Well, why?

[Kaninchen]

I just do not see what there is to reconcile, though. I mean, the previous example belongs to a simple category of evidence: attestation by embarrassment. That is it. Where is the basis for your distrust? In other words, my “Oh, yes it is!” has basis and your “Oh, not it isn’t!” does not.

Perhaps you ought to ask yourself on what basis another poster has to accept your ‘categories’? They don’t become categories just because you assert them to be so.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

There are an enormous number of questions being begged there - I’ve been talking about them in my posts, if you’d looked, whilst being very careful about what how I was saying what I was saying.

Unless I misunderstood, which I might have and in which case I apologize, you just stated your position was irreconcilably no.

 

[Windfish]

Perhaps you ought to ask yourself on what basis another poster has to accept your ‘categories’? They don’t become categories just because you assert them to be so.

On what basis? How about that it’s one of the most powerful categories of evidence that professional historians use to prove that an event in history happened? I suppose you don’t have to accept that, but it’s good enough for me.

 

[Kaninchen]

Unless I misunderstood, which I might have and in which case I apologize, you just stated your position was irreconcilably no.

While, obviously, I don’t believe in the whole business, it’s not what I’ve been talking about, though.

I went on to talk about approaches to understanding. Believers start with dancing Suns and seek evidence for it, non-believers start with ‘no dancing Sun’ and look at the ‘story’ and ask questions about the nature of the evidence, the way it was collected, who collected it and so on.

Now, we’ve reached an impasse over whether the Fatima ‘party line’ actually constitutes evidence of anything other than the Fatima ‘party line’. I don’t read Portuguese, I don’t know enough about Portuguese history, I don’t know enough about the lives of the people who developed the whole business to understand the complexities of the situation at the time and as things developed. To really approach a critical appreciation of what was going on, one would need to have this sort of facility with the ‘evidence’.

That’s not what we get though, what we get is what are, obviously, re-hashes of re-hashes (in which the very language used lingers through each re-hash) of the legend and then we’re told that this is ‘proof’ of some sort and to deny it is one form of self-delusion or dishonesty on our part.

 

[Kaninchen]

On what basis? How about that it’s one of the most powerful categories of evidence that professional historians use to prove that an event in history happened? I suppose you don’t have to accept that, but it’s good enough for me.

Really, ‘attestation by embarrassment’ is one of the most powerful categories of evidence that professionals use to prove an event in history?

Perhaps you could quote some professional historians on that topic?

 

[Windfish]

While, obviously, I don’t believe in the whole business, it’s not what I’ve been talking about, though.

Right. You have an a priori refusal to believe despite the evidence. We are right back where we started when I said that evidence was never a problem, the problem is the suppression of it.

I went on to talk about approaches to understanding. Believers start with dancing Suns and seek evidence for it, non-believers start with ‘no dancing Sun’ and look at the ‘story’ and ask questions about the nature of the evidence, the way it was collected, who collected it and so on.

No, we start where anyone should start, with the evidence. The evidence itself points to a miraculous event, but you have prejudged the event and, instead of following the evidence, question it because it does not meet your a priori commitment. You have no basis for your skepticism of the evidence, only your prejudice. I repeat, no basis.

And if you actually look into your skepticism, you will find that there is no complex web of motivations, no vague misunderstanding to explain it all. What we have are direct, matter-of-fact, first-hand accounts and reports. Again, to use the previous example, we have professional journalists on the scene who were predisposed to derision and doubt (they reported on the apparitions with mockery up until then, and I bet you have no trouble accepting that, huh? kind of hypocritical if you ask me), who reported on the miracle despite having every incentive not to.

** It boggles my mind how you can STILL erect this vague, vast web or mechanism of misunderstanding despite having such direct, precise, and matter-of-fact of evidence that cleaves through all of that BS.**

Now, we’ve reached an impasse over whether the Fatima ‘party line’ actually constitutes evidence of anything other than the Fatima ‘party line’. I don’t read Portuguese, I don’t know enough about Portuguese history, I don’t know enough about the lives of the people who developed the whole business to understand the complexities of the situation at the time and as things developed. To really approach a critical appreciation of what was going on, one would need to have this sort of facility with the ‘evidence’.

Not really. You’re looking for some kind of psychological bent so that you can cling on to your insistence of a vague, weird, web of misunderstanding and motivations. And, again, what is that based on? Absolutely nothing.

That’s not what we get though, what we get is what are, obviously, re-hashes of re-hashes (in which the very language used lingers through each re-hash) of the legend and then we’re told that this is ‘proof’ of some sort and to deny it is one form of self-delusion or dishonesty on our part.

What are you talking about?!?! We have, first-hand, the direct accounts and publications! There is no re-hash! You seem to have a grave misunderstanding of the evidence. A legend?!?!? Did someone like Almeida not exist? Was he fabrication? Was his report and subsequent letters a forgery, even though they were published on the front page of the national newspaper read by hundreds of thousands across the country?

WILD CONSPIRACY AND SKEPTICISM, INDEED.

 

[StrawberryJam]

While I realize that many people catholic and even non catholic do give merit to the apparitions of Fatima or believe in it and find it useful in their spritual walk, there is no need to demand everyone to accept the “evidence” provided to all in this case or any other apparition.
These apparitions, if I am not mistaken seem to serve best those who gain something from them in their spiritual walk. If they were more than that, would it not be required one believe them?
What type of catholic believer demands that all accept this apparition save some posters here? My priest could give a rip if I accept it or not.
For the record, I reject it utterly.

 

[Windfish]

While I realize that many people catholic and even non catholic do give merit to the apparitions of Fatima or believe in it and find it useful in their spritual walk, there is no need to demand everyone to accept the “evidence” provided to all in this case or any other apparition.
These apparitions, if I am not mistaken seem to serve best those who gain something from them in their spiritual walk. If they were more than that, would it not be required one believe them?
What type of catholic believer demands that all accept this apparition save some posters here? My priest could give a rip if I accept it or not.
For the record, I reject it utterly.

Like I said earlier, the only reason why belief in them is not required is because the Bible has finality and primacy. Anything else is just the frosting. In any case, the nature of the discussion demands an exploration of the evidence.

But why reject it “utterly” if the evidence is so strong?

BTW:

“It’s a somewhat paradoxical observation that in order to maintain a belief in something to a certainty, the believer needs constant or at least periodical reinforcement of that belief.”

Two things:

-The fallen nature of man.
-Sin separates one from God.

This is why Catholicism speaks of constant “reconversion.”

 

[Windfish]

This will be my last word on Fatima unless anyone wants to discuss it further. I cannot get inside your guys’ heads at all, but I have studied this thing quite extensively, and, from a dispassionate point of view, you have to admit that it is at least persuasive.

-As early as May 1917, Portuguese newspapers were reporting that a miracle was to happen on October 13. You can read the newspaper reports in English in “Documents on Fatima,” a large book that is filled with page after page of the original documents.

-From the photographs, which I also have, modern scholars estimate that 100,000 people traveled to the Cova da Iria, a grazing field for cattle. Among the throngs were agnostics and atheists who were rude and snide to others, fully expecting a riot to ensue from the disappointment. We know this from journalistic accounts and letters from the witnesses that have come to us. Let’s not write off the believers in their doubt, either: a priest was urging everyone to go home, telling the crowds that it was all a hoax! Also among the throngs were esteemed university professors, scientists, doctors, and politicos. Their letters and journals also survive to us. Finally, editors and journalists from Portugal’s largest newspapers made their way to the field that day. Their professional accounts provide the whole event with particular historical value. Why? Well, journalists can provide a careful, objective, and professional account with which we generally can have confidence. Moreover, these particular journalists were avowed anti-theists and skeptics, and you can be sure that they would have seized on any opportunity to embarrass the whole endeavor, but they didn’t. If you read how they reported on the events leading up to October 13, you will come away with their passionate polemic and mockery.

-It was raining quite heavily that day, which, um, dampened the spirits of many in the crowd. However, at the exact moment foretold, the rain ceased and the clouds immediately parted. We have this multiply attested by every first-hand account we have.

-What ensued next is what is called the Miracle of the Sun. The sun dulled in color and became like a silver disc that was soothing to the eye. It spun on its axis and wrenched itself from the sky in irregular movements before tumbling toward earth. The crowd yelled and screamed in horror for a moment before the miracle was over. All of this is multiply attested in every first-hand account we have. In particular, it is attested from every single one of those aforementioned journalists. It is also reported form witnesses very far away from the crowds (among, them, interestingly enough, an American on a business trip). Incidentally, the New York Times reported on the miracle but was buried beneath coverage on the Chicago and New York world series!

-Now, I think this is all very persuasive historical evidence for the miraculous. If you start from the premise that it was all impossible but then examine the evidence above to find an adequate natural explanation, you will not find any. In a previous post, I examined and debunked all possible natural explanations.

-Remember, the miracle was predicted months prior and with an exact accuracy by three very young children who claimed to see the Virgin Mary. The rains ceased and the clouds parted at the exact moment and the miracle happened. If you truly stop and ponder this, it is incredible.

I think this is empirical evidence for the truth of Catholicism. I have not seen it debunked, though many have tried. I think it should be taken seriously because the consequences can change someone’s life, maybe someone’s eternal destiny. Sincerely, AntiTheist and others, can you show your reason for disbelief. And before you say that observatories across the country and the world didn’t notice anything, I again challenge you to come up with an adequate natural explanation. If none exist, then the only possible explanation is a miraculous one, and this explanation is quite easy to accept in light of the exact prediction of the Virgin Mary whom the three young children say they saw.

Finally, wait until I research more in-depth the other miracles in the Church. Just wait! I’ll populate this thread with hundreds of more empirical reasons! You guys can continue with the philosophy!

 

[AntiTheist]

Sincerely, AntiTheist and others, can you show your reason for disbelief. Yes. The evidence that we have – that a number of people thought that they saw the sun moving around in the sky (which it was not, as other evidence tells us) – is insufficient to support the claim that a supernatural event took place.

 

[Kaninchen]

Not really. You’re looking for some kind of psychological bent so that you can cling on to your insistence of a vague, weird, web of misunderstanding and motivations. And, again, what is that based on? Absolutely nothing.

You know, your language is hardly that of the fair-minded investigator who has sought to understand what went on at Fatima and who, after seeking evidence - both confirmatory and non-confirmatory, from multiple sources - has weighed it all up before coming down on one side.

It’s more the language of somebody who has sought confirmation of their religious beliefs in a particular ‘event’ and, having carefully sifted through the books and websites of the Fatima ‘party line’, comes along and demands that everybody accepts your findings under pain of being called dishonest or self-deluding.

Any luck with those historians I asked you about?

 

[Windfish]

Yes. The evidence that we have – that a number of people thought that they saw the sun moving around in the sky (which it was not, as other evidence tells us) – is insufficient to support the claim that a supernatural event took place.

I expected a terse reply. Did you read the next sentence, though? You can start from that premise, fine, but when you set out to find a natural explanation, none are possible, and only a miraculous explanation is possible. Don’t you agree?

 

[Windfish]

You know, your language is hardly that of the fair-minded investigator who has sought to understand what went on at Fatima and who, after seeking evidence - both confirmatory and non-confirmatory, from multiple sources - has weighed it all up before coming down on one side.

This is a bit ironic. This will sound snide, but a fair-minded investigator wouldn’t question basic evidence like you have. It doesn’t take a regional psych evaluation to accept the attestation of a journalist.

It’s more the language of somebody who has sought confirmation of their religious beliefs in a particular ‘event’ and, having carefully sifted through the books and websites of the Fatima ‘party line’, comes along and demands that everybody accepts your findings under pain of being called dishonest or self-deluding.

You’re seriously sounding like a conspiracy theorist. A “party-line?”

Any luck with those historians I asked you about?

I don’t have a handbook ready for historians to laud the wonders of attestation by embarrassment. But I do have plenty of history books where it used as a category of persuasive evidence.

 

[Kaninchen]

This is a bit ironic. This will sound snide, but a fair-minded investigator wouldn’t question basic evidence like you have.

I’m afraid I have to shock you here - that’s, precisely, what a fair-minded investigator would do! Good grief!

It doesn’t take a regional psych evaluation to accept the attestation of a journalist.

Ok, so you’re the one guy on earth who believes everything he reads in the newspapers.

I don’t have a handbook ready for historians to laud the wonders of attestation by embarrassment. But I do have plenty of history books where it used as a category of persuasive evidence.

I rather think not - outside the ones seeking to establish ‘spinning Suns’, anyway.

 

[tonyrey]

My priest could give a rip if I accept it or not.

So what?

For the record, I reject it utterly.

Utterly? On what rational ground?

 

[inocente]

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

Correcto. In Holy Week there are some towns where more people process the Virgin around the streets than there are spectators (the Virgin is mighty heavy, and those lifting it stop every ten steps or so for a cigarette break). It’s just part of the traditional life along with bull runs, tomato throwing, and let’s make-it-rain-wine-for-a-couple-of-days. So for many the essential motivation is any excuse for a fiesta, and who am I to disagree.

On the other hand, water is a constant issue in Murcia due to its very dry climate and virtually everyone believes in dowsing. canbebotheredwithsomeofthatsupersticiousstuff-ism.

 

[inocente]

I just do not see what there is to reconcile, though

I’ll have to change my shift hours to keep up with this thread.

I know God works in mysterious ways, but why would He choose Fatima rather than the Somme? A similar miracle over WWI battlefields may have convinced nations to lay down their arms, which in turn may have avoided the conditions allowing the rise of the Third Reich, and the much worse slaughter that happened in WWII. A united Europe may have taken on the USSR and curtailed Stalin’s slaughter of his own people.

While all of that may be just a little optimistic , I don’t comprehend the purpose or meaning of Fatima in that context, and unless there is a meaning I can’t be convinced.

 

[inocente]

I already KNOW that no empirical evidence supports God’s existence. What I asked is if there was any good reason to believe in God DESPITE that.

Which is what we’re discussing.

Here’s one.

Faisal Abdul Rauf argues that we are only completed in God. The video is 16 minutes and he’s a Muslim proposing the mosque near Ground Zero, but then God does work in mysterious ways.

charterforcompassion.org/learn/talks/imam-faisal-abdul-rauf

 

[AntiTheist]

I expected a terse reply. Did you read the next sentence, though? You can start from that premise, fine, but when you set out to find a natural explanation, none are possible, and only a miraculous explanation is possible. Don’t you agree?

No. “I don’t know” isn’t sufficient evidence that a supernatural event happened. That’s called an argument from ignorance. The fact that you could even say that perfectly encapsulates what’s wrong with your approach.

Now, mind you, you haven’t even come close to demonstrating that every conceivable natural explanation is unlikely, nevermind impossible – but even if you could, you would still be operating from an argument from ignorance.

You need evidence sufficient for supporting your claim, and the evidence that you have presented is not.

The problem here is that you have never learned critical thinking properly, so you don’t understand what “sufficient evidence” (versus evidence merely consistent with a claim) actually is.

So is this it? This thread has revealed that the sum total of all the empirical evidence for believing in your god is a ghost story that your Church explicitly says that the faithful are not required to believe in?

No one has any actual evidence?

 

[Windfish]

That’s not an argument from ignorance. We’re arriving at a supernatural explanation deductively. And if I haven’t ruled out every natural explanation, why not suggest one? For Fatima, context is important. The miracle was foretold months in advance by the Virgin Mary and, clearly, something supernatural happened. You’re being obstinate by ignoring this context and the evidence that we have.

This is not all of the evidence, not by a long shot. I could easily discuss more, but I have only researched this particular event. But discussing anything with someone as rigid as you is tiring and frustrating, which is why people don’t normally bother for very long and give up. You wriggle yourself out from quite a lot and are totally willing to tolerate the absurd existential and philosophical consequences from your atheism. You also intentionally use language like “ghost stories” to downplay and sneer even though I’ve repeatedly corrected you that the historical evidence we have for Fatima could easily stack up against any other recorded event in history, hardly a “ghost story.”

The miracle happened, period. We are not obliged to believe in it, but it has been verified by the Church as being true, and they are much more skeptical than you are when it comes to these things. The only reason we are not obliged to believe in it is because the Bible has finality and primacy. I’ve already said this, twice, but you continue to use this fact because you think you are undermining the event.

These are clearly dishonest language and tactics you are using.

You’re right, I haven’t been educated yet in philosophy or logic, so I can only be of use to you from the history, which I have been studying.

To that end, I can discuss hundreds of well-documented cases, but if you are always going to call into question such basic evidence, why bother?