T
- Status
H
humble_catholic
Guest
Which is why when a miracle happens, such as fatima which is the most documented miracle of modern times most atheists will simply try to find an excuse to explain it in natural terms , but when they study it thoroughly they know that an empirical laboratory experiment definition that cant be repeated in a test tube cant be found. Thank God the atheist journalist from el seculo (the national atheist newspaper of portugal and the government official newspaper) called it for what it was A supernatural event that goes beyond natural explanations. Im sure his views on atheism and empiricism changed after that event
L
Leela
Guest
Why would we ever need to concern ourselves with the nature of a person?
We are higher apes. That doesn’t mean we aren’t also lots of other things.
L
Leela
Guest
What happened at fatima?Which is why when a miracle happens, such as fatima which is the most documented miracle of modern times most atheists will simply try to find an excuse to explain it in natural terms , but when they study it thoroughly they know that an empirical laboratory experiment definition that cant be repeated in a test tube cant be found. Thank God the atheist journalist from el seculo (the national atheist newspaper of portugal and the government official newspaper) called it for what it was A supernatural event that goes beyond natural explanations. Im sure his views on atheism and empiricism changed after that event
Why would experiencing a miracle change someone’s views on empiricism?
T
tonyrey
Guest
Because if we have no idea of what a person is we are bound to draw false conclusions.
It does according to atheists on this forum. What other things do you have in mind?
H
humble_catholic
Guest
Leela you never studied the miracle of Fatima? This was where the miracle of the sun occured. 3 kids were visited by the Holy Mother and she told them that There would be a miracle on a certain spot where they were told to wait for it. between 50,000 and 70.000 people waited for it in the soaking rain. As soon as the miracle started happening the people’s clothing were dried instantly and so was the ground. There were also natural scientists there that witnessed this first hand. Just to make sure that they would have a chance to redicule the children and believers alike El Secula, the national atheist newspaper of Portugal at the time sent one of their top journalists to cover this. After the Miracle the journalist was dumbfounded by what he saw and said that it could only have been a super natural event that took place. Now thats as biased to the other direction as you could get. Not only did 70,000 people witness the sun seemling detaach from its place and seemingly come down on them but their clothes were dried instaly with no harm to them. It couldnt have been a solar event because they were looking straint into the sun for 10 many minutes which should have also blinded them.
Many unbelievers come out with kooky theories like it was a meteor passing by lol. I never heard of a meteor passing by that coulkd dry peoples drenched clothing instantly without killing them. On this day many unbelievers became believers. They knew that it was virtually impossible for the kids to have known this event was going to happen unless Mary herself came down and told them. This wasnt something that could be repeated in a laboratory yet many atheists changed their views that day.
At least my extreme ocd is good for something
Even in my darkness im still in awe of the majesty and love of our lord
L
Leela
Guest
When did this happen?Leela you never studied the miracle of Fatima? This was where the miracle of the sun occured. 3 kids were visited by the Holy Mother and she told them that There would be a miracle on a certain spot where they were told to wait for it. between 50,000 and 70.000 people waited for it in the soaking rain. As soon as the miracle started happening the people’s clothing were dried instantly and so was the ground. There were also natural scientists there that witnessed this first hand. Just to make sure that they would have a chance to redicule the children and believers alike El Secula, the national atheist newspaper of Portugal at the time sent one of their top journalists to cover this. After the Miracle the journalist was dumbfounded by what he saw and said that it could only have been a super natural event that took place. Now thats as biased to the other direction as you could get. Not only did 70,000 people witness the sun seemling detaach from its place and seemingly come down on them but their clothes were dried instaly with no harm to them. It couldnt have been a solar event because they were looking straint into the sun for 10 many minutes which should have also blinded them.
Many unbelievers come out with kooky theories like it was a meteor passing by lol. I never heard of a meteor passing by that coulkd dry peoples drenched clothing instantly without killing them. On this day many unbelievers became believers. They knew that it was virtually impossible for the kids to have known this event was going to happen unless Mary herself came down and told them. This wasnt something that could be repeated in a laboratory yet many atheists changed their views that day.
At least my extreme ocd is good for something
Even in my darkness im still in awe of the majesty and love of our lord
What do you suppose it means?
T
ThomasToo
Guest
This was 13 October 1917.
Professor Auguste Meessen of the Institute of Physics, Catholic University of Leuven wrote “Apparitions and Miracles of the Sun” which was given at the International Forum in Porto (“Science, Religion and Conscience” October 23-25, 2003). The full text of his article is available on his website at meessen.net/AMeessen/MirSun.pdf. The abstract of the article follows:
N
nguirado
Guest
Ego in relation to believers.
H
humble_catholic
Guest
This means that Mary showed to 3 little children that God would perform a huge miracle for many to see. You see the church did not automatically believe the 3 children. In fact the originally were trying to persicute the 3 kids for perpetrating a cruel joke on everyone, that is until the miracle happened. Most atheists who havent studied Fatima will automatically try to dismiss it as a meteor or some natural event but not one of these natural theories has held up to even be close to being viewed as credible. I personally have never heard of a meteor that has been able to dry up drenched ground and clothing instantly without evaporating the person wearing them into thin air lol.
plus how did the kids know this event was going to happen if Mary herself didnt tell them.
On that day Leela many atheists became believers.
Just read up on what the atheist journalist wrote after that day. He was definately never the same person again and neither was el seculo.
Leela , It means that God had a purpose fopr showing us this miracle on that day and he also revealed through Mary 3 secrets of whoch the 3rd one is supposed to be the most horrible one of all. I havent studied the 3 secrets, just the Fatima Miracle itself. If you want to have a good reason to begin your journey towards theism Fatima is the best place to start.
Not one scientist could give a credible natural reason for how this all happened.
T
ThomasToo
Guest
Not true. See my post above as well as secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun#Critical_evaluation_of_the_event as a jumping off point for primary sources to explore, critically other wise.
V
verum_peto_1
Guest
It is a trivial matter to show that it is not possible to prove that God exists. It is also trivial to disprove every argument for the existence of God which has been advanced over the past 2,000 years. Further, the “religious” center of the brain has been isolated. Simply stimulating this area will cause Christians to believe that Jesus is in the room (or something similar), Muslims to believe that Mohamed is in the room, etc… It is not entirely clear what the evolutionary advantage is of being “wired” to be spiritual, but it probably serves well to alleviate much of the anxiety which accompanies the unknown concerning life and death. Scientists tend to believe that which has a large body of verifiable data to support it. Christianity lacks such data.
Why do you think so many scientists are atheists?
In 1996, Nature found 60.7% of scientists expressing disbelief or doubt.
72.2% of the “greater” scientists do no believe in God. About 20.8% are agnostic.
The article in the link below calls the “greater” scientists those who are National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
P
presidentjlh
Guest
They have their separate reasons. I like Einstein’s thoughts on atheists that seem to not only not believe, but find religion repulsive. (I know he was only a deist, but that still accepts God exists):
“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after a hard struggle. They are creatures who - in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’ - cannot hear the music of the spheres.”
And Einstein on science:
“The situation may be expressed by an image: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
So while Einstein, unfortunately, did not accept the idea of an active God (the God that allows for free will and for people to choose Him or not), he did find that the complexities of the universe seemed to point towards a single Superior Being or Spirit.
“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after a hard struggle. They are creatures who - in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’ - cannot hear the music of the spheres.”
And Einstein on science:
“The situation may be expressed by an image: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
So while Einstein, unfortunately, did not accept the idea of an active God (the God that allows for free will and for people to choose Him or not), he did find that the complexities of the universe seemed to point towards a single Superior Being or Spirit.
T
ThomasToo
Guest
I’d be careful trying to recruit Einstein to your cause; he was beyond not accepting an active god.
‘I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one’ (Letter to Guy H. Raner Jr. [28 September 1949]).
‘The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive’ (Letter to Beatrice F [17 December 1952]).
‘It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near to those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly’ (Letter to Murray W. Gross [26 April 1947]).
P
presidentjlh
Guest
Indeed, I had mentioned he was a deist. I understand that Einstein was often quoted by both sides.
H
humble_catholic
Guest
Kevin McClure claims that the crowd at Cova da Iria may have been expecting to see signs in the sun, as similar phenomena had been reported in the weeks leading up to the miracle. On this basis he believes that the crowd saw what it wanted to see. But it has been objected that McClure’s account fails to explain similar reports of people miles away, who by their own testimony were not even thinking of the event at the time, or the sudden drying of people’s sodden, rain-soaked clothes. Kevin McClure stated that he had never seen such a collection of contradictory accounts of a case in any of the research he had done in the previous ten years, although he has not explicitly stated what these contradictions were.[35]
Let me guess, this guy wouldnt be a biased atheist could he and was he actually there unlike the honest account given by el seculo’s journalist. I could say that the the soviet union was really ruled by little green men from mars but if I have no major evidence to back up my claim, I dont think that the majority of academia is going to believe me. I see this kind of critical evaluation on the same level as those kooky Jesus Mythers that claim Jesus doesnt exist. Those guys are getting shot down by the expert historians that are both atheist as well as theist alike.
I stand by my assertion. If the guy was going to show major contradictions he would have specified what they were, plus he wasnt (and no one else was able to) explain the instantanious drying of the peoples clothing. This is a very weak critical evaluation and that is stretching it by a mile. I stand by my assertion that it sure takes alot of faith to be a neo-atheist then it does to be a theist and this contradiction explains it all. I guess maybe they imagined that their clothing and dremched wet ground just suddenly dried up. I guess that atheist journalist also imagined it. Like I said if you want to be a conspiracy theorist you can find a tiny hole in anything and then blow it up into epic proportions.
Anyway you put it, the kids knew it was coming and there was no way they could have known unless someone from up above told them.
, and if you could explain how to dry someones clothing and the ground that fast I would like to patent that idea so I could get out of my current financial rut.
H
humble_catholic
Guest
Einstein specifically was quoted telling the atheist and agnostics to not associate his name with them or their cause as he didnt believe in their cause. Yes he was a Deist but if he had lived long enough to see what the hubble telescope had seen and discovered he definately would have been a theist. His one major problem was his short sighted view of why God allowed evil in the world, and im sure that a good theist philosopher could have taken him aside and helped him to understand that one easily.
Einstein saw the incredible beauty and order of the cosmos and as I mentioned before it is not his fault that he grew up during a time in which atheists tried to make us believe that the universe had no beginning. If einstein was born today he either would have flowed into judaism or christianity.
T
ThomasToo
Guest
So you’ve read the scholarly article I cited in its entirety or just part of a Wikipedia blurb?
T
ThomasToo
Guest
I’ve heard atheists say the same about brilliant medieval theologians. Everyone–and I’ve said this to those people as well–should be hesitant to speculate about what people long dead would do if placed in a given anachronistic situation.
If, however, you don’t think Einstein had read about theodicies and didn’t understand what he was rejecting then you don’t give one of the most intelligent men of the last century nearly enough credit.
S
StillWondering
Guest
I don’t know if that poll is true or not since many polls and statistics are made under faugty assumptions and are unscientific. (irony intended)
Either case, in our long history of science (and philosophy the precursor of “hard” science), most, if not nearly all, scientists were man of great faith (literally check it out). So the big picture is very clear about faith and science.
If the polls are any way accurate it’s a look at the more recent scientists. I do not blame this on anything but people falling into the modern heresies (which are rehashes of ancient heresies with different focus points). Every generation has their trends and evil (not evil as in like killing but evil as in the falling away from God). For the science subculture, maybe it is atheism.
Either case, in our long history of science (and philosophy the precursor of “hard” science), most, if not nearly all, scientists were man of great faith (literally check it out). So the big picture is very clear about faith and science.
If the polls are any way accurate it’s a look at the more recent scientists. I do not blame this on anything but people falling into the modern heresies (which are rehashes of ancient heresies with different focus points). Every generation has their trends and evil (not evil as in like killing but evil as in the falling away from God). For the science subculture, maybe it is atheism.
- Status