Yes, but I’ll have to steal it from Sir Karl Popper. The term is pseudo-scientist.
You want to replace belittling them with boring them to death?
This is better.
A religion involves multiple beliefs by definition, so yes, a belief is not the same thing as a religion. Not unless you want to claim that people who believe in UFO visitations are also a religion. The Skepdic cite and the term “woo woo” both include a general reference to spiritualist beliefs and not to the spiritualist association in particular as a religion.
Why would the entry for “woo woo” go out of its way to say that spiritualism is not a religion? It’s a cite for a term that does not refer to religion. It refers to beliefs, but not to religions in particular.
Here is the entry on spritualism. It begins this way: Spiritism or spiritualism is the belief that the human personality survives death and can communicate with the living through a sensitive medium. Later on it includes this interesting comment: For many, spiritualism was “scientific proof” of life after death, which didn’t involve any of the superstitious non-sense of religion. A spiritualist religion developed decades after the spiritualist fad started in 1848. There are mutiple spiritualist churches, and the one you’ve been mentioning (the NSAC) started in 1883.
Wrong, as cited above, since capital-S spiritualism as a religion came later.
:rolleyes:
Oh good. A religion is a religion because the government says it is. That just about says it all, doesn’t it? Praise be to the IRS on high! Halleleujah!
Marley, the NSAC was begun in 1883. If you read carefully, you will see that NSAC is not the church itself, but the organization of Spiritualist churches which has grown out of the events which happened on the same date at the same place as the ones described on skepdic.. I gave you that link to show you that they were still going strong despite what you claimed.
Instead of just throwing wrong information up there, why don’t you take the trouble to actually look at the history of the links I have provided? Do you not have any responsibility to be informed before you argue a point when I have provided sufficient links?
Notice that I do not support any of the beliefs. I’m just out here fighting your now wilful ignorance. At this point, I think if you ignore the links I have provided, you are not “playing fair.” Your links and my links agree on the time and place for the beginning of Spiritualism and spiritualism. Your links call it a belief and mine call it a religion. I don’t disagree with members that believe that they can communicate with the dead through mediums. That is their religion. You disagree that it is a religion despite the fact that there are churches.
You have decided on the basic of skepdic.com that they are not a religion. But skepdic.com doesn’t say that they are not a religion.
What else am I to think other than that you are being willfully ignorant? What other option is there for you?
Contrapuntal, you have a point that it shouldn’t be up to the government to decide what a religion is. I believe in the Sacred Cannabis and cannot partake as I would choose. But we do have a system that grants tax free status on the basis of religion.
And it is a bit better than the thought of Marley being the sole determiner without a sufficient education or an understanding of what the word skeptic means.
Is that the kind of fairness we would have to look forward to from atheists? (No, I really don’t think so. It’s just Marley being Marley.
[Moderator Note]
This kind of personal remarks are inappropriate for ATMB. I’m sure you make your points without these kinds of personal remarks. Let’s refrain from this in rest of the discussion.
Because it’s not relevant to the point I was making, which is that “woo woo” doesn’t refer to any particular religion. It’s not relevant to any point that anyone made in this thread. The fact that a religion developed out of a specific spiritualist incident does not make spiritualism in general a religion. I understand that there are spiritualist religions, or at least organizations, which I did not know before. But this is pretty much like saying theism is a religion when it’s one type of religion. The Skepdic article is not referring the NASC or any one spiritualist organization. They’re making a general reference to belief in mediums as part of a list of beliefs that are sometimes clept “woo woo.”
I never said you did.
Why would it say they’re not a religion? That’s not the subject of the entry. The entry is about “woo woo” and it includes some ideas and beliefs that get called that name. One of those ideas is spiritualism. Referring back to where this tangent started:
BigT was saying “woo woo” could be hate speech because it ridicules religion by virtue of attacking people for what they believe. I was pointing out that this does not work because it’s not a reference to a specific religion, it’s a reference to types of beliefs - New Ageism, spiritualism, mysticism - that are grouped together. As the entry says: Sometimes woo-woo is used by skeptics as a synonym for pseudoscience, true-believer, or quackery. But mostly the term is used for its emotive content and is an emotive synonym for such terms as nonsense, irrational, nutter, nut, or crazy. [I hope you’re not going to claim that pseudoscience, quackery, or irrationality are religions.]
From there you accused me of “arbitrarily” leaving out New Ageism and Spiritualism as religions. You haven’t posted any cites that New Ageism is a religion (rather than a loose collection without much particular connection, nevermind a unifying structure). Skepdic.com’s entry for New Age (energy) does not identify NE as a religion and strongly implies it isn’t a religion, the same way the entry for spiritualism implies that spiritualism is not a religion either. I understand there is a religion called spiritualism, but the term “woo woo” is not specifically refering to that religion, it is referring to a general belief in spirits and communication from beyond the grave that is held by some people who have never heard of the Fox sisters or the spiritualist church, and by others who are familiar with those things. The Skepdic entry is doing the same thing.
No, pointing out IGNORANCE is our duty. Using insulting term to denigrate people is not likely to help the mission of this board. calling it “woo9” is a tactic used by troublemakers who seek to antagonise people. It has nothing to do with fighting ignorance. And in fact the ones who use it are the most ignorant bunch on the board.
How’s about we meet you half way-you continue pointing out the ignorance, and we’ll continue fighting it, o.k.?
When the hell have YOU ever fought ignorance? Some people have peculiar ideas. YOU do nothing to change that. All YOU do is express your own personal hatred of those people. That nasty little question that you keep asking, is obviously an attempt to stir the shit. You are just out to upset people.
I wish you understood this point. Every one of your hate filled little comments only undermines the the ones who try to fight ignorance.
Wow! I’m sorry I haven’t checked back since my last post. I’ve never been name-checked so much in one thread before and I’m appreciative of the recognition that my joke “works.”
Let me clarify that I had no idea, before clicking on the OP’s link, what “woo-woo” meant. Vagina seemed like as good a guess as any, because 1) it sounded like a silly euphemism; and 2) was supposedly offensive hate speech.
In context, I recognized it as a characterization of spiritual/new age beliefs. I’m not consciously aware that I’ve ever actually seen that word used to mean vagina; it was just an (incorrect) guess.
I do think it should mean vagina, though. It’s funnier that way.
A vagina is a “hoo-hoo” not a “woo-woo”. Or just a “down there” if you don’t want to be vulgar.
I though Australia was “down there”.
Are Australians a protected group?
Oh heck yeah. You can only get to Australia through Indonesia, which makes it really hard for your opponents to break in. It’s only two extra armies a turn, but that adds up.
That’s it! I’m sure I was confusing woo-woo with hoo-hoo. Woo hoo!
Nah, most Australians are total cunts. 
This is so wonderfully ironic that it should be served to people with anemia.
I’ve actually studied the history of spiritualism. There is vastly more to it than the tiny and utterly meaningless sliver your links give. As I said earlier. If you think that by finding this one link on the Internet you know anything at all about the larger subject, you are wrong. I would use stronger terms, but apparently we’re no longer engaged in fighting ignorance and we’re not supposed to upset people in the process.
You might want to look up Madam Helena P. Blavatsky, or Henry Steel Olcott, or the Theosophical Society. Or perhaps Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy. Or any of 10,000 other names that a study of the subject might turn up. Names that will not be found at your link. There are many books to be found at Amazon just by searching on Spiritualism. I’m sure libraries will have them too.
But the NSAC is hardly Spiritualism in all its wooish glory. Please acknowledge that.
Just because one group of people is derisive of another group of people for their beliefs does not make the use of a derisive label “hate speech”.
The labels “woo” and “woo-woo” are not going to be considered hate speech on this board (stated by Staff).
The fact that any number of strange noises are sometimes used as euphamisms for various body parts or sexual acts does not, in itself, mean that every use of those same noises is intended to refer to those body parts or sex acts.
Any label for a group of people can be used derisively by someone who disagrees with that group of people. Just look at the people who use “liberal” or “conservative” as a swear word. That doesn’t mean those words automatically become hate speech.
Belittling your opponents ideas by giving them silly labels is a common and well-worn practice. Some people feel the best way to influence opinions about a topic is to promote the attitude that to hold those ideas is to be silly, ignorant, stupid, or otherwise not reasonable. That may not go far to changing the minds of believers (and certainly isn’t a means of rational conversion), but it does color the landscape of the debate. The point is not to change believers’ minds, the point is to provoke the undecided to view those attitudes a particular way.