Mass delusion or genuine miracle?

[atheistgirl]

What is your fixation with 'the Vatican"?

I’m not fixated it with

Just asking a question - are there any miracles directly associated with the Vatican itself. That’s all

Sarah x

 

[joe370]

I don’t want anyone to take my word for anything.

Ever.

I never want anyone to accept anything I say.

Ever.

Please, under no circumstances, ever, are you to take my word for anything.

You’ve expressed your view.

I don’t accept it.

I’ve expressed my view.

I don’t want you to accept it.

I am doing no more that expressing my view, in what I hope is a reasonably charitable and polite manner.

I might add, after doing a ton of reading on Padre Pio, and Fatima and the Eucharistic Mirace of Buenas Aires.

Sarah x

Might add what, dare I ask?

 

[atheistgirl]

Two words (after this):

Prove it.

Now a few more, LOL.

Right after you PROVE it was a miracle.

Ker Pow



Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Might add what, dare I ask?

I added I’ve read a ton of stuff, from Catholic sources I might add that I might add confused about Padre Pio, Fatima, and a particular claimed miracle I’m interested in, the Eucharistic Miracle of Buenas Aires. That one is on going as I’ve contacted some people for exact names, dates, reports and the name of the lab and lab technician involved, and so far I’m being met with a wall of silence

Sarah x

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I don’t want anyone to take my word for anything.

Ever.

I never want anyone to accept anything I say.

Ever.

Please, under no circumstances, ever, are you to take my word for anything.

You’ve expressed your view.

I don’t accept it.

I’ve expressed my view.

I don’t want you to accept it.

I am doing no more that expressing my view, in what I hope is a reasonably charitable and polite manner.

I might add, after doing a ton of reading on Padre Pio, and Fatima and the Eucharistic Mirace of Buenas Aires.

Sarah x

You know what they say about a little learning. . .(Pope, and NOT the Catholic one)

But you know, with that kind of attitude, how do people communicate?

You talk about a ‘view’ but you aren’t presenting your remarks as ‘views’. You are presenting them AS FACTS. Facts which CONTRADICT CATHOLIC TEACHINGS.

Then you tell us that we aren’t to accept them? Well then why on earth state them? If they are just ‘your beliefs’ and no more ‘true’ or ‘not true’ than a complete OPPOSITE belief, why hold them?

You must have weighed the opposite (the idea of belief in all the above) and then DECIDED to go with ‘not belief’. So you obviously think ‘not belief’ is MORE TRUE than belief, right? And you felt it was important enough to make statements on a Catholic site about such, even though your statements always contradict Catholic teachings. . .’

But we aren’t supposed to accept them or anything like that?

Wow. . .that’s great for you, isn’t it? You get to make any statements you want that run down our beliefs, insist that they be given as much ‘credence’ as our points of view, and then at the end you can shrug because even though you have judged them worthy of your belief, nobody ELSE has to believe because there’s no ‘absolute’ truth, only what you WANT to believe (relative).

But if it’s relative, why come to a Catholic site and systematically proclaim your rejection of all Catholic truths? Presenting them as fact and not opinion? Because surely OUR points of view are just as valid as yours, relatively speaking. You shouldn’t even be interested in our points of view per se enough to keep only addressing us as ‘contradicting’ what others say.

If it’s not relative, then you think YOU are telling the truth, and we aren’t. . .but then when we ask you to demonstrate why you think you’re right, you tell us not to bother, we don’t HAVE to believe a thing you say???

Can you see why you have puzzled people?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Right after you PROVE it was a miracle.

Ker Pow



Sarah x

I believe YOU are the one who is making the claim it is not. Burden of proof is on you. This is, I remind you, a Catholic site.

 

[joe370]

I added I’ve read a ton of stuff, from Catholic sources I might add that I might add confused about Padre Pio, Fatima, and a particular claimed miracle I’m interested in, the Eucharistic Miracle of Buenas Aires. That one is on going as I’ve contacted some people for exact names, dates, reports and the name of the lab and lab technician involved, and so far I’m being met with a wall of silence

Sarah x

Oh… One more thing; it’s kind of strange that the secular newspaper companies, (who had representatives at the Fatima event) didn’t dismiss it as pure hokum, but that’s just me.

 

[atheistgirl]

You talk about a ‘view’ but you aren’t presenting your remarks as ‘views’. You are presenting them AS FACTS. Facts which CONTRADICT CATHOLIC TEACHINGS.

Then you tell us that we aren’t to accept them? Well then why on earth state them?

Well, last time I checked, I was welcome here, and the welcome didn’t include having to agree with Catholic teaching. So long as I abide by the rules of the forum I should be good to go.

My views are my views. I don’t expect anyone of faith to agree with them. But I equally don’t expect anyone of faith or otherwise to try and prevent me from expressing them, so long as they are expressed politely and charitably, and in line with the rules of the forum.

If they are just ‘your beliefs’ and no more ‘true’ or ‘not true’ than a complete OPPOSITE belief, why hold them?

I hold my beliefs because I see no evidence to convince me to change them. I made it clear they are my beliefs and I do not expect anyone else to agree with them, or hold them. Each to their own.

You must have weighed the opposite (the idea of belief in all the above) and then DECIDED to go with ‘not belief’. So you obviously think ‘not belief’ is MORE TRUE than belief, right?

Right.

And you felt it was important enough to make statements on a Catholic site about such, even though your statements always contradict Catholic teachings. . .’

I’m responding the posts in a thread addressed specifically to atheists. Look at the thread title. Clearly my views will not be those of the Catholic Church But the question in the OP is to atheists

But we aren’t supposed to accept them or anything like that?

Huh? Why would you. You’re a Catholic

Wow. . .that’s great for you, isn’t it?

Well, yeah. I’m happy

You get to make any statements you want that run down our beliefs, insist that they be given as much ‘credence’ as our points of view, and then at the end you can shrug because even though you have judged them worthy of your belief, nobody ELSE has to believe because there’s no ‘absolute’ truth, only what you WANT to believe (relative).

I’m not even going to reply to the above as you’re shifting the tone of what with other posters was a very enjoyable exchange of views.

But if it’s relative, why come to a Catholic site and systematically proclaim your rejection of all Catholic truths? Presenting them as fact and not opinion? Because surely OUR points of view are just as valid as yours, relatively speaking. You shouldn’t even be interested in our points of view per se enough to keep only addressing us as ‘contradicting’ what others say.

If you think I’ve broken the rules here, report me.

All I’ve done is expressed my view, when asked, in this thread, a thread specifically addressing atheists.

If it’s not relative, then you think YOU are telling the truth, and we aren’t. . .but then when we ask you to demonstrate why you think you’re right, you tell us not to bother, we don’t HAVE to believe a thing you say???

Can you see why you have puzzled people?

No, I’ve never once said the Catholic Church was wrong about anywhere. Ever.

I have made it perfectly clear in my opinion, in the reading I’ve done, and so on, I, personally, see no evidence for miracles.

It seems you’ve taken some issue with me, personally.

I find the best thing to do in these circumstances, when the focus becomes the poster, and not the post content, as per the rules of this forum, is to ignore.

Which is what I will be doing after I post this reply.

Sarah x

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, last time I checked, I was welcome here, and the welcome didn’t include having to agree with Catholic teaching. So long as I abide by the rules of the forum I should be good to go.

My views are my views. I don’t expect anyone of faith to agree with them. But I equally don’t expect anyone of faith or otherwise to try and prevent me from expressing them, so long as they are expressed politely and charitably, and in line with the rules of the forum.

I hold my beliefs because I see no evidence to convince me to change them. I made it clear they are my beliefs and I do not expect anyone else to agree with them, or hold them. Each to their own.

Right.

I’m responding the posts in a thread addressed specifically to atheists. Look at the thread title. Clearly my views will not be those of the Catholic Church But the question in the OP is to atheists

Huh? Why would you. You’re a Catholic

Well, yeah. I’m happy

I’m not even going to reply to the above as you’re shifting the tone of what with other posters was a very enjoyable exchange of views.

If you think I’ve broken the rules here, report me.

All I’ve done is expressed my view, when asked, in this thread, a thread specifically addressing atheists.

No, I’ve never once said the Catholic Church was wrong about anywhere. Ever.

I have made it perfectly clear in my opinion, in the reading I’ve done, and so on, I, personally, see no evidence for miracles.

It seems you’ve taken some issue with me, personally.

I find the best thing to do in these circumstances, when the focus becomes the poster, and not the post content, as per the rules of this forum, is to ignore.

Which is what I will be doing after I post this reply.

Sarah x

You probably won’t read this if you’re ignoring me --which is within your right --but I never took issue with you personally; I simply expressed MY VIEW that your posts were puzzling. You, very kindly, endeavored to explain your reasoning. I don’t agree with it, but you have set it out and for that I think you.

As the focus was not ‘you’ but indeed the post content, I feel confident going on. Especially since, and I repeat, I never in any way implied or expected you not to give your views or tried to stop you from expressing them.

 

[atheistgirl]

You probably won’t read this if you’re ignoring me --which is within your right --but I never took issue with you personally; I simply expressed MY VIEW that your posts were puzzling. You, very kindly, endeavored to explain your reasoning. I don’t agree with it, but you have set it out and for that I think you.

Immediately after posting I got caught up in a couple of PMs and came back to read this.

Especially since, and I repeat, I never in any way implied or expected you not to give your views or tried to stop you from expressing them.

Perhaps not, but stating things like ‘‘You get to make any statements you want that run down our beliefs’’ and ''You shouldn’t even be interested in our points of view per se ‘’ is a complete misrepresentation of anything I’ve said, ever, on this forum and I felt targeting me personally rather than anything I’ve said.

I don’t get to say what I like - I’m well aware I’m a guest on a Catholic site and have always tried to be respectful of this fact.

I’ve never once ever run down Catholic beliefs. Ever. In fact, I’ve been banned from another site for defending Catholics when a poster said Catholics worshipped Mary and Statues. The message from the moderaters called me a Papist in disguise

I’ve repeatedly said on this site I very much admire the Catholic Church, particularly for it’s acceptance of science, and it’s stance on abortion.

And for you to say I shouldn’t even be interested in the Catholic point of view, is just, well, outlandish. Think about it!

It stands to reason I am not going to agree with certain claims any Christian Church makes. But not agreeing with a particular article of faith is not even remotely nearly the same as in any way belittling that article of faith, or being disrespectful.

If that was the case, interfaith dialogue couldn’t possibly exist

Anyhow, now some things have been cleared up somewhat, let’s move on shall we?

Sarah x

 

[Hokomai]

Atheistgirl, well done on a nice series of responses. :tiphat:

 

[dskysmine]

The problem with dismissing this Miracle as an “atmospheric event” is that you don’t have any scientific proof that it was an “atmospheric event”, show us the meteorological data that proves this assumption. You say it was an “atmospheric event” because the people there saw something related to the atmosphere that could not have happenend in the Physical world. You then purport that that proves it was not a supernatural event when you obviously don’t even believe in the Supernatural. The problem with that claim is that the supernatural doesn’t have to affect the Physical world the way you expect it must, especially if you don’t even know what Supernatural means. How is it not a Supernatural Event that people with diverse interests in this “experience” to experience the same event?

 

[504Katrin]

I tend to agree… the catastrophic consequences of ACTUAL solar motion creating very lasting physical effects, combined with the fact that the majority of mankind never saw the sun move, makes it more or less clear that, while tens of thousands SAW the sun move, that it in fact remained in place.

But I always jump to point out what you touched on in your first sentence: that just because it was a mass delusion, it was no less miraculous. Tens of thousands of people seeing the same thing, including thousands of people who were NOT present with others (to be influenced into a delusion) and totally unaware of the predicted miracle to come… well, a “delusion” like that would, in and utterly of itself, be a miracle!

That, and also Mother Mary knew it wouldn’t be seen everywhere on earth, and this is why she said that people should come to Fatima in order to witness the miracle. She could have also said that people should look out of their windows on a certain day at a certain time. So heavens didn’t intend the whole world to see it in the first place.

 

[tonyrey]

The incident was repeated three times lasted eight to ten minutes. It has since come to be known as the Miracle of the Sun. Can this event be doubted in view of the fact that it was well documented by reliable sources?

If people can believe the mind is a lump of tissue inside the skull they can doubt everything - except their own assumptions!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Forget for the moment as to whether it was mass delusion or a genuine miracle.

What are the odds of the children making a prediction of a miracle on a certain day and it actually happening?

I don’t think this is yet in the domain of probability and statistics, so I can’t say much about the odds. Especially considering that it’s not clear to me what happened. The accounts seem to be interpretations of perceptions that are not consistent with other records of astronomical observations for that day.

 

[Actaeon]

Most likely some kind of natural atmospheric event.

That might be “most likely” if anyone in history had ever reported an “atmospheric event” which produced reports similar to what was seen here.

The sun moving like a spinning disc, approaching the earth, and throwing off various colors of the spectrum would be a heretofore and to-this-day unique atmospheric event… one which no scientist has produced any sort of reasonable explanation for and which has never been repeated.

To just decide “it must have been an atmospheric event that people saw and misreported” is sort of a cop out, in my not so humble opinion… because it ignores the fact that if this WAS an atmospheric event, it is one unlike anything ever reported outside of the one instance in Fatima… and that even ignores the point that even if it was an atmospheric event, it’s uniqueness and the fact that it was predicted by children while no scientists had any idea of its existance or coming would STILL qualify it as something quite extraordinary.

It would have been more impressive if the girls had said what the so called miracle was going to be before hand, ie, they specifically stated the sun would dance in the sky, but they didnt do this, they just said there would be a miracle.

No, it wouldn’t have. If the girls had said that at exactly X time, the sun would spin like a disk, appear to approach the earth, and throw off rays of various colors, then that would only fuel an argument from atheists that their specificity had CAUSED a mass delusion (and I would actually give that theory credence).

The fact that no one knew what to expect, were spread out for miles, and all saw relatively the same thing at the same time is MORE impressive than if the girls had been so specific as to cause people to want to see a specific something at a specific time.

Thousands of people there, expecting to see something, most believers - not really unlike going to a magic show and expecting to be enthralled and see something unusual. You do, because you’re already succeptable to it.

That’s entirely inaccurate, because the only REASON there was a miracle was because the children were doubted in their story. The majority of church officials thought the children were lying, possibly trying to spread heresy. They were there to see the children fail… not succeed.

And even that ignores some historical facts:

1. Not everyone present “saw” the miracle. Many believers reported that they hadn’t seen it, while many sceptics reported that they had. All told, only somewhere between half to two thirds of the people present saw anything (approx 35,000 to 45,000 people). If it were an “atmospheric event”, as you claim, not only would EVERYONE have seen it, but believers would not have been excluded.
2. People as far away as 20 miles, who weren’t even aware of the prediction, still saw something and approximated the time to be the same as that of Fatima. Again, this was not universal witnessing (showing that it wasn’t an atmospheric event)… but these people had no opportunity to be bias towards a miracle (showing that it wasn’t some sort of instituted delusion)

The reports I’ve read are not in so much agreement as some would like us to believe.

And yet no one saw the trees walking, or the rivers rising up like tidal waves. The EXACT details of the reports have SOME variation… just as we would expect from a large number of people in shock at seeing something they didn’t expect. If you look at reports from 9/11, you’ll find a very similar phenomenon: people in shock experience things from slightly different perspectives and don’t have all the details perfectly down afterwards.

And again, the slight variation of the reports points AWAY from the idea of a natural atmospheric event… after all, if it were some simple event that occured, then we would expect some homogeny of reports. Instead, these people had a deeply PERSONAL experience, not shared with EVERYONE present, and shared sometimes with people tens of miles away.

Anyhow, yes, it can be doubted. The sun never danced in the sky, or came closer to the earth. Fact. Or we wouldn’t be here.

Nonetheless, mass delusion or totally unique and unknown atmospheric event that had never been seen before or since, predicted by three children, is incredibly miraculous.

Now, if the observatories of the world had scientifically recorded that the sun did in fact move out of it’s position, come closer to earth, and dance, and yet we’re still here, now that, that, would indeed be something worthy of note.

And then atheists would just claim that it was a natural gyration of the sun, completely explainable (somehow) by science… just like they consider the testimony of 35-40K people spread out over a 20 mile radius to be completely explainable (with some rather silly explanations).

It’s just proof that for some people, no amount of evidence will ever be enough.

I note also your comparing this to the relatively few “true psychic believers” who can be conned into believing something… the unfortunate thing for that example is that it REQUIRES pre-convinced believers, or some scientifically explainable trick to convince the skeptics… BOTH of which were not present in this case (precisely because the children were so vague in their prediction). Your example is completely incomparable to what happened.

 

[wanstronian]

This is, I remind you, a Catholic site.

Why is that relevant? You think it magically transfers the burden of proof away from those who are making implausible claims, just because those claims are made on a forum devoted to those who believe the implausible?

 

[atheistgirl]

The sun moving like a spinning disc, approaching the earth, and throwing off various colors of the spectrum would be a heretofore and to-this-day unique atmospheric event… one which no scientist has produced any sort of reasonable explanation for and which has never been repeated.

Never been repeated

So called Miracles of the sun (plural!) are well known - Fatima isn’t the only one, and the ‘‘conduct’’ of the sun and the observed events are very similar. It’s interesting that Fatima isn’t unique, and if it was miraculous, then the same miracle played out in several places over time.

What’s more likely - the same ‘‘miracle’’ repeated over and over, or people observing the same thing over and over because they are essentially seeing the same natural event?

So-called “miracles of the sun” were observed, for instance, in Tilly-sur-Seuilles (France,
1901), Fatima (Portugal, 1917), Onkerzeele (Belgium, 1933), Bonate (Italy, 1944), Espis
(France, 1946), Acquaviva Platani (Italy, 1950), Heroldsbach (Germany, 1949), Fehrbach
(Germany, 1950), Kerezinen (France, 1953), San Damiano (Italy, 1965), Tre Fontane (Italy,
1982) and Kibeho (Rwanda, 1983).

They have been described by many witnesses and from
their reports we can extract the following characteristic features, appearing successively.
· A grey disc seems to be placed between the sun and the observer, but a brilliant rim of
the solar disc is still apparent. This is comparable to an “annular eclipse”.
· Beautiful colours appear after a few minutes on the whole surface of the solar disc, at
its rim and in the surrounding sky. These colours are different, however, and they
change in the course of time. They are vivid and can be blue, red, yellow, green, pink,
violet, etc. A large part of the surrounding sky is coloured, but this region is irregular
and changing. This can give the impression that coloured lights are ejected from the
sun. When the observers are looking away from the sun, they see that the landscape
and surrounding persons are also coloured in a changing way.
· The sun begins to “dance”. First, the solar disk rotates about its centre at a uniform
and rather high velocity (about 1 turn/s). Then the rotation stops and starts again, but
now it is opposite to the initial one. Suddenly, the solar disk seems to detach itself
3
from the sky. It comes rapidly closer, with increasing size and brilliancy. This causes
great panic, since people think that the end of the world has come, but the sun retreats.
It moves backwards until it has again its initial appearance. These forward and
backward motions can be combined with rotations and sometimes with lateral
oscillations. All these motions are, of course, unexpected and very impressive.
· Finally, after 10 or 15 minutes, the sun is “normal” again: its luminosity is too strong
to continue gazing at it. But after about another quarter of an hour, the prodigy can be
repeated in the same way. The spectators are astonished that their eyes did not hurt,
although they were looking straight into the sun during a very long time.
· Most observers had noted slight local changes in the luminosity of the solar disc, as if
there were some kind of images, but they were unable to recognize what they could
represent. Some persons were more lucky, gifted or privileged, however. In Heroldsbach,
the “seers” reported that they had successive visions of the Virgin Mary, without
and with the Jesus-Child, the Holy Family, the Trinity and some symbols, like a cross
and the letters IHS. Some other persons reported also that they saw the Virgin Mary
and religious symbols. In Fatima, the “seers” had similar visions at that moment.
· Coloured spheres, drifting slowly from the sun towards the earth, were observed and
mentioned at several places. This happened not only during miracles of the sun, but
also for some time after them. When these spheres arrived at the ground, they never
left there any material trace.

meessen.net/AMeessen/MirSun.pdf

Sarah x

 

[User124]

abcnews.go.com/Technology/video/two-suns-setting-over-china-13077936

How about this?

 

[atheistgirl]

Atheistgirl, well done on a nice series of responses. :tiphat:

:nunchuk:



Sarah x