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.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.