The Skeptic’s Creed

Credulity is not a virtue

it’s fortune



mommy issue


babylon bullshit

couched in scientician

double bubble toil and


pseudo quasi alternative

accu punctuating pressurized stereogram

pyramidal free energy healing

watered downward spiral brain deadpan sales pitch late night


Leo Pisces cancer-cures detox reflex foot massage

death and towers tarot cards

psychic healing crystals balls

bigfoot yeti aliens

churches mosques and synagogues



giant worms

atlantis dolphins

truthers birthers

witches wizards


shaman healers


conspiracy doublespeak stigmata nonsense

expose your sides

thrust your hands




doubt even this.

19 comments on The Skeptic’s Creed

  1. Brenden says:

    Love it. (*virtue btw)

  2. Steve from London says:

    I listen to all my podcasts at double speed and the Skeptic’s Creed sounds so much better double speed. Maybe that because double speed is normal speed to me and single speed sounds so slowwwwwwwwww now it’s hard to listen at that speed. I find it’s much easier to concentrate and I’m less likely to get distracted.

    1. Bri says:

      I had someone read that to me as fast as possible and it still went on too long.
      Lové this podcast!

  3. Lance Sievert says:

    Hello, my name is Lance Sievert and I am the Press Secretary for the National Atheist Party. I wanted to propose having our president, Troy Boyle, on your show for an interview. I think many of your listeners would be interesting in hearing more about the NAP. Your support is greatly appreciated and thanks for making such a great show.

    With Respect,
    Lance A. Sievert
    Press Secretary
    The National Atheist Party

  4. Zog says:

    Sorry Skeps, I’m just listening to your psychic challenge and must point out that one can’t be ‘ahead of time’. it’s a temporal impossibility.

  5. Oscar says:

    Great poem, thought it wears off by the 80th time you hear it
    ; )

    It’d be cool if someone did a skeptical podcast with one episode focused for each thing you merino here, tho’ fortune cookies would be tricky. Maybe you could do it on a ‘fortune cookie fallacy’ type thing about the ease with which we mistake our personalisation of broad statements for personal statements.

    Anyway, I’m wittering. Thatd be a neat podcast. I’d do it myself but, you know, school and shit.

    Keep up the good work, you guys are awesome! Oh and thanks for the thing with the show notes this week – MUCH clearer.

  6. Oscar says:

    Although… What’s the deal with ‘thrust your hands’? I get its a metaphor, but I don’t understand what it means. Oh, and I havent quite got through your back-catalog yet :]

    1. Merari says:

      In response to Oscar, I’m not certain which part is particularly unclear, but I believe that this is a reference to doubting Thomas of the Bible. Some people hold him as an example of how God actually encourages skepticism and testing (while ignoring the many other instances of “do not test the lord the god” stuff).
      I understand it as a declaration of skepticism, that credulity of by no means anything to be encouraged. It is as vapid as the many horrors of mental error that are mentioned. Rather than wanting me to blindly believe, give me the god-damned speared sides and the holey hands for evidence. Even then, this is just the beginning of our quest for truth. Otherwise, you can go home.

      Great work doubting Tom. I look forward to your many more shows.

    2. Paul says:

      I always took the “thrust your hands/bloody, evidential, conclusive” line as metaphorically getting your hands dirty in research to find out the truth, not via tertiary or quaternary sources (i.e. trusting and regurgitating “facts” randomly posted on a ‘911truthers’ forum, because… why else would my uncle bob say something he wasn’t 100% sure about?), but by insisting on digging back to where the facts originate (primary sources). Sometimes the truth isn’t neat or clean. However, as long as your journey is firmly rooted in evidence, responsible conclusions may be drawn.

      At least thats how I always took the line.

      1. Paul says:

        I misused “i.e.” just there. Bad habits die hard. I finally learned recently the differene. The “e.g.” is what i should of used, meaning “for example” or exempli gratiz or something like that in latin. “i.e.” stands for id est which means “that is” and can only be interchanged in very odd circumstances where the example being given is pretty much the only possible interpretation of the broader category. For example,

        “I want to go visit an island continent that is also its own country, e.g. OR i.e. Australia, because being mauled by poisonous megafauna is a big hobby of mine.”

        It still kind of changes the meaning of the sentence though, using e.g. makes me sound like a dumbass that thinks there are many country-continent island nations, where using i.e. makes me sound like a smartass. I guess then that’s not really using them interchangeably, rather you can swap the words and still have the sentence not be incorrect. Either way, my bad.

  7. Reggie UK says:

    Quality,funny as fuck. Should be on every television.

  8. Minos says:

    I want to hear Penn Jillette reading this.

  9. Anney (prefer to be anonymous) says:

    Thank you again for providing a fun and enlightening forum for skeptics to listen to and participate in helping others in need. I have just donated $100 to Doctors Without Boarders online through the Canadian website: MÉDECINS SANS FRONTIÈRES (MSF) I support your cause and made it my own.

    Take care,


  10. Greg says:

    I love this creed but there is one thing I don’t get. Is Atlantis dolphins one thing or two? I mean I know what Atlantis is and I know what dolphins are but it stops there. If they are two things, as I suspect they are then what exactly should one skeptical of when it comes to dolphins? I’m confused…

  11. Tom says:

    @Greg You would be amazed how many people think dolphins are some kind of supersentient water unicorns from space…or something. Google around for dolphin woo sometime.

  12. al says:

    Awesome show! Glad I found you guys keep up the great work… make the commute bearable.

  13. Tim Peterson says:

    Dear Cecil and Tom I just wanted to say how much I appreciate the open-mindedness of your podcast. It’s interesting, entertaining and at times, hysterical.

    I’ve written a series of books, but I think you’ll really love Men Talk. As a former therapist, I’ve had the opportunity to get a unique (and uncensored) glimpse into the minds of men. The tagline of the series is “Thoughts & Experiences Too Raw to Admit” so it’s very stimulating, funny and insightful.

    I’m including my website in case you’d like to take a peek. Say hi anytime if you have any questions. I’d also be more than happy to send you a copy for your enjoyment or review purposes. I’m also a pretty great interview, if you want to talk about the book with me.

    Sincerely, Tim Peterson

    Quote from the book Men Talk

    “I’ve finally accepted the fact that I’m not going to get my wife off every time we make love. I’ve also accepted that it’s her fault”.

  14. Thomas says:

    For some reason I always have to think of Rufio bad mouth battling Peter Banning in the movie Hook when I hear Tom do the creed:

  15. Santaclause Apologetic says:

    I love your poem I’ve noticed a fossil embedded within it. I love the line, “truthers birthers” because both words are next to each other. In my mind the line is a fossil that dated the poem to the late ’00s or early ’10s because that was a time when Birthers and Truthers had animosity towards one another. You seen when Bush the 2nd was president, Trutherisum was considered a “left wing” conspiracy. I remember from the Infidel Guy (Reginald Finley) podcast, Robert Price (Bible Geek) was talking about how his friend left the right wing and went so for left that he joined the nuts in the 911 Truth movement.

    I was never in the Truther movement but I had fun listening to them and did consider them to be left-wing nut-jobs. Before the Obama Presidency, I actually thought that the truthers would just dissolve if a Democrat won the White House. I thought that they thought “A republican could keep the lid on the evidence, but a Democrat would blow the lid of and building 7 evidence”. Because of that, I assumed after Obama was in office for a few years, and no evidence of 911 conspiracy, the whole Truther thing would fade into the wood-work.

    As an example, during the early Obama administration, a co-worker died-in-the-wool republican expressed doubts on the birth place of Obama. I told him he was just as crazy as those “911 was an inside job” people. He was not pleased with that comparison.

    I was quite surprised one day, to notice that the 911 Truthers especially Alex Jones suddenly started spouting right-wing bullshit.

Leave a Reply

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