D
Della
Guest
I like his perspective. He saw things right side up by turning the world upside down. Here’s a review of Orthodoxy that explains what I mean better than I.
What is the standard skeptics use for "mass hallucination"?
- Status
D
dostoyevskyfan
Guest
Everlasting man > othodoxy
converted cs Lewis
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
I’m afraid any attempt to convert me, if that’s what you have in mind, is doomed to fall on deaf ears…
D
Della
Guest
I would never try to convert you–that’s not my “job”. My only intention is to encourage you to look at these things from all angles. Whatever you decide is entirely up to you.
D
dostoyevskyfan
Guest
I am trying to convert him. If that bothers him so be it, but maybe he’ll appreciate my honesty if nothing else. I think “he’ll” also find that debating the existence of God in hell isn’t quite as amusing as it is on CAF.I would never try to convert you–that’s not my “job”. My only intention is to encourage you to look at these things from all angles. Whatever you decide is entirely up to you.
The cruelest Christians are those to choose to remain silent. It takes a truely vile human being to believe that the majority of people will end up in hell and then not try to do anything about it. It is the height of misanthropy, and one could only surmise how God would treat such a person.
J
j1akey
Guest
I decided to finally take a look at the Miracle of the Sun and looked a few things up. It certainly seemed impressive…at least until I started looking into it a little deeper. For the sake of the post I’m only going to focus on the sun itself.
For the sun to move around enough that it might be considered to be dancing, I’m guessing they’re talking about it bouncing up and down and moving from side to side, the sun would need to move a CONSIDERABLE distance apart from its usual drift through the galaxy in space and do it at a very high rate of speed for it to be considered “dancing” rather that lazily moving around. The sun has a diameter of about 1.4 million km. For me to consider the sun to be dancing I would expect it to be moving in an area that is several times greater than what its own mass takes up. Given that the speed of light is roughly 300,000 km/sec it would take the sun roughly 4.5 to 4.8 seconds (i didn’t do the math exactly) to move from its current position in space to the next position over if it were to displace 100% of its mass to the next 1.4 million kilometer patch of space in any given direction at light speed. Now this of course is not possible. Nothing can move at the speed of light except for light let alone an object with the mass of the sun (seemingly under its own power). Even at these speeds this seems like a lazy jaunt through the sky rather than a dance. Sure you could actually visually see it moving in the sky but the sky is a big place. It wouldn’t look like a dance.
There are of course a couple massive problems with this anyway.
For the sun to move around enough that it might be considered to be dancing, I’m guessing they’re talking about it bouncing up and down and moving from side to side, the sun would need to move a CONSIDERABLE distance apart from its usual drift through the galaxy in space and do it at a very high rate of speed for it to be considered “dancing” rather that lazily moving around. The sun has a diameter of about 1.4 million km. For me to consider the sun to be dancing I would expect it to be moving in an area that is several times greater than what its own mass takes up. Given that the speed of light is roughly 300,000 km/sec it would take the sun roughly 4.5 to 4.8 seconds (i didn’t do the math exactly) to move from its current position in space to the next position over if it were to displace 100% of its mass to the next 1.4 million kilometer patch of space in any given direction at light speed. Now this of course is not possible. Nothing can move at the speed of light except for light let alone an object with the mass of the sun (seemingly under its own power). Even at these speeds this seems like a lazy jaunt through the sky rather than a dance. Sure you could actually visually see it moving in the sky but the sky is a big place. It wouldn’t look like a dance.
There are of course a couple massive problems with this anyway.
- Gravity. If the sun did indeed start dancing or moving around randomly in the sky then that means its place in space compared to the planet would have been changing quite rapidly. While I’m no physicist I would think that this sort of thing would cause the solar system to go haywire and material that normally orbits the sun in a predictable patern would suddenly start flying off in different directions. Especially if the sun is moving at close to the speed of light.
- The spinning sun. I’m not sure how anyone was able to tell if the sun was spinning or not. The only thing that starts to spin when I look at the sun is my head and my eyeballs from the pain of looking at the sun. Even if I could look at the sun, it’s so bright I certainly couldn’t tell if it was spinning or not. Now I suppose you could say that the sun is always spinning since this is observable through special equipment that we have today thanks to the science that people like to pretend doesn’t exist but this wasn’t possible in 1917 anyway so we just won’t go there.
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
What would you say to a person who has faith as strong as yours but different. For example, a Muslim who thinks you’re going to hell for not obeying the commands of Allah?
J
j1akey
Guest
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
I’m answering for myself, not the poster you addressed, but if somebody truly believed we would all be condemened to eternal suffering for not obeying, say, the commands of Allah, then what type of a person would they be if they didn’t try and get people to avoid eternal suffering?
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
You’re assuming that we don’t believe it was a merely visual phenomenon. I do-that doesn’t mean that God didn’t cause it. It was an unexplained visual phenomenon promised at certain time. And it happened as promised.
D
dostoyevskyfan
Guest
It’s not going to be a short answer, sorry.
Faith in a Roman Catholic sense extends far beyond the realm of “belief” all the way into “praxis”, or faith in action. So in a sense, it’s not just that I “believe something” or “have faith”, included in that belief is an imperative to physically take action—volunteer at soup kitchens, homeless shelters, prisons, hospitals, etc and practice a love of neighbor.
Assuming my “belief” is wrong, that wouldn’t necessitate that my actions were also. You will find that Catholicism is the most stringent form of Christianity in terms of moral codes. More so than every variety of protestantism. If protestant Christianity turns out to be correct, I’m in pretty good shape. Many of them have told me that they don’t believe Catholics go to hell; some have even said that all I need to do to go to heaven is to “confess with my mouth that Jesus is Lord” as it says in Romans, and then I’m free to rob a bank or do whatever I want afterward without the fear of hell.
Catholicism is the second most exclusive religion on the planet. Which is a good thing if it turns out that another religion actually had it right since the moral codes of all religions are generally pretty similar as a google search on the “golden rule” will tell you. I can’t say the same for them if the reverse is true because I believe there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.Following the teachings of Christ will actually give me a favorable position in the afterlife for most religions in existence.
If Judaism turns out to be correct, I have been following the 10 commandments.
If Protestantism turns out to be correct, I believe in the resurrection and am saved by faith alone.
If some variety of Eastern religion turns out to be correct, I am exercising good karma by practicing the teachings of Christ and conforming to the golden rule that is present in almost all religions, and I can be confident that I will not be reincarnated as a cockroach.
If atheism turns out to be correct, I have the same fate as them only I have “wasted” 15 minutes of my life going to confession every Saturday, and an hour and a half going to mass on Sunday(on second thought it wasn’t really a waste, my church is really old and I enjoy looking at the art). I wouldn’t say that the time spent assisting the poor or arguing with atheists on the internet was a waste of time because I have enjoyed doing that. Charity is a reward in itself and makes you feel good about yourself irregardless of faith.
If agnosticism turns out to be correct,…wait nevermind.
I’ve covered the “big three”, I think you see my point, and I’m not going to go through all the religions in the world.
You are very shrewd in selecting the Islamic faith as your specific example. I admire that. Indeed, these two belief systems are irreconcilable. I have literally spent hours and hours in dialogue with educated muslims. It always reaches a stalemate. Let me just summarize how it usually goes:
Both religions have unforgivable sins.
- The epistles of John state that the “spirit of the antichrist” is any group that explicitly denies that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God, and the Messiah.
- Islam does exactly what is stated above.
- You can do the logical deduction on your own.
- This is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit which is the unforgivable sin in Catholicism since the Holy Spirit testified that Christ was God.
- In Islam the unforgivable sin is called a “shirk”.
- Belief in the divinity of Christ qualifies as such, and so…you are correct I would go to hell.
- They claim “No God but God (or Allah)” and deny the trinity.
- Interestingly enough I believe atheism also qualifies as a “shirk” so we could catch a tan together.
For your sake I will cite an unbiased source, Russell’s History of Western Philosophy, which I have read in its entirety. He was a philosophical agnostic, but described himself as an “atheist”. In his History, Russell claims that the religion of Islam emerged from “Gnostic Christianity”.
In other words, an objective atheist claims that the religion of Islam developed from a sect of Heretical Catholics 600 years after the death of Christ. He is partially correct in his description of the religion’s origin. It also had a manichean (St.Augustine’s former heresy before he converted to Catholicism) influence.
Despite its sketchy history, one of my central points of contention with muslims is that even their prophet was unsure of his own salvation. He also displayed similar characteristics to the demoniacs Jesus healed in the New Testament–his “insights” into religion were received in the middle of seizures while he was frothing at the mouth. Another major point (that is found in Pascal’s Pensees) is that the coming of Muhammed was not foretold. The coming of Christ was. Then I would probably discuss how the doctrine of Islam was promulgated…conquest and compare it to how Christianity became popular…
I hope that answers your question. You did not ask, “What if Islam turns out to be correct?” I will answer that now.
I will sing psalm 22, give praises to Jesus Christ, say Lord’s Prayer, and recite Hail Marys in Hell.
D
Della
Guest
If I didn’t care about the eternal destiny of those who post on CAF, I wouldn’t bother to post at all. And yes, I am not in the business of converting people. That’s not the business of a good apologist. It is our business to present the truths of the Church and then pray, letting the Holy Spirit guide people in their hearts. I cannot convince anyone of anything, but I can explain what I know about the Church so they can have a fair idea of what they may be rejecting. To think it is all up to me would be the height of hubris. I have never taken on God’s role in forming another’s heart and soul and never will.
Getting back to the topic at hand, a very good book on the Church’s understanding of apparitions is Fr. Benedict Groeschel’s “A Still Small Voice”. It’s not long, easy to read, and quite helpful for those interested.
Getting back to the topic at hand, a very good book on the Church’s understanding of apparitions is Fr. Benedict Groeschel’s “A Still Small Voice”. It’s not long, easy to read, and quite helpful for those interested.
A
AntiTheist
Guest
You’re new at this, aren’t you?
Different claims generally require different kinds of evidence. If you’re making a claim about who won a game, reports of the score are all the evidence you need. If there are conflicting reports – and there aren’t, in this case – then you have to dig a little deeper.
If you’re making a claim about something extraordinary – something that, if true, would result in the destruction of the planetary orbits of our solar system – the fact that people think they saw it doesn’t demonstrate that it actually happened, especially when we know that it didn’t happen, as said destruction did not occur at all.
We know as a stone cold fact that the sun didn’t actually move from its position that day. We also know as a stone cold fact that a bunch of people gathered in one location mistakenly thought they saw it moving.
We can have a discussion about what the cause of their error was, but if you’re going to jabber about “it’s the same evidence as claims about the world cup!” without understanding how the claims are different and require different kinds of evidence, then you’re not going to be very convincing to anyone who doesn’t already agree with you.
I
inocente
Guest
I found my way to the website for the second image you posted, but couldn’t find the video, do you have a link?
I looked at a video on that site of an apparition at El-Warraq Church, Cairo, 16 Dec 2009. They are having quite a party, but watch until 4:31. As the apparition disappears, is that a tungsten/halogen after-glow?
There are a number of videos on YouTube of Jesus appearing in various places, for example look at this. For the sake of argument let’s assume that it’s real and not computer generated. Is that Jesus or is it just your pattern recognition system trying to make sense of random shapes? I think the Nigerian apparition was probably the same kind of thing, which is why Fátima may be in a different class.Lastly for our Baptist friend, why hasn’t Jesus or Mary ever appeared at a protestant church?
There are many instances of the Spirit falling on people in churches. I witnessed it at a summer festival once, where gradually during worship the whole crowd got the giggles until everyone was falling about laughing. I’m not sure how large the crowd was, but it was well over 1,000. When everyone around you is laughing it’s almost impossible not to join in. Some people believe it is the Spirit in connection with verses such as Acts 2:15-17. Personally I was skeptical - people wanted it to happen and happen it did.
I
inocente
Guest
If memory serves, the Fátima event couldn’t be extra-terrestial because it was only seen within a radius of tens of kilometers. There was apparently a thin cloud cover that day. The same thing happens occasionally where I live, and it’s possible to look directly at the sun for extended periods, although I’d only want to do it wearing my shades to filter out the UV.
That’s not to say that I’m convinced by Fátima, for Jesus meant for me to be a doubting -]Thomas/-] inocente.
P
Pieman333272
Guest
This is a little off-topic, but about the same miracle:
I fail to see why “mass hallucination” makes it less likely to be a miracle or evidence for the existence of God. It being a mass hallucination would indicate either:
I fail to see why “mass hallucination” makes it less likely to be a miracle or evidence for the existence of God. It being a mass hallucination would indicate either:
*]God (or something supernatural) could control the minds, eyes, and logic of more than half the people there.
*]More than half the people there, including skeptics, were so over-confident they were going to see it their brains completely denied what little knowledge of physics and logic they had and forced their eyes to make that seem to happen.
Just my view on things. I don’t believe it to be a mass hallucination, but if it were…
S
StevieD
Guest
We KNOW that it didn’t actually move (nobody is saying otherwise) but we also know that several thousand people who were miles away from Fatima and were not aware that anything had been predicted to happen saw exactly the same as those who were present and expectant (though they were expecting only a sign at a certain time - they had no idea what that was to be). We also know that many who had come to mock saw the same thing, including anti-Church journalists who came to report that nothing happened.If you don’t find all this suprising, you can surely understand why others might.
A
AntiTheist
Guest
I’m not so sure that “nobody is saying otherwise.” I’d like to see the OP, for example, state unequivocally that the sun did not actually move.
I know that there were some people a few miles away who claimed to have seen something…I’ve not heard that the number was in the thousands – what’s your source for this? – but as you yourself admit, these people didn’t see the sun move either. They were just as mistaken as the people who were at Fatima.
The question is what caused these people to be mistaken. I honestly don’t know, but I don’t think that the evidence is sufficient to say that it was supernatural.
Indeed, I don’t deny that people there that day saw something that they mistakenly thought was the sun moving. The question is what caused them to make a mistake, and I think “I don’t know” is a perfectly good answer, given the information available to us.
D
dostoyevskyfan
Guest
No, unfortunately.
Why? Because you say so? Where’s the evidence that “different claims generally require different kinds of evidence?”
Why? What if they were all hallucinating?
What if I consider Italy’s victory extraordinary? Your “IF, THEN” isn’t necessarily true.
This is called a converse error, or the logical fallacy of “affirming the consequent”.
“stone cold fact” lol. You weren’t there…how do you know they were mistaken?
Your distinction between the claims isn’t very convincing. Most of your arguments are devoid of logic.
S
StevieD
Guest
‘I don’t know’ is a perfectly reasonable answer from your perspective and is one which most people would share. But let’s say that I publicly announce that I have been having visions and that the person appearing to me has told me that at precisely 12 noon on 13 October 2010 it will be proved by a public miracle but she doesn’t indicate what this is.
Let’s say the word gets around and the Atheist Observer asks you to turn up to confirm that absolutely nothing happened. You do so and, exactly at the appointed time, you and everyone around (including many people in the surrounding area who know nothing about this event*) all see what appears to be the sun whirling and wheeling about the sky, coming close and going further away and changing colour.
Would this qualify as a ‘mass hallucination’?
If I then predicted my own death with precise details about when and the circumstances surrounding it, and this was fullfilled, would that persuade you that it might be true?
You can admit, I hope, that you could accept that many people would find my claims credible even if you didn’t.
(*The newspapers said that people up to 12 miles away had witnessed the phenomenon, I do not know the population of the surrounding areas nor how many such witnesses there were but will try to establish).
- Status