The undeniable miracle at Fatima

[Joods]

Funny how FakePasta asked for our opinions, not only did he receive that but he got a bonus of FACTUAL evidence to prove the Civil War, the Boston Tea Party and Lincoln's assassination. He continues his diatribe of ridiculous comparisons against actual historical events and we provide evidence, yet we get continuously attacked for giving him what he asked for.

I think it's time to kill this thread. We have done all we can here. Time to shut the door and move on because clearly this assclown was not asking for our opinions, rather he was wanting to argue a point that he knows he will never make because he's just that fucking stupid.

[Amarok]

Some other notes

Not surprisingly, perhaps, sun miracles have been reported at other Marian sites—at Lubbock, Texas, in 1989; Mother Cabrini Shrine near Denver, Colorado, in 1992; Conyers, Georgia, in the early to mid-1990s; and elsewhere, including Thiruvananthapuram, India, in 2008. Tragically, at the Colorado and India sites, many people suffered eye damage (solar retinopathy)—in some instances, possibly permanent damage (Nickell 1993, 196—200; Sebastian 2008).

At the Conyers site, the Georgia Skeptics group set up a telescope outfitted with a vision-protecting Mylar solar filter, and on one occasion I participated in the experiment. Becky Long, president of the organization, stated that more than two hundred people had viewed the sun through one of the solar filters and not a single person saw anything unusual (Long 1992, 3; see figure 1).

[url=​ http://www.csicop.org/si/show/real_secrets_of_fatima] http://www.csicop.org/si/show/real_secrets_of_fatima[/url]

However, people elsewhere in the world, viewing the very same sun, did not see the alleged gyrations; neither did astronomical observatories detect the sun deviating from the norm

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/real_secrets_of_fatima

Before considering the important third secret of Fatima, and to fully comprehend the entire Fatima experience, we must look more closely at its central figure—not the Virgin Mary but Lucia de Jesus Santos. Born on March 22, 1907, to Antonio and Maria Rosa Santos, Lucia was the youngest of seven children. Five years younger than her next-oldest sibling, Lucia was a petted and spoiled child. Her sisters fostered in her a desire to be the center of attention by teaching her to dance and sing. At festivals, Lucia would stand on a crate to entertain an adoring crowd. Among her other talents was a gift for telling stories—fairy tales, biblical narratives, and saints’ legends—which made her popular with village children, as well as an ability to persuade others to do her bidding.
Two years before the famous series of apparitions occurred at Fatima, eight-year-old Lucia and three girlfriends claimed to have seen apparitions of a snow-white figure on three occasions. Lucia’s mother called the experiences “childish nonsense.” The following year, Lucia, Francisco, and Jacinta were thrice visited by an “angel.”
Lucia’s background is revealing. The seeds of her later visionary encounters were clearly contained in her childhood experiences and in her obviously fantasy-prone personality.1 Her charismatic ability to influence others drew little Francisco and Jacinta into the Fatima fantasy. As Zimdars-Swartz says of Lucia:
It is clear that she played the leading role in the scenario of the apparition itself. All accounts agree that she was the only one of the three seers to interact with both her vision and with the crowd, carrying on conversations with both while her two cousins stood by silently. She has said, moreover, and probably not incorrectly, that Francisco and Jacinta had been accustomed to follow her directives before the apparition began, that they turned to her for guidance afterwards, and that it was she who convinced them that they had to be very careful in their experiences. (Zimdars-Swartz 1991, 68)
Further evidence that Lucia orchestrated the fantasy and manipulated the other children is provided by certain incidents. For example, when Jacinta first told the story, she stated that the Virgin had said many things that she was unable to recall but “which Lucia knows.” Lucia’s own mother was convinced that her precocious daughter was, in her words, “nothing but a fake who is leading half the world astray” (qtd. in Zimdars-Swartz 1991, 71, 86).

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/real_secrets_of_fatima

Because some people reported seeing something happening over Fatima miles away that day, researches sometimes conclude that mass hysteria cannot account for the miracle of the Sun. Were these witnesses telling the truth? It is curious that they didn’t report anything happening to the sun but strange occurrences in the clouds and sky above Fatima. What they saw doesn’t match what the witnesses at Fatima saw that day.

http://www.miraclesceptic.com/solarmiracle.html

In a Fortean Picture Library photo in The Book of Miracles some of the people are not looking up at the solar miracle evidently because they have seen nothing and all of the faces looking up are not amazed. There are no open mouths or hands to the mouth. There is nobody showing any sign of fear. This picture tells a lot of the real truth about the solar miracle. It says Lucia herself did not see the miracle (page 54, What Happened at Fatima?) though it seems she saw figures in the sun. So the only one who could prove that the Virgin was appearing did not see the super-miracle. Again, the lady does not care about proving the apparition authentic.

http://www.miraclesceptic.com/solarmiracle.html

But all in the Cova did not see the miracle of the sun so she lied. The Church lies that the 70,000 did see the miracle (page 54, What Happened at Fatima?) but then we are told that no two people seem to have seen the same thing (page 55, What Happened at Fatima?). “It is clear that only a proportion of the crowd, probably less than half, actually witnessed the miracle. There is some evidence to the effect that only those who were standing in a broad band across the centre of the Cova saw the vision; but the truth of this is now impossible to establish” (page 78, The Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary). The Cova was a natural amphitheatre

http://www.miraclesceptic.com/solarmiracle.html

The photos show no evidence of anybody getting wet or being wet at all. And that includes the photos from minutes before the Miracle.

http://www.miraclesceptic.com/solarmiracle.html

The majority of testimonies about the Solar Miracle of 1917 never mention the drying of clothes. This is inexplicable. Many of them would have thought that what happened the sun was an illusion especially after hearing that the sun only seemed to move where they were at. So they would have dwelt more on the instant drying had it really happened. There is one eyewitness testimony that says the drying never took place. Please read the testimonies compiled by Jaki.

http://www.miraclesceptic.com/solarmiracle.html

---

Some good skeptical books on this subject (not the first time an apologist has pulled this one)

The Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary, Kevin McClure, Aquarian Press, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, 1985
(an unbiased collection of eyewitnesses and the author concludes the following )( "never seen such a collection of contradictory accounts in any of the research I have done in the past 10 years." )

Fatima Revealed and Discarded, Bro Michael of the Holy Trinity, Augustine, Devon, 1988

What Happened at Fatima? Leo Madigan, Catholic Truth Society, London, 2000

Looking for a Miracle, Joe Nickell, Prometheus Books, New York, 1993

---

Oh and if Fake pasta's going to pull his but the children would recant (aside this story sounding extremely unlikely ) The threat would only have any effect if the children believed it. And I also point out that threats can entrench a person. And of course as I have said there was the pressure of what would happen if believers found out they had lied . Can you say lynching .

[Dropship]

---

Dropship replied:- I don't see Elvis rocking anywhere..
Oh wait...

[LastPoet]

[quote='Harry Nevis' pid='1598650' dateline='1502110591']
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.

The DN is still around, never liked to read it as it is right wing and as a lot of newspapers, cater news for religious readers, catholics namely, given that its the major religion here. O Século (means "the century") is no more. It was a decent newspaper but went belly up along the line.

To help you understand, we Portuguese know the FFF (3 F's) That were used by the dictatorship to soothe the people. Fado, Football and Fatima. That is why they indured until 1974.

The dictatorship embraced the 'miracle' and used it to keep the populace calm. Until the carnation.

[Minimalist]

Yes, the mark of scumbag rulers through history...

In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty. he is always in alliance with the Despot abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

Thomas Jefferson

[KevinM1]

I have to say, I love the detective work that's gone on in this thread, as well as LP's and poca's takes on it. Kudos to all of you.

[pabsta]

Claims are not proof.  And I'm not inclined to believe claims.

But there were whole bunches of people making the same claim, so they claim.  I mean, how you gonna go against the numbers???[/sarcasm]

Everyone reading this knows very well that if one person were to point you out as someone who robbed a bank, people may not believe it right away. But if a CROWD of people point you out as the culprit, your goose is cooked, plain and simple. The more testimonials, the heavier the weight of those testimonials. Let's not play dumb people!

---

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.

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.

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.

And THIS is exactly the type of reaction atheists are used to getting from theists who present claims and then get defensive when those claims aren't accepted unquestioningly by us as it is the theist.

There's nothing to disprove.

Certainly nothing has been proved.

Just, as I say, a number of claims.

We have "testimonials" from all over the world of people being abducted by aliens.

Do you accept them?  Or will you put a religious spin on the "experiences" of these people?

What a lame argument. I can't believe you are trying to equate alien sightings to Fatima. Alien sighting testimonials are ONE person at a time - they are very easy to dismiss because the person may not be mentally stable, may be lying, may be paid etc. You cannot say that about THOUSANDS of witnesses at Fatima all at once, most who did not know each other, and many who had different religious beliefs. C'mon now.

[downbeatplumb]

But there were whole bunches of people making the same claim, so they claim.  I mean, how you gonna go against the numbers???[/sarcasm]

Everyone reading this knows very well that if one person were to point you out as someone who robbed a bank, people may not believe it right away. But if a CROWD of people point you out as the culprit, your goose is cooked, plain and simple. The more testimonials, the heavier the weight of those testimonials. Let's not play dumb people!

But if there was no evidence for a bank being robbed the testimonials would be worthless. Just because lots of people think something does not make it true.
There are for example a lot of people who believe in a magical person coming back after a long time and solving all their problems, a being who left and said they'd be back many years ago.

I am of course alluding to John Frum the deity on the island of Tanna. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Frum

[Astreja]

Well, Pabsta, you're quite obviously not playing dumb -- You seem to come by it naturally.

The "miracle" is bogus. There is no evidence for your god. We do not believe you -- at all. You are wasting your time, and ours as well.

You want to know what I *do* believe, Pabsta?

I believe that you are wasting your life on a worthless belief system. No matter how many rosaries you say, no matter how many bite-size Jesuses you swallow at communion, no matter how diligently you confess your sins --

-- your ultimate fate is identical to ours. One day you will die. Your lifeless body will be disposed of via burial or cremation, and everything you ever thought, felt and believed will be gone forever.

You shall never see heaven.

[pabsta]

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.

I don’t think it is a refusal to believe; rather, IMO, it is more like wanting to think freely and openly.  IMO, for some people who choose not to interpret reality through a theistic lens, an important question to ask, especially as it pertains to miracles, is whether belief is a necessary pre-condition in order to observe these miracles.  In other words, can people of all particular mindsets objectively arrive at the truth of these miracles via methods that do not rely on any pre-existing biases? Thus, is it possible to verify a particular religious truth via an approach that is independent/outside of that particular belief system or religion/theism in general? 

The event we are discussing has NOTHING to do with looking at something "through a theistic lens". It has to do with the sun doing something that it has never been seen to do before or since, and a human being predicting the exact time and location months ahead of time. That, in itself, has nothing to do with religion. The antireligious newspapers the following day agreed it happened. Thousands of eyewitnesses agreed it happened. So far, again, this has nothing to do with religion. It's the cowardly atheist who looks at all of this, notices that the conclusion shows the event can only be of supernatural origin, and then simply shakes his head and dismisses it all because "he won't go there". Cowardly is all I can say.

---

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,

A group of men dumping tea in a river to protest a tax . Compared to the idea the sun was moved in the sky by magic etc . These don't even compare .

Abe Lincoln's assassination? I don't believe it could have happened that way

That a man can sneak up and kill another man happens all the time. Compared to the sun being moved in the sky by magic etc.These don't even compare

You're missing the point! I'm not comparing the events. I'm simply saying that history is handed down to us from people who came before us. We didn't know those people, and we didn't see any the events with our own eyes, yet we generally accept what they hand down to us and it winds up in our history books. Atheists are hypocritical because they accept some history if it sounds good to them, and reject other history if it doesn't make them comfortable. It's absurdity, especially when thousands of people said it happened.