Quote :

"The sainthood of the pope is contingent upon that information being reported yet somehow asking a question about how carefully the information was verified is off limits because that isn't what the story was about? Really?"

No one is saying it is off limits, we are just saying it would be retarded and the anchor would look ridiculous. I would imagine that an organization like CNN wants their anchors to not look ridiculous.

The sainthood of the pope is not contingent on the story being true. If it was, then some follow up questions would be warranted and encouraged. Instead, the sainthood of the pope is contingent on the catholic church thinking the story is true. That's what the story is about. A reasonable person can recognize that the catholic church has religious based beliefs.

And the reporter is not a mouthpiece for the church. Hell, we have a church-owned news organization in this country if you really want to find an example of this to criticize. (warning though that they are generally respected and their reporters are often interviewed by major news organizations)

[Edited on January 19, 2011 at 2:29 PM. Reason : .]

1/19/2011 2:25:38 PM

Quote :

"One would think this miracle business would be a symptom, unless you think you're suddenly going to unravel organized religion by having Wolf Blitzer ask, "Is it possible the bitch didn't have Parkinson's to begin with?" Of course, the whole disease/symptom thing is inane. As we've discussed before, ignorant assholes will want to fuck with your shit whether they've got religion or not. "

You're right. Let's not bother try curing AIDS because Ebola is around. There will still be diseases that fuck up humanity, so why bother trying? I'm unconvinced by your constant defeatist attitude of "people will still be dicks." I have more hope for humanity.

Regarding the miracle business, it's the belief in the miracle, the Laissez-faire acceptance of it, you called it "mundanity", which is the underlying problem. The fact that there are people on this board arguing against the idea of verifying the validity of something, especially something miraculous is an appalling reminder of the problem. Why argue against determining whether something is true? Why take offense at the idea that we should have a higher standard of veracity in reporting?

1/19/2011 2:30:04 PM

Quote :

"Regarding the miracle business, it's the belief in the miracle, the Laissez-faire acceptance of it, you called it "mundanity", which is the underlying problem. The fact that there are people on this board arguing against the idea of verifying the validity of something, especially something miraculous is an appalling reminder of the problem. Why argue against determining whether something is true? Why take offense at the idea that we should have a higher standard of veracity in reporting?"

ding ding ding we have a winner!

1/19/2011 2:31:23 PM

you guys still can't see how ridiculous you sound, please keep going because its amusing to me

1/19/2011 2:34:09 PM

Yep, verifying whether things are true before reporting them is totally ridiculous. My journalism friends told me so.

1/19/2011 2:36:18 PM

i'm talking about this situation

doing what you want is ridiculous

sometimes i get tired being the smartest person in almost every thread

1/19/2011 2:37:55 PM

If you think CNN has lent any credibility to the miracle in the way they reported it, you're ridiculous.

[Edited on January 19, 2011 at 2:55 PM. Reason : .]

1/19/2011 2:55:31 PM

Quote :

"Regarding the miracle business, it's the belief in the miracle, the Laissez-faire acceptance of it, you called it "mundanity", which is the underlying problem. The fact that there are people on this board arguing against the idea of verifying the validity of something, especially something miraculous is an appalling reminder of the problem. Why argue against determining whether something is true? Why take offense at the idea that we should have a higher standard of veracity in reporting?"

Quote :

"sometimes i get tired being the smartest person in almost every thread"

When you have no response make shit up or name call. Most people grow out of that style of debate in elementary school. You really are an ignorant little prick aren't you?

1/19/2011 2:56:14 PM

I thought that I already had responded, but let me try again.

In no way can CNN's story be construed as any kind of endorsement or even acceptance of the aforementioned miracle.

1/19/2011 3:00:49 PM

I don't get what the argument is in this thread...

In any first world country, reporting on this "miracle" is only going to weaken religion in most peoples' eyes. Even a stupid person is going to hear this, and think "WTF??!?" and question religion ever so slightly more.

[Edited on January 19, 2011 at 3:16 PM. Reason : a]

1/19/2011 3:00:49 PM

Honestly? How many people got bent out of shape that their horoscope changed? How many people bought those power bracelets? How many people are Catholic?

I somehow doubt the reporting of the possibility that JP2 would be beautified due to a miracle is going to make any Catholics question their beliefs. Any Catholics in the thread like to chime in?

My guess is they would prefer *more* stories about miracles and saints.

1/19/2011 3:05:49 PM

Perhaps.

Maybe i'm too generous.

1/19/2011 3:17:03 PM

Quote :

"No one is saying it is off limits, we are just saying it would be retarded and the anchor would look ridiculous. I would imagine that an organization like CNN wants their anchors to not look ridiculous. "

In rbt's world questioning unthinkingly accepted ridiculous claims makes you look ridiculous.

Quote :

" The sainthood of the pope is not contingent on the story being true. If it was, then some follow up questions would be warranted and encouraged."

So if it were proven (and widely broadcasted) by secular doctors that the nun still in fact suffered from Parkinson's the the pope would still be declared a saint? The pope becoming a saint is contingent upon a miracle and if the miracle is debunked no popesaint no story.

Your problem is that you seem to think that the vast majority disregards this "miracle" unfortunately that isn't true. The media's unwillingness to challenge obviously outlandish claims is at the very least contributing to the continued delusions of people worldwide.

Quote :

"Hell, we have a church-owned news organization in this country if you really want to find an example of this to criticize. (warning though that they are generally respected and their reporters are often interviewed by major news organizations)"

Another symptom of this problem.

Quote :

" And the reporter is not a mouthpiece for the church."

He is far from being simply a reporter. You and I may have a different definition as to what would constitute a "mouthpiece" but I am sure you will admit he is a non-secular reporter.

1/19/2011 3:50:44 PM

i have never once claimed there is no problem, it fact i have made statements that it is probably exceptionally easy to find examples of it.

this, however, is not an example of it. there is absolutely nothing wrong with the way the CNN anchor conducted the interview.

Quote :

"You and I may have a different definition as to what would constitute a "mouthpiece" but I am sure you will admit he is a non-secular reporter."

so now you are taking it a step further claiming that you can't be religious if you are a reporter. that somehow being religious effects your ability to simply report on the facts.

Quote :

"Your problem is that you seem to think that the vast majority disregards this "miracle" unfortunately that isn't true. The media's unwillingness to challenge obviously outlandish claims is at the very least contributing to the continued delusions of people worldwide. "

thats not what i think, nothing i've posted should lead to that conclusion

Quote :

"So if it were proven (and widely broadcasted) by secular doctors that the nun still in fact suffered from Parkinson's the the pope would still be declared a saint? The pope becoming a saint is contingent upon a miracle and if the miracle is debunked no popesaint no story. "

what i said, that the church simply needs to believe it to be true, is accurate.

again, you all are still not understanding that this story is about the beautification. the church has already been satisfied that story is real so with the background quickly described now they are talking about beautification.

perhaps one of you all could enlighten me on how CNN should have acted differently in my recent real-life example that i posted before:

Quote :

"how about this real-life analogy: recently i watched commentators on CNN discuss differences between the beliefs of sunni and shia muslims. did they ever offer a disclaimer or challenge the beliefs of those groups? no. the context is understood, "some people believe this so its worth discussing, that doesn't mean we do or that it's real." Never once was I (or any reasonable person) confused about this. One of the commentators was even muslim himself, yet we can still have a discussion with him without a disclaimer because the story wasn't about the accuracy of the beliefs but how they were leading to disputes. by your standard, anything remotely associated to any kind of religion needs to be challenged even when it's clear that its about something not everyone believes. perhaps CSM should just have a blinking ticker offering a disclaimer anytime their reporters are interviewed?"

[Edited on January 19, 2011 at 4:21 PM. Reason : .]

1/19/2011 4:19:33 PM

This argument strikes me as remarkably ridiculous.

1/19/2011 4:38:00 PM

^^Unless the comparative discussion included claimed medical miracles, then I wouldn't think it be necessary to change a thing. I of course would prefer they not spend any time discussing religion outside of "that crazy thing we used to do" but I digress.

Once again, this isn't about belief. It's about what is true and what isn't. Take the current anti-vax movement as an example. Andrew Wakefield is getting taken to task for lying about the connection between vaccinations and autism. Someone interviewing Wakefield would not be obligated to call him out on his bogus claims? I mean, there are still some people that believe his claims. Or is this different because it's .....not religious in nature? Or as Grumpy says, curing a disease with a freaking miracle from a dead guy isn't a big deal?

^brilliant observation and addition to the thread as always.

1/19/2011 4:44:44 PM

Quote :

"You're right. Let's not bother try curing AIDS because Ebola is around. There will still be diseases that fuck up humanity, so why bother trying? I'm unconvinced by your constant defeatist attitude of "people will still be dicks." I have more hope for humanity."

And I'm not convinced that religion is the disease instead of the manifold failings of human nature and society.

My attitude needn't involve a lack of hope for humanity. Occasionally I even have some. But yes, I do say "people will still be dicks"...if you get rid of religion, because religion isn't what made them dicks in the first place.

One can hypothetically envision a theistic religion that doesn't impact society in any negative way, and who in fact would only do good. But you can only do that if your hypothetical doesn't include assholes. What you can't do is envision a world in which there are assholes who don't negatively impact society, but only if there's no religion.

Quote :

"Why argue against determining whether something is true? Why take offense at the idea that we should have a higher standard of veracity in reporting?"

What I take offense at is -- I'll say it again -- that neither of you give half a shit about the reporting, which is why every example of it not having the standard of reporting you demand gets brushed aside by you guys for some lame excuse or another. My problem is that you've given me every reason to believe that what you want is for reporting to denigrate and oppose religious beliefs.

But even disregarding that, I've not argued against determining whether something is true. Have at it. If you want to have an opinion show, knock yourself out. You want to help pay doctors to probe the nun, I say have at it. Why, if you discover a legitimate medical explanation, the Vatican will overturn the miracle -- something they actually do, incidentally -- and then you'll have done something newsworthy and you can get on the air and tell us about it!

CNN did not purport that prayer cards healed this woman. It said "supposed" miracle. They relayed what the Vatican said and what it's ramifications were for John Paul II. I, as a person who doesn't go in much for miracles and who certainly doesn't have any love for the old bastard, cannot fathom why anybody would want to conflate this into another massive clusterfuck that will just block important news with more meaningless bullshit.

1/19/2011 4:53:05 PM

Quote :

"so now you are taking it a step further claiming that you can't be religious if you are a reporter. that somehow being religious effects your ability to simply report on the facts. "

All this guy seemingly reports on is catholic matters. He isn't just a simple reporter reporting on something he is largely ignorant of. However given his background he should have access to the details surrounding the "miracle".


It is interesting to note that there are even more facts that CNN failed to even remotely touch on.

Quote :

"The miracle attributed to the Polish pope was unanimously confirmed on Tuesday by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. A French nun, Sister Marie Simon-Pierre, was miraculously cured of Parkinson's disease through the intervention of John Paul II. Sister Simon-Pierre testified that she had dreamed of the late pope shortly before recovering. The Vatican has received thousands of reports of alleged miracles attributed to John Paul II. However, the Vatican only recognized and attributed the miracle of the French nun's recovering. Vatican authorities decided to use the nun's case for John Paul's beatification despite reports indicating that the alleged miracle did not happen. A Polish newspaper reported that the French nun did not suffer from Parkinson's disease, but from a similar illness which was not terminal. This information that surfaced in March 2010 delayed the beatification process for almost a year."

http://wireupdate.com/wires/14228/vatican-to-beatify-late-pope-john-paul-ii/

Funny how CNN failed to mention or question the reports of the miracle not actually happening. Just reporting on some of the facts of the story let the reader draw their own conclusions
Also did she dream of him? or did she write his name? Oh lets not ask we don't want to seem ridiculous...

1/19/2011 4:53:33 PM

I don't even understand how this argument is still going. Obviously, I understand the "anti-theist" side of the argument. Yes, religion is dumb. It can be hard to believe that it exists and so many people buy into it. It is destructive, we'd be better if it didn't exist and people were rational instead, and it would be better if people would question it, rather than just let people to believe whatever they believe without question.

None of that was the point of the interview. The point was to figure out how, exactly, the whole transformation from regular person to saint played out. There has never been a legitimate miracle in the history of the universe, unless we define a miracle as "any event that someone couldn't explain." In an ideal world, a journalist/interviewer would have raised all the objections that you guys are raising in this thread. In reality, cable news is not actual news, it's just entertainment packaged for mass consumption, and unfortunately, the viewers (for the most part) have no intention of thinking about things critically, they want to have easily digestible sound bites and talking points fed to them.

1/19/2011 5:00:35 PM

^^^^why do only some things need to be discredited? the idea that some people are infallible manifestations of god has led to conflicts and deaths, shouldn't that be discredited by the anchor?

Quote :

"Once again, this isn't about belief. It's about what is true and what isn't."

its actually not about that, that is just what you all are trying to make it about so you can attack christianity. attacking christianity is fine, but what this is about is if the CNN anchor should have pointed out to a reporter that miracles aren't real.

[Edited on January 19, 2011 at 5:05 PM. Reason : .]

1/19/2011 5:02:11 PM

Quote :

"pointed out to a reporter that miracles aren't real"

pointed out that the reporter was potentially lying (no prayer card just prayers/ dreaming). Failing to note that the according to a polish newspaper the nun never had parkinsons.
I would imagine most viewers would consider those pertinent facts.
They were pertinent enough that other stories about the beatification of the pope included them.

[Edited on January 19, 2011 at 5:14 PM. Reason : asdf]

1/19/2011 5:14:05 PM

the reporter reported on what the supposed miracle was.

the things you mention are important facts in a story about the miracle. in a story about the beautification process when it seems the church already believes in the miracle, they don't need to be brought up.

1/19/2011 5:17:21 PM

Funny because the story I got the quotes from WAS ABOUT THE BEATIFICATION PROCESS...

^beautification? auto correct sucks sometimes doesn't it?

[Edited on January 19, 2011 at 5:21 PM. Reason : asdfad]

1/19/2011 5:19:27 PM

its beautification on android

1/19/2011 5:23:38 PM

I take exception at the accusation that the only type of unscientific garbage I oppose is religion. In this thread alone I have called out anti-vax, the power bracelet, and astrology. Elsewhere on tww, you'll find me trashing 2012 doomsayers and unscientific claims regarding the rock quarry expansion, and those are just what's in my recent memory.

We just happen to be in a thread regarding the treatment of religious claims in the media. I unilaterally oppose woo in all of its forms. I think Grumpy is so touchy about it because he regards himself as an intelligent, critically-thinking skeptic but is upset by the cognitive dissonance caused by not appling those skills to his faith as he does to every other claim he encounters.

[Edited on January 19, 2011 at 6:47 PM. Reason : s]

1/19/2011 6:45:47 PM

Quote :

"Yes, they really can. I learned it in my ancient world history class..."

No, you really didn't.

1/19/2011 6:48:56 PM

Quote :

"beautification process"

LOL

Thanks God for Ladybird Johnson.



them dang ol highways were UUUUG-LYYYYY




[Edited on January 19, 2011 at 6:56 PM. Reason : ]

1/19/2011 6:55:28 PM

Quote :

"We just happen to be in a thread regarding the treatment of religious claims in the media. I unilaterally oppose woo in all of its forms. I think Grumpy is so touchy about it because he regards himself as an intelligent, critically-thinking skeptic but is upset by the cognitive dissonance caused by not appling those skills to his faith as he does to every other claim he encounters. "

but i gave you an example of religious claims in the media, and you said that those don't count. so what's the deal? why could those muslims claim that someone is an infallible incarnation of god but a reporter can't cover a story about a pope? why the double standard?

1/19/2011 7:12:27 PM

A. You didn't give any specifics you simply stated it was a comparison between two beliefs. You failed to note specific events of ridiculous claims that were going unchallenged by the media. In other words your analogy SUCKED and was largely irrelevant. It could have been another example of religions exemption from critical media and it might not have been. You gave no information.

However in response to your claim:

Quote :

"the things you mention are important facts in a story about the miracle. in a story about the beautification process when it seems the church already believes in the miracle, they don't need to be brought up."

THE QUOTES I PROVIDED WERE FROM A STORY ON THE BEATIFICATION OF JP. They established that not only was CNN's coverage of the story very incomplete the "reporter" they interviewed seems to have been lying... No need to examine the issue further though

1/19/2011 8:08:27 PM

well now that i have clarified the analogy, what should CNN have done differently?

1/19/2011 8:10:08 PM

^ they should have segued to a segment debunking the existence of miracles, obviously. This would surely have convinced people.

1/19/2011 8:12:35 PM

Quote :

"but i gave you an example of religious claims in the media, and you said that those don't count. so what's the deal? why could those muslims claim that someone is an infallible incarnation of god but a reporter can't cover a story about a pope? why the double standard?"

That is not a clarification. It is your garbled transmission over something you supposedly saw.
and you STILL HAVEN'T responded to my post.

1/19/2011 8:14:42 PM

what post of yours did i miss? its pretty tough to cut through the retard, so i may have missed something.

1/19/2011 8:21:19 PM

Quote :

"It is interesting to note that there are even more facts that CNN failed to even remotely touch on. Quote : "The miracle attributed to the Polish pope was unanimously confirmed on Tuesday by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. A French nun, Sister Marie Simon-Pierre, was miraculously cured of Parkinson's disease through the intervention of John Paul II. Sister Simon-Pierre testified that she had dreamed of the late pope shortly before recovering. The Vatican has received thousands of reports of alleged miracles attributed to John Paul II. However, the Vatican only recognized and attributed the miracle of the French nun's recovering. Vatican authorities decided to use the nun's case for John Paul's beatification despite reports indicating that the alleged miracle did not happen. A Polish newspaper reported that the French nun did not suffer from Parkinson's disease, but from a similar illness which was not terminal. This information that surfaced in March 2010 delayed the beatification process for almost a year." http://wireupdate.com/wires/14228/vatican-to-beatify-late-pope-john-paul-ii/ Funny how CNN failed to mention or question the reports of the miracle not actually happening. Just reporting on some of the facts of the story let the reader draw their own conclusions Also did she dream of him? or did she write his name? Oh lets not ask we don't want to seem ridiculous..."

Your eventual response:

Quote :

"the things you mention are important facts in a story about the miracle. in a story about the beautification process when it seems the church already believes in the miracle, they don't need to be brought up."

My response:

Quote :

"Funny because the story I got the quotes from WAS ABOUT THE BEATIFICATION PROCESS... ^beautification? auto correct sucks sometimes doesn't it? "

Your response:

Quote :

"its beautification on android"

Yet again resorting to personal insults when you have no response? I wish I could say I was surprised.

1/19/2011 8:28:53 PM

there is nothing wrong with including it, and in web media a more in-depth look is great, but in an interview its not needed if you are trying to move through things quickly. (its not needed in any media, but web media doesn't have the same length or time criteria that spoken and print media have)

its really common sense. i believe in you. i'm confident that if you try you can figure it out.

1/19/2011 8:33:46 PM

So you are ok with the national catholic reporter lying and no correction being called for?
BTW the article description of the "miracle" and allegations surrounding it is actually shorter btw so nice try but FAIL again.

[Edited on January 19, 2011 at 8:39 PM. Reason : P.S.]

1/19/2011 8:36:04 PM

well, i mean, he didn't. he said what the supposed miracle is. that's what the supposed miracle is.

1/19/2011 8:39:21 PM

Quote :

"testified that she had dreamed of the late pope shortly before recovering"

Quote :

" Apparently she wrote the late pope's name on a prayer card and tucked it under her mattress one night. "

One of these stories is not like the other... Who is telling the truth? The National Catholic "reporter" with a vested interest in making the miracle sound more credible? Or the real reporter who is also explaining all of the other issues with the supposed miracle??????

Keep posting keep failing buddy.

1/19/2011 8:45:34 PM

so now your argument is that the she saw a vision that told her to write which showed her she was cured instead of the writing causing the curing. and instead of calling that a mistake it is a lie.

and you don't notice how that is different from before? is it because you noticed how ridiculous you were being?

1/19/2011 8:58:25 PM

According to one account she dreamed of pope NO WRITING.

According to the other account she wrote on a prayer card no mention of dreaming.

There is no statement of seeing a vision and being told to write it down in either account so now you are the one making shit up.

According to one account there were significant allegations that she never had parkinsons disease.

In the other account there was no mention of these allegations. (so surprising it was from the same guy who was talking about the prayer card bullshit...)

Why am I having to explain these basic concepts to you?

Oh and before you start repeating the same arguments. THEY WERE BOTH STORIES ABOUT THE BEATIFICATION OF THE POPE AND THE MORE COMPLETE ONE WAS ACTUALLY SHORTER...

[Edited on January 19, 2011 at 9:12 PM. Reason : and just to clarify]

1/19/2011 9:10:43 PM

Quote :

"There is no statement of seeing a vision and being told to write it down in either account so now you are the one making shit up. "

oh really? if there is will you stop posting?

1/19/2011 9:13:28 PM

as an fyi:

Quote :

"... After evening prayer at 9:00 p.m., I went back past my office then went back to my room. It was between 9:30 and 9:45. I felt the desire then to take a pen to write, a little as if someone had said to me, "Take your pen and write." To my great surprise, the writing was very legible. I did not understand very well, and I lay down. That was exactly 2 months since John Paul II had left us for the Father’s House. At 4:30 a.m., I woke up, amazed at having slept. With a jump, I left my bed, my body was no longer sore, no more stiffness, and inside I was no longer the same. Then, an interior call, a power pushed me to go to pray before the Blessed Sacrament. I went down to the oratory. I prayed before the Blessed Sacrament. A great peace enveloped me, a feeling of wellbeing. Something too great, a mystery difficult to explain with words. Then, still before the Blessed Sacrament, I contemplated the luminous mysteries of John Paul II. Then, at 6 a.m., I left to join my sisters in the Chapel for a time of prayer followed by the Eucharist. I had about 50 meters to walk, and there, I realized that my left arm was swinging with my walking, unlike usual, when that one remained motionless beside my body. I noticed also a lightness in my whole body, a flexibility that I had no longer known for a long time. During that Eucharist, I was filled with a great joy and a great peace. It was June 3, feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. At the conclusion of the Mass, I was convinced that I was cured – my hand was not shaking any more. I left to write again, and at noon, I abruptly stopped all my medications. ... "

http://blog-by-the-sea.typepad.com/blog_bythesea/2007/03/sister_mariesim.html

1/19/2011 9:18:12 PM

as an fyi:

Quote :

" ... After 9 p.m. prayers on June 2, 2005, Sister Marie Simon-Pierre said, she returned to her quarters. "As I entered my room, I heard a voice telling me, 'Take a pen and write,' " she said. "I did so. It was weird because my handwriting was easier to read." She went to sleep but awoke at 4:30 a.m., she said. She climbed out of bed and said she felt "completely transformed." ..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/30/AR2007033002142_2.html

1/19/2011 9:21:24 PM

triple post suspend.
So now the story has several different versions. In other stories she was cured simply by praying to JP. A story that is apparently in constant flux should be questioned EVEN MORE. Goddamn why is this so hard for you. It is interesting that in MULTIPLE VERSIONS OF HER STORY THERE IS NO MENTION OF A PRAYER CARD OR WRITING ANYTHING.

AAAANNNNNNDDDDDD
Even in your triple post bonanza you still haven't addressed why the issue of her possibly never having parkinson's disease was never addressed.
Why did CNN not feel the need to address this and the issue that the story has apparently undergone multiple changes??

It was addressed in other accounts of the beatification of the pope and those accounts of the miracle were actually shorter...

1/19/2011 9:35:37 PM

she probably wrote on a prayer card

[Edited on January 19, 2011 at 10:00 PM. Reason : they don't have many things to write on]

Quote :

"Even in your triple post bonanza you still haven't addressed why the issue of her possibly never having parkinson's disease was never addressed. Why did CNN not feel the need to address this and the issue that the story has apparently undergone multiple changes??"

because the story was about the pop

[Edited on January 19, 2011 at 10:07 PM. Reason : .]

1/19/2011 10:00:09 PM

Quote :

"she wrote on a prayer card"

multiple accounts have no mention of her writing anything down. It would be interesting to ask why the story changed. (2nd-3rd time I have stated this)
V which version of her account you really aren't this stupid are you? You don't think there is a possibility of her story changing?

Quote :

"because the story was about the pope"

I have already explained why this is not a rational rebuttal.
Other stories about the pope's beatification have accounts of the miracle which mention all of the aforementioned shortcomings (read the one I quoted which happens to be shorter than the CNN account). This is the 3rd-4th time I have had to state this. At this point it is wise to assume you have no response and therefore have conceded the point. I am done repeating myself.

V Still no response????

[Edited on January 19, 2011 at 10:40 PM. Reason : asdfd]

1/19/2011 10:16:21 PM

her account has her writing something

is this really what your argument has dissolved to? arguing about what some nun said?

lets get back on topic

the CNN Anchor was completely appropriate and did nothing wrong

1/19/2011 10:18:35 PM

Quote :

"I take exception at the accusation that the only type of unscientific garbage I oppose is religion."

I don't make this accusation. We are, after all, on the same page as the vaccinations, astrology, and 2012 (I admit I don't know what power bracelets are, but I'm pretty sure we're on the same page there as well).

The point stands that every example that involved claims that were easily factually disprovable -- that Loughner's "genocide school" did not actually do any genociding, to name an example -- are waved off as beside the point. There is a clear bias here, that whenever something that particularly irks you is so much as mentioned, it must be attacked by the reporter post haste.

Quote :

"I think Grumpy is so touchy about it because he regards himself as an intelligent, critically-thinking skeptic but is upset by the cognitive dissonance caused by not appling those skills to his faith as he does to every other claim he encounters."

I am aware that there is absolutely no scientific basis for the existence of God or the veracity of any particular religion. This is reason number one why I don't try to push my beliefs on other people, and why I don't make a habit of supporting those who do.

Ultimately I'm "touchy," as you put it, for two reasons: first, because on this website religion is defended almost exclusively by a party of morons who make me, as a theist, look moronic by association. Second, because I just want to be left alone, and you want to convert me. I'm no angrier at you than I am a pushy Baptist.

---

adder, has rbrthwrd pointed out that you've never suggested even an inkling that maybe we should question or challenge the report of a Polish newspaper?

1/20/2011 12:44:37 AM

Reporter: So, what is this about Hispanics supposedly being made of mud?

Guest: Well, according to a statement from the Grand Wizard of Northwest Kansas, God made Hispanic people out of wet dirt, also known as mud.

Reporter: Very interesting. Well, thanks for coming on! Now to other news...

Ain't his job to weigh in on religious beliefs!

Technically, he's just reporting facts!

No one takes Grand Wizards seriously, except for Klansmen!

He said "supposedly"!

Perfectly fine reporting, in my opinion. Calm down already.

[Edited on January 20, 2011 at 9:03 AM. Reason : ]

1/20/2011 8:57:52 AM

Quote :

"The point stands that every example that involved claims that were easily factually disprovable -- that Loughner's "genocide school" did not actually do any genociding, to name an example -- are waved off as beside the point"

They are waved off as beside the point because there is no politically relevant faction claiming this is true. In other words no one believes this therefore it DOESN'T matter. I am going to assume you missed when I explained that earlier.
When ridiculous claims of a politically relevant faction of society make outrageous false claims I think the media at the very least should point out all the facts.

Quote :

"has rbrthwrd pointed out that you've never suggested even an inkling that maybe we should question or challenge the report of a Polish newspaper?"

The claim in the Polish newspaper was by a doctor who simply stated that she most likely had a different neurological disorder that is known to spontaneously heal. Application of parsimony would indicate that this claim is most likely correct given the parameters. Parkinson's doesn't spontaneously heal IF nun spontaneously healed than nun didn't have Parkinson's. Hell if you went to any qualified doctor with a story of a healed neurological disorder they would almost completely dismiss parkinson's disease.
Given this information those claims are more scientifically supported than the church doctors claims yet somehow weren't mentioned by CNN.


Also btw that is still largely irrelevant. The point I have been repeatedly trying to make is that other shorter segments ABOUT THE BEATIFICATION do a far better job of indicating some of the major problems with this particular miracle claim.
CNN did a poor job. If you are going to select such a biased source to provide your report (national catholic "reporter" ) at LEAST provide some of the conflicting details in your report (as other news sources did).
The we report you decide attitude only "works" if you report on all of the facts surrounding the case. CNN completely failed to do this.

1/20/2011 9:00:03 AM