Well, why?

[Kaninchen]

I don’t understand. That is exactly what all the “non-believers” reported.

Well, supposedly.

I was talking about non-believers here (or anywhere, really) and I was using ‘spin’ in the modern sense.

 

[Windfish]

Well, supposedly.

I was talking about non-believers here (or anywhere, really) and I was using ‘spin’ in the modern sense.

Are you alleging that someone like Avelino Almeida, managing editor of O Seculo (Portugal’s largest pro-goverment and anti-clerical newspaper), and avowedly anti-theist was coerced into writing what he saw? Or maybe it was forged?

But there is no “spin” going on. The only “spin” is by people positing alien conspiracies or mass hysteria when it clearly doesn’t fit the evidence.

 

[Kaninchen]

Are you alleging that someone like Avelino Almeida, managing editor of O Seculo (Portugal’s largest pro-goverment and anti-clerical newspaper), and avowedly anti-theist was coerced into writing what he saw? Or maybe it was forged?

But there is no “spin” going on. The only “spin” is by people positing alien conspiracies or mass hysteria when it clearly doesn’t fit the evidence.

In my now, fairly considerable time here, as a non-Catholic on CAF, one of the things I’ve learned is that there are some topics that are best avoided because of a natural tendency to lead to uncharitable (and against the rules) situations. On the other hand . . . .

For those of us who don’t believe that 70,000 (or whatever) saw a dancing Sun, or are reported as seeing a dancing Sun, there are a number of alternative explanations.

Some look for natural explanations for reported phenomena, some in the whole question of the ‘construction’ of the story in the first place. As a believer, you may not like or appreciate that but it’s how it is.

Repeating the story, over and over again, won’t change that.

 

[inocente]

Location: European, very

I’m guessing Switzerland then, o fierce German/Italian bunny (I don’t speak either of them, but google translate is a wondrous thing).

 

[Kaninchen]

I’m guessing Switzerland then, o fierce German/Italian bunny (I don’t speak either of them, but google translate is a wondrous thing).

German/Italian Jewish background, born in Italy, grew up in the UK!

“Il ruggito del coniglio!” (‘the roar of the rabbit’) is a (very) silly morning ‘drive-time’ programme on RAI2.

The rabbit in my signature and avatar is Miffy (who is a Dutch bunny).

 

[inocente]

“Il ruggito del coniglio!” (‘the roar of the rabbit’) is a (very) silly morning ‘drive-time’ programme on RAI2.

I’ll go with somewhere in Abruzzo then, if only because I like it around there (my first guess was the Holy See, but then again ).

You reminded me that my first best friend at age three or four was Jewish, but it may have been because his family had a TV and mine didn’t. My first sweetheart at age five was Italian, but then her parents owned a café with a jukebox and (for me) free cake all day long. Possibly not so innocent back then.

Do you have a view on the OP’s first question? I only ask because mine is that trying to convince an atheist from objective evidence alone is not particularly fruitful due to the world-outside-our-head® business, and I’m lonely.

 

[CWBetts]

German/Italian Jewish background, born in Italy, grew up in the UK!

“Il ruggito del coniglio!” (‘the roar of the rabbit’) is a (very) silly morning ‘drive-time’ programme on RAI2.

The rabbit in my signature and avatar is Miffy (who is a Dutch bunny).

According to Art Spiegelman, Jews should be represented by mice.

 

[inocente]

Do you have a view on the OP’s first question?

Kaninchen - to try to avoid being gored by an angry bunny, that’s without assuming anything, it’s just that you seem to have a head on your shoulders.

 

[inocente]

According to Art Spiegelman, Jews should be represented by mice.

Yes, referencing Maus and the Holocaust does kind of put things into perspective.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Jeez, this thread’s on fire. I’m already three pages behind. And I don’t have much time, but wanted to mention one thing.

NaturalEnquirer(cute name, btw):

Thanks!

If the choice is between simple human error, eyewitness mistakes, and crowd psychology – which are all things that we have good evidence for their existence – and something supernatural, which is something we have no evidence of, the best odds always belong to the side with evidence.

You’ve tried to sneak this “crowd psychology” in a few times, and I tried to call you on it but maybe wasn’t clear enough. As far as I know, no crowd psychology phenomenon has ever produced anything analagous to Fatima. You haven’t shown one. The closest thing you’ve brought up was Copperfields Statue of Liberty trick, which seems wildly different.

Are you aware of any other such incidents?

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

So, there it is, empirical evidence - non-philosophic, non-theoretical. And this is just ONE miracle among the hundreds of thousands that are similarly heavily-documented within the Church.

Again, I’m skimming through multiple pages in a hurry, so apologize for the multiple posts.

Windfish, you’ve mentioned this a couple times, and I was wondering if you could expand on it. As far as I know, Fatima is a uniquely well attested and documented miracle. Can you fill me in on some of the others you’re referring to?

Thanks!

 

[Kaninchen]

According to Art Spiegelman, Jews should be represented by mice.

Oh, I was ‘rabbit’ to one of my grandfathers when I was little.

 

[Kaninchen]

Do you have a view on the OP’s first question? I only ask because mine is that trying to convince an atheist from objective evidence alone is not particularly fruitful due to the world-outside-our-head® business,

I live in a world with lots of non-believers (largely the ‘victory’ of can’tbebotheredwithallthatreligiousstuff-ism, which is a far greater threat to religion than atheism ever was or will be - at least atheists think about things like ‘ethics’) and I don’t think all the going around in circles over ‘God made man/Man made god’ does anything at all but annoy both sides in the end.

It seems to me that people are much more impressed by how people with religion live their lives than anything else.

and I’m lonely.

A Baptist in Spain? Aren’t most Spaniards, like Italians, culturally Catholic but, largely, part of the Church of can’tbebotheredwithallthatreligiousstuff-ism?

 

[Windfish]

In my now, fairly considerable time here, as a non-Catholic on CAF, one of the things I’ve learned is that there are some topics that are best avoided because of a natural tendency to lead to uncharitable (and against the rules) situations. On the other hand . . . .

For those of us who don’t believe that 70,000 (or whatever) saw a dancing Sun, or are reported as seeing a dancing Sun, there are a number of alternative explanations.

Some look for natural explanations for reported phenomena, some in the whole question of the ‘construction’ of the story in the first place. As a believer, you may not like or appreciate that but it’s how it is.

Repeating the story, over and over again, won’t change that.

The whole point, Kaninchen, is that the event is so well documented that you can test those natural explanations to see if they are adequate, which none are. If you continue to believe otherwise, then you must at least admit that you are doing so in spite of the evidence in a commitment to not believe. Try to appreciate just how surreal the event was and how significant it is that we have so much evidence for it. Historically, the event indisputably happened - you can’t get better evidence than what we have for Fatima.

I live in a world with lots of non-believers (largely the ‘victory’ of can’tbebotheredwithallthatreligiousstuff-ism, which is a far greater threat to religion than atheism ever was or will be - at least atheists think about things like ‘ethics’) and I don’t think all the going around in circles over ‘God made man/Man made god’ does anything at all but annoy both sides in the end.

It seems to me that people are much more impressed by how people with religion live their lives than anything else.

I agree. In fact, Scripture talks about how apathy is harder to deal with than “cold” or “hot” people. Among the reasons why it shouldn’t concern anyone, though, is the demographics:

amazon.com/Shall-Religious-Inherit-Earth-Twenty-First/dp/1846681448/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279821734&sr=8-1

It takes a 2.1% birth rate to grow a population, and pretty much every western country in Europe has a rate well below that, and it has resulted in dire population declines. Wherever you find secular liberalism and atheism, people die off! I’ll leave that to you to ponder what possible meaning that could have, if any.

Religious people, on the other hand, are getting BUSY. One doesn’t need to be told to see where I’m going with this. In Israel, for example, the orthodox Jews are the minority right now but are expected to become the majority in 2050. The religious will inherit the earth.

 

[Kaninchen]

The whole point, Kaninchen, is that the event is so well documented that you can test those natural explanations to see if they are adequate, which none are. If you continue to believe otherwise, then you must at least admit that you are doing so in spite of the evidence in a commitment to not believe. Try to appreciate just how surreal the event was and how significant it is that we have so much evidence for it. Historically, the event indisputably happened - you can’t get better evidence than what we have for Fatima.

Well, no, actually. What we have is a story repeated and repeated, woven and re-woven.

It takes a 2.1% birth rate to grow a population, and pretty much every western country in Europe has a rate well below that, and it has resulted in dire population declines. Wherever you find secular liberalism and atheism, people die off! I’ll leave that to you to ponder what possible meaning that could have, if any.

Religious people, on the other hand, are getting BUSY. One doesn’t need to be told to see where I’m going with this. In Israel, for example, the orthodox Jews are the minority right now but are expected to become the majority in 2050. The religious will inherit the earth.

The one thing one can say (fairly safely) about the future is that it’s likely to be different from the present. All the rest is guesses, upon guesses, upon guesses.

 

[Windfish]

Well, no, actually. What we have is a story repeated and repeated, woven and re-woven.

I have no idea what you’re talking about. This isn’t a “story.” It’s a historical event with historical evidence.

 

[Kaninchen]

I have no idea what you’re talking about. This isn’t a “story.” It’s a historical event with historical evidence.

Actually, it’s a lot of assertion that there’s evidence - evidence that we’re supposed to accept at face value.

When a story like ‘70,000 people saw the Sun spin and jump up and down’ one can either believe that ‘70,000 people saw the Sun spin and jump up and down’ or that ‘the Sun didn’t spin and jump up and down, so the answer is likely to lie in the story itself’.

The problem is, indeed, belief. All these supposed apartitions - approved and unapproved - that not even the Church requires its members to believe in, lead to situations where non-believers find ourselves either having to accept them at face value (and hence as evidence of the truth of Catholicism) or appear to be attacking things that believers hold most dear.

 

[Windfish]

Actually, it’s a lot of assertion that there’s evidence - evidence that we’re supposed to accept at face value.

When a story like ‘70,000 people saw the Sun spin and jump up and down’ one can either believe that ‘70,000 people saw the Sun spin and jump up and down’ or that ‘the Sun didn’t spin and jump up and down, so the answer is likely to lie in the story itself’.

The problem is, indeed, belief. All these supposed apartitions - approved and unapproved - that not even the Church requires its members to believe in, lead to situations where non-believers find ourselves either having to accept them at face value (and hence as evidence of the truth of Catholicism) or appear to be attacking things that believers hold most dear.

The only reason why the Church does not require belief in approved personal revelations is because the Bible has finality and primacy as revelation.

You do not have to accept personal revelations at face value, though. When I say, for example, that Avelino Almeida, an avowed anti-Catholic and anti-theist and managing editor of O Seculo (again, one of Portugal’s largest pro-government and anti-clerical newspapers), was at the scene and reported the miracle, I am not asserting it, it is a fact. I have the original report published. I also have his letter to his friend, an avowed atheist, explaining that he really did see the miracle and that there was no mass hysteria.

I have six books full of all that one needs to research the evidence. To be sure, I could buy a whole lot more books and still not be complete since so much of it remains untranslated from the Portuguese. But much of it is there - the contemporary testimonies of the children, of other witnesses to the apparitions, letters from the witnesses to their confidants and friends about their impression of the apparitions and of the children, transcripts of interrogation by priests and local authorities, documents of their arrest, testimony of their kidnapping, documents of the threats of death leveled against them while in custody, reports of the mob that demanded they be set free, articles that reported on all these events leading up to the October 13 miracle, photographs of the assembly at Cova da Iria, the reports of the journalists, the published articles, the letters that esteemed witnesses wrote to investigators and their scientific colleagues, and it goes on and on.

So go ahead, “attack” it. The whole point is that it is air-tight. No natural explanation is adequate (all or most of them go against the evidence, actually), and only a miraculous explanation is possible. The only way to believe otherwise is a refusal to follow the evidence and insist on wild conspiracies and skepticism.

 

[benny_f]

Why believe in one God if no empirical evidence supports God’s existence?

To extend this thought-why then be Christian and not any other religion?

As a self professed geek, I’d wager that personal experience denotes empirical evidence, to which you can conclude God does exist. I have personally felt a deeper resonance in my heart and mind, something not of this world, which justifies my belief in the Father and Creator.

Personal faith is enough evidence, and any debate on the matter is only for those who love a good old battle of the minds.

Why Christian? Maybe because I was born a Catholic and have not looked into other religions. In the end, we’re all one big happy family, Christian or non-Christian in God’s eyes

 

[Kaninchen]

You do not have to accept personal revelations at face value, though. When I say, for example, that Avelino Almeida, an avowed anti-Catholic and anti-theist and managing editor of O Seculo (again, one of Portugal’s largest pro-government and anti-clerical newspapers), was at the scene and reported the miracle, I am not asserting it, it is a fact. I have the original report published. I also have his letter to his friend, an avowed atheist, explaining that he really did see the miracle and that there was no mass hysteria.

Look, I’m Jewish and I’ve (rather obviously) never been exactly impressed by reports of the original ‘Damascene conversion’, never mind this one.

I have six books full of all that one needs to research the evidence. To be sure, I could buy a whole lot more books and still not be complete since so much of it remains untranslated from the Portuguese. But much of it is there - the contemporary testimonies of the children, of other witnesses to the apparitions, letters from the witnesses to their confidants and friends about their impression of the apparitions and of the children, transcripts of interrogation by priests and local authorities, documents of their arrest, testimony of their kidnapping, documents of the threats of death leveled against them while in custody, reports of the mob that demanded they be set free, articles that reported on all these events leading up to the October 13 miracle, photographs of the assembly at Cova da Iria, the reports of the journalists, the published articles, the letters that esteemed witnesses wrote to investigators and their scientific colleagues, and it goes on and on.

So go ahead, “attack” it. The whole point is that it is air-tight. No natural explanation is adequate (all or most of them go against the evidence, actually), and only a miraculous explanation is possible. The only way to believe otherwise is a refusal to follow the evidence and insist on wild conspiracies and skepticism.

Not really, one can question the whole process by which the story ‘emerged’, the nature of the ‘evidence’ collected and the ‘methodology’ by which the ‘evidence’ was collected.