumatised by your experience and that this is your way of coming to terms with the emotional scars."
Stefaan Vossen, chiropractor


"All you really seem interested in is banging your repetitive drum and preaching to the converted."
Rick, osteopath


"All the entries I’ve read are excellent. I’ll be coming back to read more. Love the cat logo as well."
Derrik


"Research in Homeopathy Conference - Skepticat's hilarious account. She went to it."
David Colquhoun


"Her site is Skepticat UK... she wouldn’t know a punchline if it raped her. Or maybe she’d thank it."
Scott Cappurro, comedian


"I rather love the lunacy of the anti-Homeopathists, such as yourself."
James Pannozzi, homeopath


"Good blog from a skeptic which examines the "science" of Homeopathy in a very detailed way. Skeptics will love this. Proponents of homeopathy? Not so much."
SidDithers


"I really shouldn’t waste my valuable time with someone who obviously has at the very least a borderline personality disorder."
Erika Alisuag, homeopathist


"I’m finding it difficult to come up with some suitable words to say how good and interesting your stuff is. So, in the absence of suitable hyperbole can I say what a very well written and presented blog you have here. Really well thought out and researched. And passionate about it too! Complimenti!"
pv


"You’re whole life is worthless because you lack reason."
AJP, homeopath


"Great stuff Skepticat."
Lifelinking


"When you have learnt some big words and also studied your history books you’ll find that the world was once thought to be flat…by people just like you."
Sarah Hamilton, homeopath


"Thanks for keeping the banner of reason flying high."
John Willis Lloyd


"This is just a general comment. I love this well-written an unfussy little blog (I don’t mean little in a derogatory way, but in the sense it’s not bombastic, self-important and posturing). Excellent material and a worthwhile focus, keep up the good work."
xenophon19


"Her website is a temple to diatribe – I have no sympathy for the homeopaths, etc, with whom she battles, but she clearly gets off on confrontation."
JF Derry


"Skepticat is strictly logical and attacks in unparliamentary words what she deems to be “quackery” – or suggestions that she sounds a little strident."
Andy Reporter


"LOVE the badass attitude! Seriously...KEEP IT UP!"
HelpIzOnTWay


"You were a playful little diversion for a. moment, but I do have better things to do with my time than waste more than half an hour of it stooping down to play your ego supporting self delusional mind games……"
Susan Elizabeth, homeopathist


"An excellent read, thanks for taking thr time to compose it."
Alan C


"You need to do a course in anger management."
katenut, nutritionist


"FWIW I think you manage your anger rather well...mostly by focusing it into a thin, narrow beam of incisive rage which you then use to inscribe words on screen. ;)"
Despard


"Excellent description of the events."
Simon Perry


"You seem to be of probably well-meaning, but bigoted and fundamentalist disposition, just parroting slogans from others without any really knowledge or insight yourself."
Neil Menzies


"Superb, as usual"
phayes


"You seem only interested in ranting against an enemy which you are apparently still struggling to come to terms with “fifteen years” later."
Rick, osteopah


"Bravo, great post!"
RBO


"One day if you are not very careful you will be left behind in the dark ages. I’m sure this will not be printed..but hope it is read by you poor little scaredy cats."
Sarah Hamilton, homeopath


"Brilliant piece!"
crabsallover


"While you babble on like a total airhead about Myhill, you ignore the real doctors who are a danger in the UK".
struck-off doctor, Rita Pal, 'NHS whistle-blower'


"I sincerely hope I never get to your stage of wilful ignorance. You know absolutely diddly squat about the subject but you think your opinion is the only opinion."
AJP, homeopath


"Keep up the spin, you manky old chicken's foot."
JB, chiropractor


"I am forced to conclude you are blogging on behalf of a specific entity that does wish to remain anonymous."
AJP, homeopath


"The person writing all this negative press on homeopathy must be getting a big fat check from one of the pharmaceutical companies who would dearly love to push homeopathy off the map."
Erika Alisuag


"Such reporting lands you clearly in the realm of fundamentalist extremism–much noise, no substance, and money from those who have something to sell. It is so unfortunate that your listening skills are in need of repair."
Tanya Marquette, homeopath


"She seems to revel in presenting the many insults that she has attracted as a column of “Quackolades” on her site, as if war wounds on display,"
JF Derry, self-publicist


"Oh shut up SK. You write hot air and spew rubbish as usual."
Rita Pal again.

An angry witch and a charge of religious hatred

When I wrote my last blog, I didn’t anticipate that my next one would be devoted to defending it from a charge of ‘religious hatred’ by an angry Wiccan. I’ll call my critic by his Twitter name of ‘Rushyo’, though he does use his real name on some of his comments under my last blog. To introduce him, here’s a clip from his own blog:

As readers of this blog will be aware, I’m currently attempting to put a journal to study witchcraft. In the interests of good research, I openly disclose the fact that I am a) part of the skeptical community and b) part of the Wiccan community. A skeptical Witch.

Rushyo basically has two issues with what I wrote: one is that the blog contained a “horrendously poor skeptical analysis”. The other is that, in my response to his first comment beneath the blog, I’m guilty of religious hatred/intolerance. I’ll try to address both of these.

The post in question contains a spell lifted from a witches’ website. The spell involves writing “a goal you desire” on a bit of paper and throwing it into a river or sea while reciting a rhyme. The spell is accompanied by the categorical statement that “the ink and paper dissolve into the water and the spell begins to work”.

No plausible mechanism by which this spell might achieve the desired outcome is suggested and it struck me that there was some small similarity with homeopathic remedies, in that both appear to rely on water having a power that has not thus far been confirmed by scientific research, in spite of extensive investigation of water at a molecular level.

A further similarity between homeopathy and this particular remedy may be inferred by the claim that the spell begins to work when the paper and ink dissolve, implying an inverse relationship between the degree of dissolution and the efficacy of the spell. The more dilute, the more potent. Sound familiar?

Anyway, I didn’t state this argument in as many words but expected instead that readers would see the point without explanation. I concluded with the suggestion that it wasn’t wrong to call homeopathy witchcraft after all.

In one of his comments below the piece, Rushyo says,

Your argument makes as much scientific sense as someone looking at Western medicine and using the description of the ‘cold treatment’, bringing people back to life, as a justification for calling all Western medicine a sham.

Rushyo’s objection, then, is that I generalised from a single example and, because one spell appears to bear some similarity to homeopathy, I shouldn’t assume they all do. Thus, the evidence I present to support the claim that homeopathy is witchcraft (or vice versa) is insufficient. This is a fair point and, had I been trying to make a serious case that homeopathy and witchcraft are pretty much the same on the grounds that they both rely on the ‘memory’ of water or on the notion that dilution makes things more potent, then I wouldn’t have supported my argument with a sample of one.

However, as most readers appreciated, my blog post was not intended to be taken seriously; not for a nanosecond, did it occur to me that anyone would and, so far as I know, nobody but Rushyo did. And he was so aggrieved by my perceived violation of skeptic principles that he left the kind of snarky comment that just begs for a put-down. Thus, I suggested he calm himself with a frog’s toe special. As a consequence, I found myself accused of “preaching religious hatred”. He even tweeted it.

In his own account of what happened, Rushyo writes:

I made quite sure my dismay was evident when I found somebody mocking witchcraft and comparing it with Homeopathy (something that has been thoroughly proven not to work) which they themselves stated was based on absolutely the most flimsy and pathetic evidence.

This quote suggests that it was more the mockery of witchcraft than the ‘bad science’ that offended Rushyo but, given his emotive comments beneath the article, that was pretty obvious already. Here’s an example:

So, essentially, you just wanted to preach a bit of religious hatred? Don’t mask this as skepticism, it puts the skeptical community to shame. I’m ashamed to be associated with you. Pathetic.

He later adds:

A skeptic that throws skepticism out of the window as soon as Witchcraft is mentioned is no better than Wiccan that turns around and throws the rede out of the window when it comes to issues of scientific interest (such as medicine).

It may occur to some readers, as it did to me, that a skeptic who threw skepticism out of the window as soon as witchcraft is mentioned would end up embracing witchcraft wholeheartedly, as Rushyo seems to have done. A skeptic who embraces and adopts a worldview first and starts a more thorough investigation only after having done so sounds like….well, I hesitate to say ‘an oxymoron’, given that when someone said the same thing on twitter, Rushyo responded first with this and then with this, which doesn’t get us any further.

In case anyone doesn’t get where the charge of religious hatred comes from, Wicca involves the “ritual practice of magic” (wiki). Ergo poking fun at witchcraft is insulting the Wicca religion. In his blog, Rushyo explains further

The insult related to my religion. What makes this attack astounding was that I was not shouting from a religious soapbox – I was shouting from a skeptical one. I felt that the article was the anti-thesis of skepticism for reasons which I will go into later. My argument was completely unrelated to my religious belief. Were I an atheist I would have felt exactly the same.

And there was I thinking that faith — belief without evidence — is the antithesis of skepticism. I’m very surprised to learn that I was wrong and that in fact mocking magic spells is the antithesis of skepticism. Good grief!

Seriously now, I think we can discount the claim that his argument was completely unrelated to his religious faith. Were it not for his religious belief, he would have either seen the piece as nothing more than a bit of fun or, if he really did take it seriously, calmly pointed out that my argument was fallacious. At least, that’s what any other skeptic would have done. By his own admission, what dismayed Rushyo was my “mocking witchcraft and comparing it with Homeopathy (something that has been thoroughly proven not to work)”.

I did indeed poke fun at witchcraft with references to newts’ eyes and making things disappear. And clearly Rushyo also sees the mere comparison with homeopathy as mockery of witchcraft, which I suppose it is, though my intention at the time was only to mock homeopathy by comparing it with medieval nonsense, which is how I view witchcraft. I’m afraid Rushyo’s explanation of it doesn’t make me view it any differently.

Witchcraft is the act of invoking power beyond the material world defined by science, often linked with a spiritual element, intended to perform a tangible task with a particular stated goal. As practised by Wiccans, Witchcraft is used to invoke the power of the Gods through prayer and ritual.

Interestingly, while Rushyo evidently thinks witchcraft isn’t a legitimate target for mockery, he seems to think homeopathy is. He says,

Homeopathy is the subject of ridicule because it has a weight of scientific evidence against it. Witchcraft does not (surprisingly!).

The claim that there is a lack of scientific evidence against witchcraft is arguable, to put it mildly but, even if it were true, should the fact that there is a lack of evidence against it protect it from mockery? I mean, if there hadn’t already been hundreds of trials of homeopathy, if it hadn’t already been proven to be a crock, would we (and by ‘we’ I mean people who identify as skeptics) treat it with any more reverence because it was untested? Of course not, because it’s scientifically implausible; it contravenes scientific laws and is therefore ridiculous. Just like witchcraft.

By the way, I have since seen a few other spells from the same source and concede that they don’t all rely on an unknown power of water, thereby undermining my original contention that witchcraft is homeopathy, which I happily withdraw, seeing as I didn’t really mean it in the first place. However, the spells do all involve some element of magic, as do homeopathic remedies, so the comparison — and, indeed, the reverse contention that homeopathy is witchcraft — aren’t as outrageous as Rushyo would have us believe. And they’re both suitable topics for skeptical humour, as are any number of other ridiculous quack therapies or ‘weight-loss eating plans’ making claims for which there is no evidence either way. These are mockable not so much because they haven’t been properly tested but because, if true, their claims would force us to re-write all our physics and chemistry text books.

So it seems Rushyo’s understanding of skepticism differs somewhat from my own. For the record, it was the explanation of skepticism on UK-skeptics that first resonated with me, leading me to adopt the label. It points out that skepticism is not a world view but a methodology. It starts with doubt and applies it to everything. Claims — whether they be about global warming, quack therapies or supernatural powers — are not taken at face value but must be supported with good quality evidence before they will be accepted:

assuming or holding the provisional position that a claim is false until proven otherwise is also the correct approach to take

As he is a scientist, I don’t think Rushyo could disagree with this, any more than I would disagree with the definition of skepticism Rushyo quotes from wiki (see below). What I do disagree with is his claim that he is attacking from a perspective of skepticism and that those of us who disagree with him are betraying true skeptic principles. From his comments:

I would give the topic the gravitas I feel it deserves. Call it a ‘Galileo complex’ if you like. The value of establishing facts over adopting society’s wider views has become a core tenant (sic) amongst Witches. Something I was under impression us, as skeptics, were supposed to champion as well.

(snipped)

If I may quote Wikipedia:

“Scientific skeptics attempt to evaluate claims based on verifiability and falsifiability and discourage accepting claims on faith or anecdotal evidence.”

and “Scientific skeptics do not assert that unusual claims should be automatically rejected out of hand on a priori grounds.”

Were I an independent observer I would surmise I was not talking to skeptics – in fact I might reasonably surmise I was talking to the polar opposite given those definitions.

As I said, I would agree with both those extracts from wiki and I don’t know why Rushyo feels they make some sort of case for him. To repeat, the starting point for skepticism is doubt. We don’t look at a proposal that claims throwing a bit of paper into the sea while uttering a spell will work in achieving a desired goal in life and think: “Hmmm….there’s no evidence against this idea so we should wait until it’s been tested before we mock it.” Rather we would argue that everything we know about the natural world indicates that this proposal is absurd and unworthy of investigation. That’s not to say we won’t change our minds if a scientifically plausible explanation were offered but, in the meantime, the proposal is worthy of ridicule. And if it were being funded on the NHS, it would, like the similarly implausible homeopathy, be a campaigning issue for skeptics.

To aid our understanding of why my ‘frog’s toe special’ suggestion qualifies as religious hatred, Rushyo helpfully provides the criteria by which he defines religious hatred/intolerance (he treats these words as synonyms) and proclaims that my comment to him meets every one. A perfect fit!

a) It has to be for the purpose of insulting.
b) It has to relate to a religion
c) It has to reference the person’s religion belief
d) It should display ignorance/prejudice

…to meet all these criteria for insulting a Muslim you might need something like the following: “Don’t worry, I’m sure your Mother and Father Mohammed will calm you down, Mohammed.” This statement would meet the above criteria – and it would similarly be considered unacceptable. In most circles.

Well not in mine because I don’t even understand it and my Muslim friends are pretty chilled about religious insults. (Less so about racism, say, because they recognise that religion in adult life is a choice, ethnicity isn’t.)

If I’m being totally honest, offending people’s religious sensibilities isn’t something that bothers me too much. This isn’t religious hatred, it isn’t religious intolerance, it’s religious indifference. We each of us choose our different worldviews and none of them should be seen as exempt from ridicule. If ridiculous ideas are to afforded special protection just because they are part of someone’s religion, can someone tell me where we would draw the line? Would the ‘religious ideas’ of  someone who decides to invent a new religion over breakfast be entitled to the same protection?

In conclusion, ‘hatred’ is a strong word and certainly not something I feel for mildly eccentric people and their barmy religion — as long as they do nothing to harm others. And, while I am grateful to Rushyo for making me think this one through, I don’t think his claim that he is criticising from a skeptic’s perspective stands up to scrutiny His argument amounts to no more than special pleading that witchcraft should be exempt from mockery and because it’s part of his religion and, as one commenter here already said, that’s just creepy.

21 Responses to An angry witch and a charge of religious hatred

  • “This isn’t religious hatred, it isn’t religious intolerance, it’s religious indifference. We each of us choose our different worldviews and none of them should be seen as exempt from ridicule.”

    The trouble is that didn’t apply in instance because a) it was contrived solely as an insult – there was nothing indifferent about that and b) I was talking as a skeptic. The fact you brought my religion into it at all implies a lack of ‘indifference’. Either point seems strong enough.

    “His argument amounts to no more than special pleading that witchcraft should be exempt from mockery and because it’s part of his religion and, as one commenter here already said, that’s just creepy.”

    I apply the same rules universally. As I pointed out (and encouraged) on International Blasphemy Day you can attack the religion all you want. Go burn a pentacle if you like. Then link on my blog to it. Great! That’s what we have freedom to do.

    That doesn’t give people the right to turn around and insult people based on their beliefs. And you don’t have to be religious to have beliefs. What is morality?

    I’m an ardent secularist. Always have been and I apply the same rule just as strongly to Wiccans – which sometimes brings me into conflict with them.

    Your statements would have made perfect sense in any context other than the following: It was religious. It was an insult. It was in response to a non-religious statement. Ergo, unprovoked religious insult. I’m not seeing any dispute of these particular points.

    If you find the use of the term ‘hatred’ inappropriate then perhaps that’s just a subjective difference of semantics. Your argument came not from any evidence, so I must presume it came from prejudices. Insulting someone based on prejudice is hatred. I’m happy enough to stick by that statement on those terms.

    My first comment about your article was off the wall. It was logically valid (as you said), but I shouldn’t have said it in that manner. I let myself get emotional because your statements were undermining the scientific work I’m trying to do. I had spent the week, as I said, discussing with Wiccans just how skeptics DON’T make statements like that. Then you did, throwing my heated arguments that skeptics as trustworthy on matters of applying logic reasonably to witchcraft into no small manner of disarray. I wasn’t happy just saying ‘well, guess what, I was wrong about the skeptics’.

    I probably deserved an insult in return (and I wouldn’t have minded one). But then using my religion to insult me – I was amazed.

    On a rather different note. If you think sprititual and scientific understanding are incompatible, I would urge you to contemplate the beliefs of scientists in eras past. Like Einstein, as I quoted, who gives very deft consideration to the subject.

  • To clarify, by “Then you did, throwing my heated arguments that skeptics as trustworthy on matters of applying logic reasonably to witchcraft into no small manner of disarray.” I mean by applying the scientific method, before the inevitable comments that would arise.

  • Would you care to chat about this through a more immediate medium? Slinging huge great responses back and forth doesn’t seem very effective at clearing anything up.

  • Oh, so this still isn’t over?

    Rushyo, I’m afraid you’re mistaken. The freedom of speech we all enjoy gives us the right to “insult” whatever religion we choose to, even yours and you’ll have to deal with it, just like I have to deal with the fact that you consider yourself to be a sceptic.

    When I talk to others about scepticism and they cite people like you as example of what “we” believe, I’ll just tell them that “sceptic” is something you self-identify as, so if you ask two sceptics about the same subject you won’t necessarily get the same answer. I don’t see why you can’t just do the same thing but instead have to come here whining how people are all no real sceptics and insult your religion and that this is not what real sceptics would do.

    By the way: Einstein may have believed in the sky fairy, but “sceptics like me” don’t think his belief in it proves there actually is a sky fairy. Or a Father Christmas. Or mermaids.

  • “Rushyo, I’m afraid you’re mistaken. The freedom of speech we all enjoy gives us the right to “insult” whatever religion we choose to, even yours and you’ll have to deal with it, just like I have to deal with the fact that you consider yourself to be a sceptic.”

    My mistake. ‘Right’ was absolutely the wrong word on my part. My point was that it you insult someone’s beliefs and you will be called out of it. You invite a response and not a friendly one. Just like with anything else: You have a legal right, but not a moral one. I totally failed to distinguish those.

    “By the way: Einstein may have believed in the sky fairy, but “sceptics like me” don’t think his belief in it proves there actually is a sky fairy. Or a Father Christmas. Or mermaids.”

    Indeed. Just wish the argument that a scientist can’t be religious would shoo, it’s nonsense – and keeps cropping up.

  • If I may elaborate on that: You can’t be surprised if, when you insult someone’s beliefs there is a recipocal response about you. A right of freedom does not automatically mean you’re morally justified to do it. Nothing about that freedom exhonerates you from the insults you make towards human beings.

  • So what? You cannot blame me for fallacious arguments other sceptics use. I never said that a scientist can’t be religious, nor did Skepticat (or if she did I oversaw it). We all have our faults and I’m pretty sure I have loads of them. It has happened more than once that I found out something I believed was absolutely wrong, but as long as I am willing to change my views when I find (or am presented) new evidence I don’t think that’s a huge problem.

    Also I don’t need to have the same moral standards you do, so in my eyes it’s perfectly valid to tell people their irrational beliefs don’t mean a thing to me and I don’t give a sh*t if they’re offended by me not “accepting” their religion.

  • Darn “false friends”, what I meant was I overlooked it.

  • My point: I resent the implication I should lie down and accept it because it was religious. I won’t – and if ‘religious hatred’ is a term that people felt was strong, then I feel it’s because it implies a greater misdemeanor than simply being prejudiced about something. But that’s not my problem, it doesn’t diminish the fact I saw a prejudiced insult based on religion (for reasons earlier stated).

    Perhaps you might consider the reason I find using that term acceptable is I’m using it literally. I’m not applying the connotations of morally inacceptability others are applying to it. That use of the term isn’t anything to do with why I used it.

  • @Vicky No, you did not. But unfortunately this issue has expanded beyond the originl dispute. The post this is in response to specifically expresses the further problems being encountered.

  • “so in my eyes it’s perfectly valid to tell people their irrational beliefs don’t mean a thing to me and I don’t give a sh*t if they’re offended by me not “accepting” their religion.”

    Which is not what I’m discussing. I’ve stated ad nauseum I don’t care whether you accept my religious beliefs or otherwise. It’s a very different thing. It isn’t an insult, it’s an observation of personal opinion! You can tell me all you want ‘I think you’re completely wrong and loony’. Please do not confuse this with the issue at hand.

  • My justification for using the terms I chose hinges on the context of the original statement. It is not a generalised argument applied to all circumstances.

  • “As he is a scientist”

    A “multi-disciplined scientist” “guided primarily by the certainties of logic and Wikipedia policy”, no less:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rushyo

    /snigger

  • My point: I resent the implication I should lie down and accept it because it was religious.

    I see it the other way around: just because in your eyes this is religious doesn’t mean that others shouldn’t mock it. If it’s OK to poke fun at someone who believes that swallowing lots of vitamin pills will prevent them from catching a cold it’s also OK to poke fun at someone for throwing a slip of paper into a river while speaking some kind of incantation, thinking that this will make something they wish come true. You may think that it’s not OK to make fun of anyone or anything, but you’ll have to accept that others’ standards may be different.

    Bottom line: you think Skepticat’s other blog was a poor “sceptical analysis” of what homeopathy and witchcraft have in common, I thought it was an amusing tongue-in-cheek comparison of two pseudoscientific disiplines, so I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

  • “Bottom line: you think Skepticat’s other blog was a poor “sceptical analysis” of what homeopathy and witchcraft have in common, I thought it was an amusing tongue-in-cheek comparison of two pseudoscientific disiplines, so I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.”

    Sure. No problem with that. I obviously see the intention was such – I’m only defending my behaviour at the time as far as that one goes. I was irate – and I herein present my reasons in the fact of accusations (not from yourself) that this is somehow what my being a witch represents, when it was nothing to do with that.

    “You may think that it’s not OK to make fun of anyone or anything, but you’ll have to accept that others’ standards may be different.”

    Yet some of those same people are up in arms that I would use the term ‘religious hatred’ in good faith. Either a religious insult based on prejudice is bad or it isn’t. You can’t say it’s fine to do it, but not fine to call someone out on it! That’s the crux of it.

  • “The claim that there is a lack of scientific evidence against witchcraft is arguable, to put it mildly but, even if it were true, should the fact that there is a lack of evidence against it protect it from mockery?”

    Oh, totally missed this. The intention of that statement was to define ‘prejudice’. It was in the context of defining terms for an argument which relied on the definition of prejudice (ie. what constitutes religious prejudice?)

  • The format of the debate as it presently stands harms discussion I feel. When things are pulled from a much larger article (and a much larger context) it can create a risk of invalid ‘strawman’ arguments on both sides. I’m glad Vicky and me could get some ‘live’ responses in, it cleared up alot.

  • @phayes

    Your conduct is exemplary at demonstrating the validity of what are arguably the weakest of my arguments, thank you.

  • @Rushyo (The Mr. Magoo of science and scepticism)

    Thanks – for that exquisitely ‘meta’ logical fallacy and all the other comedy you’ve entertained us with here. :D

  • To repeat, the starting point for skepticism is doubt. We don’t look at a proposal that claims throwing a bit of paper into the sea while uttering a spell will work in achieving a desired goal in life and think: “Hmmm….there’s no evidence against this idea so we should wait until it’s been tested before we mock it.” Rather we would argue that everything we know about the natural world indicates that this proposal is absurd and unworthy of investigation.

    –Skepticat.

    Yes and we argue that way precisely because there is (a mountain of) powerful evidence against many of these claims and ideas. That’s why those physics and chemistry textbooks would need to be rewritten rather than just having chapters of phenomenology added. It’s also why the ostensibly reasonable and scientific direct testing of such claims – CTs of homeopathy, trials of witches’ spells, Roger Shawyer’s EMdrive experiments etc. – is actually unreasonable and futile cargo cult science. The contents of those textbooks means that we sceptics can (and more often should, IMO) be saying just “STFU” instead of “Evidence or STFU”. :)

  • Does Wicca encourage littering in any other instances? Or is biodegradable paper and ink recommended?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


+ nine = 15

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Categories
Archives