Guy points out that the dripping water is, in fact, not supernatural. Guy has to apologize for that.
Seriously?
back
2 comments
This isn't a case of a skeptic pointing out "this isn't a miracle" and moving on.
He followed up the debunking by claiming the non-miracle was a scam, intentionally set up by local priests. He also made a number of blanket statements about how those who believe in the supernatural are "gullible", "regressive", "irrational", and so on. In essence, he's using his debunking as an excuse to engage in defamation (illegal in most places) and provocation (legal in the US, but illegal in India). He went beyond the solid evidence and into a realm of conjecture and supposition.
Straw-man.
Guy made statements, interpreted as untrue about the church, and is asked to apologise for that.