(August 7, 2017 at 5:48 am)chimp3 Wrote: The Catholics love this kind of shit. Virgin Mary appears..Bones of old priests cure cancer...Statues weep blood...Demons invade unruly teenagers and get exorcised..jesus incarnates on a tortilla. Critical thinking seems to be lacking in their skill sets.

Jesus toast man. You forgot the Jesus toast!

What is so disturbing is the fact that the theists come in here all smug-like, make a claim, refuse to provide testable evidence to prove such claims, then when called out on it, turn the tables and try telling US that WE need to refute their claims. What a bunch of idiots we have that keep coming around here with this same old shit. 

Yeah - I know - we let everybody in but for fucks sake, there should be a check on a minimum level of intelligence before these theists are allowed to post. They should have to answer some questions so we know, based on their answers, what their end game or goal is for being here. Or at the very least they shouldn't be allowed to post a fucking thing until they have read several threads that have their preachy attempts in common and answer tough questions about those threads just so they understand that their tactics of turning atheists to their bullshit religion won't be tolerated. They fail that test and boom! Out they go. Sure would save us a lot of time and hassle dealing with these idiots.

(August 7, 2017 at 8:56 am)Harry Nevis Wrote:

(August 5, 2017 at 11:46 pm)pabsta Wrote: All I keep seeing is responses saying, "Nope, it didn't happen", with nothing else solid to back why you are denying it. You cannot say it didn't happen because it appeared in at least 2 newspapers the following day, and these were anti-religious newspapers. Here is the English translations of the text from each of the newspapers. Something VERY significant happened right where and when the lady and the children said:

After the miracle, the anti-religious newspaper, Diario de Noticias reported:

“At one o’clock the rain stopped. The sky had a certain gray clarity but seemed to suddenly be getting darker. The sun seemed veiled in gauze. We could look at it without strain. The gray tint of mother-of-pearl began changing as if into a silver disc that was growing and growing... until it broke the clouds! Then the silvery sun, still shrouded in that grayish light, began to rotate and wander within the circle of the receded clouds!

“The people cried out with one voice. Thousands, transported by ecstasy fell to their knees upon the muddy ground. Then, as if it were shining through the stained glass windows of a great cathedral, the light became a rare blue, spreading its rays upon the nave... Slowly the blue faded away and now the light seemed to be filtered through yellow. Yellow spots were falling now upon the white kerchiefs and dark shirts of coarse wool. They were spots which repeated themselves indefinitely over the landscape. All the people were weeping and praying bareheaded, weighted down by the greatness of the miracle. These were seconds, moments, that seemed hours...”


O Século, the other skeptical newspaper added:

“From beside the parked carriages and where many thousands stood, afraid to descend into the muddy soil of the Cova da Iria, we saw the immense crowd turn toward the sun at its highest, free of all clouds. The sun seemed to us like a plate of dull silver. It could be seen without the least effort. It did not blind or burn. It seemed as though an eclipse were taking place. All of a sudden a tremendous shout burst forth, ‘Miracle, miracle!’

“Before the astonished eyes of the people, whose attitude carried us back to Biblical times, and who, white with terror, heads uncovered, gazed at the sun which trembled and made brusque and unheard of movement beyond all cosmic laws, the sun seemed literally to dance in the sky.

“Immediately afterward the people asked each other if they saw anything and what they had seen. The greatest number avowed that they saw the sun trembling and dancing; others declared they saw the smiling face of the Blessed Virgin herself. They swore that the sun turned around on itself as if it were a wheel of fireworks and had fallen almost to the point of burning the earth with its rays. Some said they saw it change colors successively.”

Anti-religious newspaper?! Riiiight.

Didn't spot this one first time around, Diário de Notícias if you look it up on Wikipedia, was a mouthpiece of the fascist dictatorship and it's predecessor business, church and military interesta until the Carnation Revolution. As such calling it "anti-religious" when it consistently and lyingly supported the catlick church is really really low.

The second quote when googled doesn't point to the paper O Século at all but a book called "fatima, a message more urgent than ever" which attributes the quote to the newspaper without citation. Now the quote does likely come from the newspaper and Avelino de Almeida who wrote for O Século about the alleged miracle. But he didn't write anything about the event itself just peoples' impressions and reactions to what they thought they saw.

So thanks to Harry I see now the duplicity and mendacity of pabsta, who is willing to lie repeatedly in order to show his very slim case in a better light.

(August 7, 2017 at 9:27 am)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(August 7, 2017 at 8:56 am)Harry Nevis Wrote: Anti-religious newspaper?! Riiiight.

Didn't spot this one first time around, Diário de Notícias if you look it up on Wikipedia, was a mouthpiece of the fascist dictatorship and it's predecessor business, church and military interesta until the Carnation Revolution. As such calling it "anti-religious" when it consistently and lyingly supported the catlick church is really really low.

The second quote when googled doesn't point to the paper O Século at all but a book called "fatima, a message more urgent than ever" which attributes the quote to the newspaper without citation. Now the quote does likely come from the newspaper and Avelino de Almeida who wrote for O Século about the alleged miracle. But he didn't write anything about the event itself just peoples' impressions and reactions to what they thought they saw.

So thanks to Harry I see now the duplicity and mendacity of pabsta, who is willing to lie repeatedly in order to show his very slim case in a better light.

I searched too

I agree I could not find the article. And as you said Diário de Notícias seems far from a skeptics paper it's a freaking propaganda paper and a tabloid at that.

Quote:Before the Carnation revolution Diário de Notícias belonged to the Empresa Nacional de Publicidade a propaganda arm of the dictatorship.

pabsta Wrote: 
I'm curious what atheists think of this incident. Thanks
 

I don't think you're clear on what 'undeniable' means.

---

pabsta Wrote:C'mon guys, you can do better than just saying "denied". That's not an answer when there are so many testimonials. Here are a few from the book, "Meet the Witnesses".

It would be easy for you to look up a thread on this topic and read it before accusing us of not dealing with it just because we don't feel like rehashing it yet again.

Don't stare at the sun. It can result in blindness. But your eyes will try one last-ditch trick to save your sight despite your idiocy in looking directly at the sun without protection. They will move involuntarily to take your pupils out of direct sight of the sun. This will make it look like the sun is moving around.

Let's face it, if the sun was actually 'moving around', everyone in that hemisphere would have noticed it, not just a group of people trying to get each other to look at the sun to see if they see it too. If they look long enough, they will.

You can go outside and recreate the 'Miracle of Fatima' any time you want, but I don't recommend you try it. Your chances of permanently damaging your vision are excellent and I don't want to have played any role in you doing such a foolish thing.

Quote:Here are some testimonials from people who saw the miracle from miles away. That rules out mass delusion or mass hysteria

Accept a few miles away would not eliminate mass delusion or hysteria merely that the both were working over a broader area . So sorry this attempt fails

---

Another common defense is the difference in religious background . That is easily refuted for unbelievers by culture .And different backgrounds by the fact every religion had miracles .

Don't you know...all atheists are wrong. Totally and utterly wrong.

Quote:Well thousands of people gave testimony that it appeared the sun moved in the sky, and that their clothes and the ground were suddenly instantly dried afterward.

Yup and the rest of the earth saw nothing and even people present saw nothing

Quote:Obviously no human can make the sun move, or even pull off a trick to make it appear to move

.
No but nature can

Quote:Since this happened at an exact location and time predicted months beforehand, this is not just a random flareup of the sun.

According to hearsay

Quote:If there is a God capable of such an event, then He is certainly also capable from keeping the solar system from going into chaos.

Actually that does not follow but okay . But once again it does not answer the question . Your just proclaiming magic solves the problem of the the suspension of celestial mechanics changing with no one noticing .

pabsta Wrote:Amazing how you all devalue eyewitness testimony as though it has no importance. That's not how society works. Look at our judicial system - if you were accused of robbing a bank in broad daylight and even ONE witness were to come forward saying they saw you do it, that alone could convince a jury to lock you up.

Maybe your judicial system is different from ours. The eyewitness testimony is a claim. Eyewitness testimony is far from the best testimony; it's better than hearsay but not as good as physical evidence. In our system, there would be an investigation. Does the accused have an alibi? Does the accuser have a motivation to testify against the accused besides just witnessing the crime? Is there any reason to think the accuser is unreliable or mistaken?

We don't just take someone's word for it before we toss you in jail. The accused still has to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

pabsta Wrote:Now consider if 2 or 3 witnesses were to come forward - then it's a no-brainer for the jury - they will unanimously vote to lock you up for the rest your life. That's how valuable our society has always looked at eyewitnesses.

Again, you're mischaracterizing our justice system, science has shown how unreliable eyewitness testimony can be, and you would still have to prove the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law where the testimony against him can be evaluated and analyzed and compared to other evidence and his accusers can be cross-examined before sentencing him to years in prison.

pabsta Wrote:Now considering there are HUNDREDS of documented eyewitness testimonies for the miracle that took place in Fatima, we're not all going to suddenly pretend eyewitness testimonies have no value. Ask yourself WHY so many unanimous eyewitness testimonies exist, even when all these people didn't know each other.

Because a bunch of people stared at the sun too long and considered the wholly natural and inevitable optical illusion that resulted as a miracle.

pabsta Wrote:You atheists don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to this argument, and all your bitterness and vulgarities aren't going to make these testimonials go away.

Any accredited ophthalmologist in the world can explain to you the kinds of thing you'll see if you stare at the sun too long.

pabsta Wrote:Why don't we just start denying random events in history like the Civil War - after all, none of us were there and we don't know anyone who was, and we only rely on testimony passed down to us in books.

Because the evidence that the Civil War occurred is infinitely stronger than the evidence that the sun was dancing around the sky.

See, some things are better supported than others. A reasonable skeptic believes in the things that are better supported and withholds belief in things that are poorly supported. What's actually supported here is that a bunch of people saw what you see when you stare at the sun too long. If the sun was actually moving around, that would be amazing, and it wouldn't just be people staring at the sun who saw it. We had astronomers monitoring the sun back then, you know.

In the case of history, we look for independent corroboration of events by disinterested or opposing parties. If we had no physical evidence of the Civil War (we actually have an abundance of physical evidence), and no good reason for it being absent; we would have to question the testimony about the Civil War. We would be in a situation where the reports seem well-supported; but where are the artifacts? The photographs? The graves? That would turn the Civil War from a very well-documented historical event into the biggest mystery of history. The less history is supported by things that can be confirmed and verified and compared, the less certain it is. Go back 1500 years or more and a lot of it gets down to just 'more likely than not' because physical evidence gets scarce and independent corroboration of accounts becomes spotty.

The short version: the historicity of the Civil War isn't really comparable to the historicity of the sun jumping around in the sky a hundred years ago. It's certainly historical that a bunch of people claimed it happened, though.

---

pabsta Wrote:There are plenty of eyewitness testimonials that were given from people who were miles away from the incident who attest to seeing it from afar. If you want me to post some of those testimonials I can.

Anyone who stares at the sun long enough will see it move. I notice you keep accusing us of not addressing the issue and you still haven't lifted a finger to explain why astronomers didn't notice the sun moving.

pabsta Wrote:Testimonials have weight in numbers. Bring even 3 eyewitnesses to any court hearing and see how quick a decision is made. And two anti-religious newspapers confirming the miracle the following day is certainly the last thing they wanted to do -- but they did because they became believers after seeing it.

Thanks for bringing up a perfect example of why testimonials shouldn't be trusted on their own, even in numbers. Turns out that thousands of people can look at the same thing without understanding what they're actually seeing. You do know that it's not just atheists who think this story is preposterous, don't you?

pabsta Wrote:You all clearly cannot explain what has been presented to you. There is a common theme between all of your replies; they are all filled with vulgarities and rude comments with no other intelligent arguments - your frustration is showing. How about some REAL arguments guys?

Before you claim we can't explain something, you should debunk the explanations you've been given thus far, shouldn't you? Just ranting that they don't exist either means you're not reading the responses, are too stupid to understand them, or too dishonest to acknowledge them.

pabsta Wrote:First of all, not all events in this world leave behind physical evidence. If I shined a bright light in your face yesterday, there is no physical evidence of it today.

But you're bringing up an example of an event that would leave behind physical evidence. We had photography back then, you know. Astronomers were actually taking pictures of the sun at the time.

pabsta Wrote: 
That point being made, the eyewitness testimonies from thousands of people that didn't know each other unanimously concur that everyone's clothes dried immediately after the incident. There is your physical evidence - though we obviously cannot see that now, so we have the weight of countless testimonials to confirm it, just like we do with any other event handed down to us in history.

They all saw something. Something that they didn't have the education to understand. The sun under atmospheric conditions that seemed to make it safe to look at (it wasn't) and likely to draw attention because it was unusual; and reflexes that cause people's eyes to shift involuntarily when they look at a bright light too long, making whatever bright light they're looking at seem to move around.

Just because people report seeing the same thing doesn't mean they understand what they're looking at. From the top of a tall mountain, the world looks like a big disk, even if a million people are up there. But the world is not actually a big disk, no matter how many people report that being what they saw.

---

Dropship Wrote:

KevinM1 Wrote:..Millions of people have seen Criss Angel perform magic.  You can't get many more witnesses than that.  But no rational person thinks he's performing miracles...

When he brings people back to life we might think he really does do miracle stuff..
So far, only a guy called Jesus seemed able to do it..

To Lazarus- "Come on out of there mate"

Reports of supposed holy people bringing the dead back to life occur every year.

---

pabsta Wrote:

Cyberman Wrote:But we're not talking about having a light shone in my face, are we? You're seriously proposing a star whizzing around off its axis. Whereas the counter-proposal is somewhere between delusion and hoax. Given the known propensity for people to lie, exaggerate and/or simply need to believe, multiplied by the also-known desperation for the church - especially the Catholic church - for a good money-spinning headline grabber in order to appear relevant, and then balanced against the sheer impossibility of the story as related... Well, which is more plausible?

The point is not all events in this world leave behind physical evidence. If the sun did something strange, you're not necessarily going to find
 physical evidence the following day.

If the sun does something strange, it's a guarantee that you will find physical evidence the following day. There will be photographs. We watch the sun constantly.

---

pabsta Wrote:You obviously haven't read a single testimonial that has been posted. All the testimonials agree that everyone could look straight at the sun during the miracle without it hurting their eyes. Some compared it to looking at an eclipse. No one can explain that either. Read the testimonials posted earlier.

You cannot ever safely look at the sun for a prolonged period without eye protection. During an eclipse, even a sliver of the sun can burn your retinas. In the upcoming complete solar eclipse where I live, it will only be safe to look at the location of the sun in the sky for the couple of minutes it will be completely eclipsed. If you can see the sun at all, you should not stare at it. It's even dangerous through clouds, since UV light gets through...you can get a sunburn on a cloudy day, it just takes longer.

And stop repeating yourself about no one being able to explain it when you refuse to address any of the explanations you've been given.

---

The Valkyrie Wrote:Claims are not proof.  And I'm not inclined to believe claims.

But, but...these claims are supported by MORE claims!

---

pabsta Wrote:So far I've yet to see anyone disprove what has been presented. Instead I'm just reading "I refuse to believe" against thousands of testimonials from people who didn't know each other.

You're a liar, pabsta. You've been given plenty more than 'I refuse to believe'. I guess we know what YOUR testimony is worth.

pabsta Wrote:While we're at it, we might as well pick a few random events in history that have plenty of testimonials, and deny those too. Boston tea party? Sounds fishy to me, therefore it never happened. Abe Lincoln's assassination? I don't believe it could have happened that way, therefore it never happened.

That's not how any of this works. The objections we're raising to the Fatima thing are profoundly different from the objections you're pretending are similar to the Boston Tea Party. It's a very shitty analogy, the question is whether it's so shitty because you're stupid or because you're disingenuous.

pabsta Wrote:Such is the absurd position of atheists who accept history handed down to them only when it suits them, and deny what they don't personally believe. What hypocrisy. Let an atheist write our history books and we will only get part of what really happened.

I'm starting to think you're too mentally limited to understand our position. For one, it's not an atheist position. RoadRunner is a devout Christian, but he does not believe this particular miracle claim should be taken at face value, no matter how many witnesses nor how badly he might want it to be true. He knows the claim does not hold up to rational scrutiny. That's why he doesn't believe it, it doesn't have anything to do with him being an atheist, because he certainly isn't one.

It's a skeptical position, not an atheist one. Theists can be skeptical as well and expect claims to meet certain criteria before they'll accept them. They may not apply the same skepticism to belief in the particular deity they espouse, but that doesn't mean they'll fall for every miracle story.

Fatima has a simple natural explanation that accounts for both the number of witnesses and what they experienced, consistent with the worldwide observations of others that the sun wasn't moving around oddly on those days.

Actual photo of the sun during the event





Looks pretty ordinary to me