9 ms·
Ah, just as I suspected, there's more to this story than the Slate article suggests, and it makes the Catholic community's response a bit more understandable:
by jawns 14y ago
Ah, just as I suspected, there's more to this story than the Slate article suggests, and it makes the Catholic community's response a bit more understandable:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4216637 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4216637
tl;dr: The Catholics aren't mad because he revealed a natural explanation for the dripping cross; they're mad because he alleged, apparently without offering any evidence, that it was all a scam set up by priests to bilk people out of their money.
- billpg 14y agoMaybe he just had faith it was all a scam.
- lotharbot 14y agoHe had facts which supported his assertion that the water was mundane rather than miraculous; he used those facts as an excuse to accuse priests of being scammers, and all religious people of being gullible, regressive, and irrational. If he had stopped with a mere debunking, he'd be the "good guy" here. But he followed it up with defamation and attempts at provocation, which makes him something more akin to a troll. I have noticed this sort of behavior elsewhere: someone will make a series of statements, including some that are provocative and defamatory (accusing others of major character flaws, criminal activity, etc.) and then, when faced with backlash, will act as though they're being silenced or criticized over the most factual, least controversial part of their statement. IMO it's important, even for those who support their overall point, to call out this sort of behavior because it does not promote rational discourse.