The undeniable miracle at Fatima

[Harry Nevis]

Readers of this discussion are going to be fit for a loony bin if they read any more of the illogical arguments being presented in here!

Stop posting them then.  You're already fit for the loony bin.

[Ravenshire]

What you are requesting has been done for St. Bernadette's incorrupt body.

No, that's not even remotely good enough.  I specifically want Jacinta's body autopsied in a state-of-the-art professional environment that cannot be manipulated in any way by the RCC, and I want *you* to pay for it out of your own pocket.

You also seem to be having a remarkable amount of difficulty differentiating between ordinary claims such as a fight breaking out at a baseball game, and extraordinary claims such as the sun bobbing around in the sky without being noticed by astronomers.

(Of course, you probably also think that Mary gave birth as a virgin and later got whooshed up into the sky, that Jesus came back from the dead but makes a nice light snack at mass, and that you have something other than insentience awaiting you after your death.  *shrug*)

This asshole won't even provide the case number for the alleged lawsuit against his father-in-law.

It public record PBR. If you won't provide it, we'll have to assume you're just full of shit. Not that we'd be at all surprised.

[LadyForCamus]

Trolly troll troll.

[Ravenshire]

Readers of this discussion are going to be fit for a loony bin if they read any more of the illogical arguments being presented in here!

Don't be so hard on yourself. Your arguments are bad, but not actually bad enough to drive someone crazy.

[Minimalist]

What a horrible analogy. And as a Red Sox fan, I need to point out some things:

Besides, if a Yankee punched a Red Sock pitcher there'd be hospital reports and everything!

[Mister Agenda]

See? No laws on the books in NY regarding disclosure of supernatural phenomenon.

A law does not necessarily have to be 'on the books' for something to be legal or illegal. Most of us bow to case law in regard to separation issues...we don't agree that a law against having preachers in to lead children in worship and praise at a public school has to be 'on the books' for it to be illegal, in light of judicial findings and legal precedents. In SC, it's against the state constitution for an atheist to hold public office, but it's actually legal due to a court finding invoking the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. The logic of the decision may seem obvious to most of us, but it didn't necessarily have to go that way. Courts aren't always predictable, but the precedents they set are one of the major foundations of our law.

That doesn't mean I disagree with you about the limited nature of what the Ghost Buster case actually established, but having to refund the down payment IS a legal finding in a civil case. That would be the consequence of any number of clearly illegal but not prima facie criminal omissions on the part of a seller in many cases: having to give the money back. If you are knowingly selling property in NY with a reputation for being haunted, you're well advised to disclose before money changes hands, particularly if the buyer is in a poor position to find out the property's reputation. If the case had gone the other way, you could withhold phantasmal rumors to your heart's content, safe in the knowledge that the law is on your side.

---

Another fact that atheists want to avoid is the subject of Jacinta from Fatima being found incorrupt. Another proof for the supernatural that leaves atheists standing there with wide eyes, especially when they realize there is physical proof they can go see themselves. Always demanding proof, but they won't put the remote control down and get off the couch and go see them, afraid of what they might find.

Details:
http://overcomeproblems.com/incorruptibles.htm

So if the body of a heretic or atheist were found to not decompose as expected, would that be a miracle, too?

[Joods]

What a horrible analogy. And as a Red Sox fan, I need to point out some things:

Besides, if a Yankee punched a Red Sock pitcher there'd be hospital reports and everything!

Man... her bikini looks uncomfortable like that. IJS.

[Mister Agenda]

An example of the logic presented in this discussion. A conversation after an exhibition baseball game:

We can refine that analogy quite a bit:

Tom (baseball fan): Wow, you missed the exhibition baseball game yesterday! Did you hear about how that player from the Yankees hit the ball so hard that it impacted the moon?
Joe (his atheist friend): That doesn't sound possible.
Tom: Well he did, I was there and I saw him
Joe: Where's your proof?
Tom: What are you talking about! I'm telling you I was there and I saw it, and there was a large crowd there too that saw it!
Joe: Well show me the video where it happened
Tom: It was an exhibition game, so it was not televised. Though there are still shots available of the game and the large crowd
Joe: That's not enough, so I don't believe that player ever literally hit a ball to the moon
Tom: Dude, everyone at the game saw it, including some reporters who interviewed some of the fans about it afterward, and it was confirmed in newspapers the following day!
Joe: Did the newspaper articles contain a photo of the baseball sitting on the moon?
Tom: Well, no, but the articles still confirmed that it happened!
Joe: That's not enough, so I say that I can't believe it unless you provide me more evidence. Not every incident leaves behind detectable evidence, but you can't expect me to accept a claim as implausible as this without physical evidence
Tom: Well in this instance, the player hit the ball to the moon, and the ball got buried in moon dust, so there is no visible ball on the moon or other evidence. But what does that matter when I'm telling you I saw it, and the large crowd there saw it, and it was in the newspapers the following day, with statements from fans confirming they saw it?
Joe: Eyewitness testimony is unreliable. Sorry Tom, whatever you and the crowd think you saw, the batter did not actually and literally hit a baseball all the way to the moon

[The Valkyrie]

Readers of this discussion are going to be fit for a loony bin if they read any more of the illogical arguments being presented in here!

Don't be so hard on yourself. Your arguments are bad, but not actually bad enough to drive someone crazy.

Except, perhaps. those inclined to believe them...

[Joods]

See? No laws on the books in NY regarding disclosure of supernatural phenomenon.

A law does not necessarily have to be 'on the books' for something to be legal or illegal. Most of us bow to case law in regard to separation issues...we don't agree that a law against having preachers in to lead children in worship and praise at a public school has to be 'on the books' to be illegal, in light of judicial findings and legal precedents. In SC, it's against the state constitution for an atheist to hold public office, but it's actually legal due to a court finding invoking the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. The logic of the decision may seem obvious to most of us, but it didn't necessarily have to go that way. Courts aren't always predictable, but the precedents they set are one of the major foundations of our law.

That doesn't mean I disagree with you about the limited nature of what the Ghost Buster case actually established, but having to refund the down payment IS a legal finding in a civil case. 

bolding mine

And I agree with that... there was a legal finding in the case. The Plaintiff got his money back and was allowed to back out of the contract. 

That would be the consequence of any number of clearly illegal but not prima facie criminal omissions on the part of a seller in many cases: having to give the money back.

And this is the part where I disagree because the Judge's own words do not imitate any "illegal findings" In fact, it's quite the opposite. 
By the Honorable Judge Rubin:
"While I agree with Supreme Court that the real estate broker, as agent for the seller, is under no duty to disclose to a potential buyer the phantasmal reputation of the premises and that, in his pursuit of a legal remedy for fraudulent misrepresentation against the seller, plaintiff hasn't a ghost of a chance, I am nevertheless moved by the spirit of equity to allow the buyer to seek rescission of the contract of sale and recovery of his down payment. New York law fails to recognize any remedy for damages incurred as a result of the seller's mere silence, applying instead the strict rule of caveat emptor. Therefore, the theoretical basis for granting relief, even under the extraordinary facts of this case, is elusive if not ephemeral."

If you are knowingly selling property in NY with a reputation for being haunted, you're well advised to disclose before money changes hands, particularly if the buyer is in a poor position to find out the property's reputation. If the case had gone the other way, you could withhold phantasmal rumors to your heart's content, safe in the knowledge that the law is on your side.

Sure...if the property in question has a reputation for being haunted, in the state of NY, it would be wise for the seller to disclose such things, but if they choose not to - it's not necessarily illegal. Nevertheless, I concur; the precedent has been set by that case. Care and due diligence could also be said that the buyer, interested in any property, should look closely at what they are purchasing - especially with such a high cost attached to it - to make sure they know exactly what they are getting. Buyer beware, which leads us to another point that Judge Rubin makes: 

"From the perspective of a person in the position of plaintiff herein, a very practical problem arises with respect to the discovery of a paranormal phenomenon: "Who you gonna' call?" as a title song to the movie "Ghostbusters" asks. Applying the strict rule of caveat emptor to a contract involving a house possessed by poltergeists conjures up visions of a psychic or medium routinely accompanying the structural engineer and Terminix man on an inspection of every home subject to a contract of sale. It portends that the prudent attorney will establish an escrow account lest the subject of the transaction come back to haunt him and his client — or pray that his malpractice insurance coverage extends to supernatural disasters. In the interest of avoiding such untenable consequences, the notion that a haunting is a condition which can and should be ascertained upon reasonable inspection of the premises is a hobgoblin which should be exorcised from the body of legal precedent and laid quietly to rest."
Bolding mine. 

I love how the judge inserts a bit of humor through his entire brief. But there it is. Directly from that case itself. 
Opinion of the court, background of the case and briefings by the Judges