Merely reporting that catholics believe something does not, in any way, lend credibility to their beliefs.

Quote :

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

In your example, you've ignored a lot of subtext that implies doubt. Its easy to rewrite this when you ignore subtext:

"Reporter: OK, well that's clearly nonsense, no need to waste further time on that. Lets change the topic"

1/20/2011 9:07:40 AM

I think you guys are over analyzing the CNN piece. I cited it as an illustration of a problem in journalism that is itself a poor reflection on our society; namely, that we talk about these ridiculous stories as if they merit some kind of consideration.

Anyway, related (gives a good explanation of why the nun probably didn't have Parkinson's): http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kinsley-catholic-miracle-20110119,0,6123578.story

Quote :

"Its easy to rewrite this when you ignore subtext"

There was no such subtext in the report I cited. I didn't have a link to the video (that I could post here), but I did watch it, and there was nothing like a subtext of doubt. It was more like a subtext of neat-o!

[Edited on January 20, 2011 at 9:18 AM. Reason : ]

1/20/2011 9:12:45 AM

Quote :

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

I essentially covered this on the last page:

Quote :

"It's not a big deal because so far we just have some religious decree with no likely tangible consequence. If the Vatican had said we needed to kill all the Hawaiians because they were demon spawn, we ought to talk about it."

Incite to violence -- which your absurd hypothetical clearly is -- is not in the same realm as what is essentially a glorified human interest story. There aren't going to be riots or lynchings over the pope story.

Quote :

"They are waved off as beside the point because there is no politically relevant faction claiming this is true."

I'm curious as to how you deny "politically relevant," because I think there's a decent chance that atheists don't qualify.

Quote :

"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."

OK. But by your line of thinking, everything a religious group claims is outrageous and false. I'd rather the news have time to tell me shit that's going on in the world, so do you think maybe it's reasonable to suggest that we should keep the inquisition limited to important issues?

Quote :

"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."

So you're not suggesting that we -- or anybody else -- should question or challenge this report. Got it.

1/20/2011 10:42:50 AM

Quote :

"OK. But by your line of thinking, everything a religious group claims is outrageous and false. I'd rather the news have time to tell me shit that's going on in the world, so do you think maybe it's reasonable to suggest that we should keep the inquisition limited to important issues?"

I'm not sure how this follows. Medical miracles with no evidentiary support obviously need to be proven before accepted as truth.

I'd rather the news not waste any time with falsities that you admit are bullshit anyway.

1/20/2011 10:48:01 AM

Quote :

"I think you guys are over analyzing the CNN piece. I cited it as an illustration of a problem in journalism that is itself a poor reflection on our society; namely, that we talk about these ridiculous stories as if they merit some kind of consideration."

this entire time i've been encouraging you to find an actual example (which probably isn't hard) but you don't want to

^but reporting on what a group, who believes the miracle is true, is doing because of it is still news and doesn't require analyzing said miracle. looking at the supposed miracle is still worthy of news, but its a separate story and you don't necessarily have to follow the former with the later.

[Edited on January 20, 2011 at 10:57 AM. Reason : later=latter]

1/20/2011 10:57:04 AM

Quote :

"I'm curious as to how you deny "politically relevant," because I think there's a decent chance that atheists don't qualify."

How did this become about atheists? When a politically relevant group is making false claims on CNN I think it is CNN's job to challenge those claims. Catholics are a politically relevant group Arizona shooter dude is not. I am not sure why you are having such trouble with this?

Quote :

"everything a religious group claims is outrageous and false."

I never said this... Also this is largely irrelevant outside of trying to paint me as some religion hating nut job with an agenda.
If a religious group claims something that is factually supported (the existence of gravity for example) you will find me in complete agreement with their viewpoints. When they claim something so obviously ridiculous you will find me in disagreement. Are you really now trying to state that the "miracle" is at all rational?

Quote :

" I'd rather the news have time to tell me shit that's going on in the world"

I provided an example that was shorter and it addressed the obvious issues of the miracle.

Quote :

" So you're not suggesting that we -- or anybody else -- should question or challenge this report. Got it."

Wrong again. I am simply suggesting that the doctor referenced in the Polish paper is at least as credible as the doctors referenced by the "reporter" in the CNN piece. I would actually argue more credible because he isn't accepting the existence of miracles and is instead attempting a rational explanation. What do you think Grumpy? Who would you rather have as your primary physician a doctor who believes in miracles or one who tries to explain things logically and rationally?

1/20/2011 11:17:26 AM

Quote :

"what is this about Hispanics supposedly being made of mud?""

i thought accd to Bible we were all made of mud....

(dust+water, whatever)

1/20/2011 11:25:03 AM

So I think I found the video and if it is the one that lazarus is referring his transcribing leaves a bit to be desired. In the actual video clip they take the time to mention most of the aspects that I felt needed to be mentioned (she may have never had parkinson's and may not even be cured).
You can find the video here and at aprox. the 1:40 is where they start on the segment lazarus attempted to transcribe.
http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/14/pope-john-paul-ii-to-be-beatified-this-year/

The only thing I am in the slightest concerned with is they didn't establish credentials of the people examining a verifying the miracle (establishing the doctors as church doctors would have been nice considering how ignorant the american public is).
That is more personal preference though (hyper sensitive atheist) and I honestly don't really have a problem with CNN's treatment of the issue (much to my chagrin).

My apologies for not finding the footage first (especially rbt and grumpy).

[Edited on January 20, 2011 at 11:42 AM. Reason : asdf]

1/20/2011 11:41:20 AM

lazarus, you're a idiot. the process for confirming these 'miracles' is more rigorous than anything you've been exposed to in your life. the only thing more rigorous in their investigation is a ultra high security check combined with a full body cavity search, everyday, for a week.

no one would agree that praying is a substantially viable way to get cured. the fact that it does occasionally happen is the basis for the word 'miracle'.

only dolts like you would take something like this and use it as a basis of healing that hundreds or thousands will try and then die b/c they only prayed. rather only dolts like you would believe that this occurrence would increase based on a TV interview... b/c so many 3rd world people watch CNN in english for their religious based healing techniques....

Quote :

"1) Why do you think it is the media's job to tell people their religion is wrong? 2) Why are you under the impression that the Catholic church, or any other major denomination, tells people not to go to the doctor?"

exactly

the population of agnostics and atheists are incredibly low overall, basically you aren't a important group to, pretty much anyone. overall there is more of a positive factor to the average person to have a belief system (a religion) than not to have one. (health benefits etc). so ultimately your position is not only weak it's also the less desirable one as well.

organized religion has it's faults, as with any institutions of men. surprise? hardly.

your toothfairy analogy is both incomplete and not corollary to the OP.

Quote :

""So long as religious ritual isn't pushed as a replacement for medical attention, I don't see how it really hurts. In fact it might be able to improve the person's hopefulness via some weird placebo effect (which requires a false belief) which could improve results overall."

bingo.

Quote :

"And -- I can't stress this enough -- anyone who thinks this story is about medicine or even miracles is missing the point by a mile. This is a story about John Paul II getting made into a saint."

ditto, and the op missed it.

dude give it up, your rants against religion aren't even interesting or well put together, you're just knee jerking like a dead fish at this point. your arguments are absurd and ridiculous.

1/20/2011 11:43:05 AM

You are a prime example of the issue. You can say stuff like:

Quote :

"no one would agree that praying is a substantially viable way to get cured. the fact that it does occasionally happen is the basis for the word 'miracle'. "

with a straight face. Some of us like to look at something which is unexplained and actually attempt to find an explanation. 'God did it' doesn't work for me.

Quote :

"the process for confirming these 'miracles' is more rigorous than anything you've been exposed to in your life. the only thing more rigorous in their investigation is a ultra high security check combined with a full body cavity search, everyday, for a week."

Oh really? Prove this. Prove that the confirmation process for this specific miracle was this rigorous.

Quote :

"the population of agnostics and atheists are incredibly low overall, basically you aren't a important group to, pretty much anyone. overall there is more of a positive factor to the average person to have a belief system (a religion) than not to have one. (health benefits etc). so ultimately your position is not only weak it's also the less desirable one as well. "

Your hubris is showing. I'm not sure your god would be pleased.

Wait, this was a troll post, right?

[Edited on January 20, 2011 at 12:06 PM. Reason : .]

1/20/2011 12:02:52 PM

Quote :

"http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/14/pope-john-paul-ii-to-be-beatified-this-year/"

What's this? Are you telling me that in another story and a more appropriate context CNN gives a more critical look at the supposed miracle? No way!

Quote :

" the population of agnostics and atheists are incredibly low overall, basically you aren't a important group to, pretty much anyone."

um
wat?
[Edited on January 20, 2011 at 12:09 PM. Reason : looks like stupid on both sides of this]

Not surprisingly this has just turned into an attack of/ defense of christianity argument. it's not surprising, because that was the real intention, but lets stay on topic:

The CNN anchor acted appropriately and did nothing wrong

[Edited on January 20, 2011 at 12:10 PM. Reason : .]

1/20/2011 12:07:08 PM

honestly I don't want to put the full effort in to this but:

Quote :

"with a straight face. Some of us like to look at something which is unexplained and actually attempt to find an explanation. 'God did it' doesn't work for me."

yes, the point i made before that is, that they do extensively look for ANY other alternative explanation, well before they go about making anything public.

Quote :

"Oh really? Prove this. Prove that the confirmation process for this specific miracle was this rigorous."

no thanks, i don't have the time or the effort to research something you can do just as well. the point being is that the OP didn't and still doesn't really have a clue as to the process of the church on such matters, yet he claims he does. shortly this:

Quote :

"There is a 2 part process, and neither of them are very quick. 1) The local bishop has to launch an investigation into it. They interview everybody associated with it and make sure it is real. 2) Their information goes to the Vatican, where the Copngregation for the Causes of Saints, reviews all the material, then debates it and prays about it. The Church is naturally very skeptical, since many people try to fake miracles for their own personal glory, and neurotic people can experience things they assume are miracles, that are only hallucinations. I found this link that you might find instructive: http://newsaints.faithweb.com/divinus.htm Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_the_Catholic_church_authenticate_a_miracle#ixzz1Bb5XQncD"

and that's b/c i'm lazy and don't feel the need to put in the effort for you to look up the text book explanation. you can request the info from the vatican on this particular investigation.

Quote :

"Your hubris is showing. I'm not sure your god would be pleased. Wait, this was a troll post, right?"

but it's at least partially true on all accounts (United States (4%)) and no, i'm not gonna research this for you either.

the OP started this thread to basically thump his atheist chest about it (HOW DARE A FREE PRESS SHOW SOMETHING I DON'T AGREE WITH!!).

the point is that his chest beating is, well, insignificant.

1/20/2011 12:26:38 PM

^^

Quote :

" What's this? Are you telling me that in another story and a more appropriate context CNN gives a more critical look at the supposed miracle? No way!"

Are your reading comprehension skills this lacking? I was trying to be nice but I give up.
THIS WAS (presumably until lazarus confirms or denies) THE ORIGINAL EXCHANGE WHICH LAZARUS FAILED TO TRANSCRIBE PROPERLY.

In other words the original story was fundamentally different than the way lazarus portrayed it. It did mention that their are allegations of the nun not being cured at all and also allegations of the nun never having parkinsons. I now have no problem with the story I am not sure what you are arguing about.

^
A 2004 BBC poll showed the number of people in the US who don't believe in a god to be about 9%. A 2008 Gallup poll showed that a smaller 6% of the US population believed that no god or universal spirit exists.

Quote :

" no thanks, i don't have the time or the effort to research something you can do just as well. the point being is that the OP didn't and still doesn't really have a clue as to the process of the church on such matters, yet he claims he does. shortly this: Quote : "There is a 2 part process, and neither of them are very quick. 1) The local bishop has to launch an investigation into it. They interview everybody associated with it and make sure it is real. 2) Their information goes to the Vatican, where the Copngregation for the Causes of Saints, reviews all the material, then debates it and prays about it."

A review comprised of parties with extremely vested interests I AM TOTALLY CONVINCED

OH WAIT CONFORMATION BY PRAYER!! IT MUST BE TRUE




[Edited on January 20, 2011 at 12:37 PM. Reason : sdf]

[Edited on January 20, 2011 at 12:38 PM. Reason : asdf]

1/20/2011 12:30:54 PM

The interview in that link was not the interview I cited in the OP. The anchor in my piece was Ali Velshi. I haven't been able to track it down on CNN's website. You're just going to have to take my word that it aired.

Quote :

"Incite to violence -- which your absurd hypothetical clearly is -- is not in the same realm as what is essentially a glorified human interest story. There aren't going to be riots or lynchings over the pope story."

The type of superstition (that being of the medical nature) is a fucking huge problem, especially with poor people, and especially with poor people in Third World countries. You know, the kind of environments where Catholicism - and its doctrine of miraculous healings - is not only popular but also taken quite seriously. I've been to some of these countries; I'm not lying to you. You may be oblivious to this fact; I'm not.

Hell, there even seems to be a person on this board who thinks this is the real deal.

And my hypothetical was not incitement to violence, in the legal sense of that term or in any other sense. It was just a ridiculous statement. And since this one happened to offend your senses, you've decided to place it in a different category. Well, the first statement offends my senses. And it should offend yours and any other thinking person as well as any person who thinks the Vatican's miracle cures are probably not the best thing to be peddling to people, especially with the help of the press.

But I think you've made your point, which is not really a refutation of my position but rather a confirmation of it. You have no problem with nonsense being uncritically reported as long as it's nonsense that doesn't bother you much. That it doesn't bother you is precisely my point.

[Edited on January 20, 2011 at 3:03 PM. Reason : ]

1/20/2011 2:59:45 PM

CNN in a story on the pope, simply gave a background
CNN in a story on the "miracle", gave a more critical look at the "miracle"

whats the problem here?

1/20/2011 3:17:07 PM

^ Factually incorrect

Is this it Lazarus? 1:30 mark
http://forestlake.uscable.com/video/play/466201/genres/news?playlist=1&pos=1

[Edited on January 20, 2011 at 3:38 PM. Reason : found it?]

1/20/2011 3:30:37 PM

Quote :

"I never said this... Also this is largely irrelevant outside of trying to paint me as some religion hating nut job with an agenda. "

Couldn't be farther from wrong. Any atheist is naturally going to be under the impression that religious claims are absurd. It takes a level of assholery to move up to the next level.

The obvious implication of my statement was that any religious claim would be seen as outrageous and false. Which I'm sure is true. You don't think that God has anything to do with Elizabeth II being Queen, you don't think that the Pope has a direct conduit to God, you don't believe in transsubstantiation, and so on, and so forth, because you don't believe in God.

The point is, there are little religious touches to lots of news stories. I'm annoyed enough that this Prince William/Kate Middleton marriage is getting the coverage it does, I damn sure don't need it to also be accompanied by CNN's questioning whether or not there is a God to condone the union or whether the church ceremony is just an elaborate contract event.

Quote :

"Wrong again. I am simply suggesting that the doctor referenced in the Polish paper is at least as credible as the doctors referenced by the "reporter" in the CNN piece. I would actually argue more credible because he isn't accepting the existence of miracles and is instead attempting a rational explanation."

You've still done nothing but talk it up, I've seen not a hint that anybody should challenge it.

Quote :

"Who would you rather have as your primary physician a doctor who believes in miracles or one who tries to explain things logically and rationally?"

If they're both actual doctors who passed medical school I couldn't give less of a shit, because they're both capable of logical and rational thought and a student who suggested "Jesus" as a treatment for everything during his internship would not have passed.

Quote :

"The type of superstition (that being of the medical nature) is a fucking huge problem, especially with poor people, and especially with poor people in Third World countries. You know, the kind of environments where Catholicism - and its doctrine of miraculous healings - is not only popular but also taken quite seriously. I've been to some of these countries; I'm not lying to you. You may be oblivious to this fact; I'm not."

1) Poor people in third world countries don't watch a lot of CNN.
2) Oh, you've been to a poor country full of Catholics? How scary was Cabo San Lucas?
I spent a month with a family in Peru that had an enormous portrait of John Paul II on their wall. I know how crazy our poor brown neighbors to the south can get on this issue.
3) It is not the doctrine of the Catholic church to tell people not to go to the doctor.

Quote :

"And my hypothetical was not incitement to violence, in the legal sense of that term or in any other sense. It was just a ridiculous statement."

It was a ridiculous statement that a reasonable person might expect to lead to riots, violence, or protests at the very least.

1/20/2011 5:20:41 PM

Quote :

"Is this it Lazarus?"

No, but I mean, it's similar enough. But that clip did remind me that John Allen is not only a correspondent for National Catholic Reporter - he's also the "CNN Senior Vatican Analyst."

Quote :

"1) Poor people in third world countries don't watch a lot of CNN."

Oh, they do. In large numbers. You've heard of satellite television? And either way, this CNN clip is just one example - I've seen dozens of reports now from a whole slew of sources reporting this story essentially the same way, many even featuring the illustrious John Allen and his "poetic arc."

Quote :

"I spent a month with a family in Peru that had an enormous portrait of John Paul II on their wall. I know how crazy our poor brown neighbors to the south can get on this issue."

And you came away from that experience thinking poor Peruvians don't think much of miracles? I don't buy it.

Quote :

"3) It is not the doctrine of the Catholic church to tell people not to go to the doctor."

That's probably true in most cases, but it is their doctrine to tell people that their medical ailments can be miraculously cured through prayer.

[Edited on January 20, 2011 at 11:45 PM. Reason : ]

1/20/2011 11:44:12 PM

CNN in a story on the pope, simply gave a background
CNN in a story on the "miracle", gave a more critical look at the "miracle"

whats the problem here?

1/20/2011 11:47:53 PM

Quote :

"Oh, they do. In large numbers."

Clearly we have differing definitions of "poor."

Quote :

"And you came away from that experience thinking poor Peruvians don't think much of miracles? I don't buy it. "

I never heard a one of them suggest that they were going to avoid doctors in favor of miracles.

Quote :

"That's probably true in most cases, but it is their doctrine to tell people that their medical ailments can be miraculously cured through prayer."

So the fuck what? People add an extra thing to their treatment. Big goddamn deal.

1/21/2011 2:58:51 AM

It's not the direct effects of these types of stories that bug me because it's true, not a lot of people are going to forswear medical treatment because of this.

It's the prevalence of the belief in miracles, as well as the unquestioning trust of the Catholic church in poor areas that troubles me.

Quote :

"Any atheist is naturally going to be under the impression that religious claims are absurd."

This isn't necessarily fair and painting atheists with a broad brush. Some people are atheist for non-scientific reasons and just believe it. They may or may not believe any other claims they encounter.
Even regarding atheists like myself, whose atheism is a direct result of my skepticism, it would be unfair to state this unless you define "religious claims" as claims without evidentiary merit.

In which case, yes they are absurd.

1/21/2011 9:40:56 AM

Quote :

"I never heard a one of them suggest that they were going to avoid doctors in favor of miracles."

I've never seen anyone get blown up by a suicide bomber. Guess it doesn't happen. If you don't know that superstitious beliefs - like those routinely offered up by the Vatican - have retarded medical progress throughout the developing world, then you just simply don't know anything about the subject. I don't know what else to say about this. If you don't know it, you don't know. Of course, you do know it, but have for whatever reason chosen to focus your energy on making me look like a militant atheist. Good for you. I'm sure you feel very mature and restrained and neutral.

[Edited on January 21, 2011 at 9:52 AM. Reason : ]

1/21/2011 9:51:28 AM

hey guys,

i'm really bored with this discussion. can you, like, shake things up a bit? if not, then please quit making it jump to the top of 'my topics'.

thanks

1/21/2011 10:48:26 AM

Quote :

"If you don't know that superstitious beliefs - like those routinely offered up by the Vatican - have retarded medical progress throughout the developing world, then you just simply don't know anything about the subject. I don't know what else to say about this."

you could, you know, SUPPORT THE FUCKING CLAIM WITH EVIDENCE.

^ you know, you can always remove the topic from your My Topics

1/21/2011 12:38:30 PM

Of course I can. But I'm not going to, because you'll just say it's irrelevant after all, and because I'm not going to provide a dissertation for every banal fact I cite just because one person pops his head into a thread a demands it.

I don't think it's seriously contested that superstition has hampered medical progress in developing countries. There are literally volumes upon volumes of documentation for this available - you guessed it - on the Internet.

1/21/2011 1:02:06 PM

yes, but not all superstition is due to the church. I seriously doubt that the church is teaching people in Africa that fucking a virgin will cure you of AIDS.

Quote :

"Of course I can. But I'm not going to"

because you are a fucking tool and just want to make unsubstantiated claims. put up, or shut up

1/21/2011 1:04:00 PM

But they are teaching the people in Africa that using condoms is a sin.

1/21/2011 2:03:39 PM

and they might also be teaching people not to fuck until they are married... then again, what, exactly, is the condom availability in the middle of fucking nowhere in Africa anyway?

[Edited on January 21, 2011 at 2:13 PM. Reason : ]

1/21/2011 2:12:43 PM

Better than zero. Medical supplies are funneled in by aid organizations on a constant basis. Hell, every Catholic aid organization could have brought condoms with them and passed them out.

And in case you needed citation:
http://www.avert.org/condoms.htm

Quote :

"The UNFPA estimates that at least 13.1 billion condoms were needed in 2005 to significantly reduce the spread of HIV, and another 4.4 billion were required for family planning. The number of condoms donated in 2005 was only 2.3 billion - representing less than 15% of the need. Although numbers rose sharply to 3.1 billion in 2007, they have subsequently decreased again to 2.4 billion in 2008.30 Between 2000 and 2005, fourteen countries received an average of more than 10 donated condoms per man per year. All of these countries have widespread HIV epidemics and, with the exception of Haiti, all of them are in sub-Saharan Africa. At the very top of the list were Congo, Zimbabwe, Namibia and Cape Verde, each of which received more than 20 condoms per man per year."

[Edited on January 21, 2011 at 2:22 PM. Reason : citation]

1/21/2011 2:15:36 PM

but really, the claim is that religion has hampered medical progress, not medical outcomes, so I'd say there is a burden of proof to support that. And lazarus just wants to say "if you don't agree with me, then you are an idiot." a classic "poisoning the well" if ever I've seen one

1/21/2011 2:20:39 PM

Seems like combating AIDS outbreaks is medical progress.

I'd say in this example, on a very small scale, it's obvious how religion has hampered medical progress. Let's say for giggles that this woman actually has been cured of Parkinson's. Without significant investigation, just throwing up our hands and saying "it's a miracle!" has blocked any possibility of learning what actually has happened.

1/21/2011 2:26:26 PM

Quote :

"but really, the claim is that religion has hampered medical progress"

Does embryonic stem cell research count?

1/21/2011 2:29:32 PM

Quote :

"And lazarus just wants to say "if you don't agree with me, then you are an idiot.""

It's more like me saying, "Google it." Several obvious of examples have already been provided. For flavor, I'll add voodoo, exorcisms, witch doctors, and the killing of Albinos to harvest their supposedly magical body parts to the list of stultifying practices common throughout the developing world.

1/21/2011 3:11:40 PM

CNN in a story on the pope, simply gave a background
CNN in a story on the "miracle", gave a more critical look at the "miracle"

whats the problem here?

1/21/2011 3:35:48 PM

Quote :

"Even regarding atheists like myself, whose atheism is a direct result of my skepticism, it would be unfair to state this unless you define "religious claims" as claims without evidentiary merit."

Yeah...they are claims that are religious in nature.

Quote :

"If you don't know that superstitious beliefs - like those routinely offered up by the Vatican - have retarded medical progress throughout the developing world, then you just simply don't know anything about the subject."

Some beliefs have had exactly that effect. I am not a fan of those beliefs and I routinely oppose them because they have a direct effect on people's lives. This story is not one of those things.

1/21/2011 3:40:45 PM

The specific belief that Parkinson's in this specific case was cured by a miracle, probably not much.
The systemic belief that miracles or prayer works, yes.

1/21/2011 3:58:30 PM

Quote :

"Seems like combating AIDS outbreaks is medical progress."

no, it's really not. and all of this completely ignores the Christian aid organizations that come in and hand out medicine and teach people about cleanliness and other basic medical things.

Quote :

"It's more like me saying, "Google it.""

It's not my job to research your unsubstantiated claim. If you are gonna fucking claim it, then support it.

1/21/2011 4:00:25 PM

It doesn't completely ignore shit.
It is a fact that Catholic aid organizations have been teaching Africans not to use condoms and as such have contributed to the spread of AIDS and death in Africa and elsewhere.

Other Christians may be doing right, but the Catholics have screwed the pooch on this one.

1/21/2011 4:28:47 PM

Quote :

"The systemic belief that miracles or prayer works, yes."

Well do what you gotta do, but it's not the news media's job to dismantle that belief, and as long as that belief is prevalent then major events involving those beliefs will be newsworthy.

1/21/2011 4:31:22 PM

so, because they have potentially fucked up on one issue, they have set the entire world back on all of medical progress? really?

1/21/2011 4:34:00 PM

i missed where the cnn anchor said anything about condoms or medical progress

1/21/2011 4:39:23 PM

^^Do you read what you post before you hit 'Post Reply!' What the fuck are you talking about?

This is but one example of the stymieing of medical progress, not THE reason to conclude that religion is a thorn in medical progress' side.

It wasn't my assertion anyway. I'd be willing to assert that general belief in mysticism (with religion being a subset) has done untold damage on the progress of medicine as well as every other physical science. I'll be happy to provide additional examples if you need them, but it's pretty self-evident.

Keep in mind that this is not to say 100% of religious people have fought against 100% of physical science fields..fuck, the guy who first conjectured the Big Bang was a Catholic priest. Newton was an alchemist. Plenty of overtly religious (or mystical) people have done wonders for the scientific field.

^The nature of all discussions is to evolve to related topics. Grow up.

[Edited on January 21, 2011 at 4:41 PM. Reason : .]

1/21/2011 4:41:24 PM

i'd say that it has held it back in the past, simply because people didn't know any better, but I seriously doubt that it has had too much of an effect since the 1900s. It may have kept people from getting treated, but that is NOT keeping people from doing research completely, nor is it having a huge hindrance on said research. "Progress" is more than just a few hicks dying of the cold why praying for healing.

1/21/2011 4:50:15 PM

Quote :

"^The nature of all discussions is to evolve to related topics. Grow up. "

i'm just pointing out the transparent intent of this thread to launch into an anti-christian argument. that's fine, but the original example was a terrible example and i want them to realize that.

1/21/2011 4:52:10 PM

Embryonic stem cell research and evolutionary microbiology are two recent research fields that come to mind off the top of my head.

Of course it's not stopping the research completely; there's a reason why a vast majority of the top scientists in every country are non-religious. But to suggest that the above research fields are not currently being hindered by religious belief is incorrect.

Psychology is also plagued by non-scientific garbage that's perpetuated by mystical belief.

1/21/2011 4:55:53 PM

are their budgets zero? are they getting zero funding for for stem-cell research? The claim that only embryonic stem-cells will yield progress is absurd. It may be that religious concern has actually pushed scientists into other realms where they would not have gone if we only focused on embryos.

likewise, where are the fundies burning down microbiologists labs? I'm not seeing it

1/21/2011 4:58:40 PM

Quote :

"CNN in a story on the pope, simply gave a background CNN in a story on the "miracle", gave a more critical look at the "miracle" whats the problem here? "

THIS IS A FACTUALLY INCORRECT STATEMENT. They were both stories about the beatification of the pope. I already said this once. Are you illiterate?
Virtually every single article/ interview I have referenced in this entire discussion has been about the beatification of the pope and NOT ABOUT THE MIRACLE. How many times do I have to explain this to you?

On to the next one:
These are all Grumpy quotes look at his statement if you are in question as to the context.

Quote :

"You've still done nothing but talk it up, I've seen not a hint that anybody should challenge it."

The doctor trying to give scientific reasons for the nun's supposed cure is at least as credible as the doctor's who called this a miracle (the principle of parsimony would actually provide more credibility to the skeptical doctor). In the OP's story CNN decided to not even mention the concerns of the doctor claiming it wasn't even parkinson's disease. Other articles AND interviews ON THE SAME SUBJECT referenced these claims and the claims that the nun wasn't actually cured.

Quote :

" I'm curious as to how you deny "politically relevant," because I think there's a decent chance that atheists don't qualify."

However it isn't an atheist organization making irrational claims so this statement is irrelevant in the context of the discussion.
Let me provide a brief synopsis of your arguments and my responses because I think you have derailed.

This all started with your analogy about the "genocide schools" referenced in a news article about az shooter.
GOP stated that not providing the conflicting evidence or testimonies in the crazy AZ shooter dude's stories was the same as not providing conflicting evidence or testimonies when reporting on the miracle.

My (not always mine could be someone else who responded before i did) response:
No one believes what crazy AZ shooter dude is saying people actually believe the crazy miracle story.

GOP response:
Some people probably do believe AZ shooter dude. Where do we draw the line on what news should dismiss as crazy talk.

My response:
An extreme minority might believe in the genocide schools. In other words the people who believe in genocide schools aren't politically relevant (they don't really matter because their numbers are so small).
I believe it is the media's job to challenge false claims made by politically relevant factions. Catholics are a politically relevant faction, they made a false claim, CNN chose to only present part of the evidence in this story.

GOP response:
Atheists are a small faction would you define them as politically relevant?

Quote :

" are their budgets zero? are they getting zero funding for for stem-cell research? The claim that only embryonic stem-cells will yield progress is absurd. It may be that religious concern has actually pushed scientists into other realms where they would not have gone if we only focused on embryos."

Is it likely that without "religious concern" stem cell research would progress at a much faster rate? Just because their budgets aren't zero doesn't mean that the conflict isn't hurting scientific progress.

[Edited on January 21, 2011 at 5:24 PM. Reason : quote problems sorry for the treatise folks...]

1/21/2011 5:23:43 PM

there is no point getting into any kind of debate with aaronburro, i don't understand why anyone would try. you can't argue with someone who continuously evolves their argument with constant semantics arguments and never establishes a clear position, point, or argument.

1/21/2011 5:45:30 PM

Quote :

"Is it likely that without "religious concern" stem cell research would progress at a much faster rate?"

do you have any proof to the contrary? we've got the classic sample-size of 1 problem here, dude. You bitch and moan about how religion does one thing that might hinder something and ignore the multitude of times where it has helped. you are the classic militant atheist who gets pissed off whenever anyone even so much as mentions religion in public. get the fuck over yourself

1/21/2011 6:45:33 PM

Quote :

""Is it likely that without "religious concern" stem cell research would progress at a much faster rate?""

Quote :

" do you have any proof to the contrary"

No I don't think there is any proof to the contrary. Proof to the contrary would indicate that religious concerns are actually helping the progress of stem cell research. I think most ration minds would agree that this is NOT the case.

Quote :

" we've got the classic sample-size of 1 problem here, dude. You bitch and moan about how religion does one thing that might hinder something and ignore the multitude of times where it has helped."

There are countless examples of many types religion hampering the progress of science, thinking, and education throughout history. Just off the top of my head: Copernicus, Galileo, Giordano Bruno (killing one of your own for thinking ), Kepler, and Darwin all severely hampered by religion

To this day we have people who are unwilling to accept fucking evolution, people who think the world is 6000 years old, that fossils don't exist. You have to sit back and listen to their ridiculous arguments and if you respond you are "religion hating atheist". Next you are going to be saying evolution is "just a theory"...

If you want a real religion hater read this:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-sciencechristianity.htm

fuck off with your bullshit. Religion has really helped the progress of science

[Edited on January 21, 2011 at 8:19 PM. Reason : WTF is this shit...]

[Edited on January 21, 2011 at 8:19 PM. Reason : .]

1/21/2011 8:15:15 PM