Your religious beliefs are probably wrong

[Nietzsche]

Note: The miracle was also seen in Pombal, 32 miles north of Fátima.
The total land-area of visibility, based on witness interviews, was approximately 32 by 20 miles.
No records of the solar phenomena were recorded by any of the world's observatories
The above reports and others were published in 1961 in Meet the Witnesses, by John Haffert, International Lay Delegate of the Blue Army of Our Lady of Fátima. (A.M.I. Press, Washington, N.J., U.S.A.).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

You combine the words of eye witnesses both present and several miles away along with the prediction of little children on what day it would occur 90 days in advance, and all of the other phenomena associated with the Fatima events and miraculous claims and you have a sign from God. No other explanation can stand up to it.

The bit I bolded. Why was it not recorded by those most qualified to do so?

 

[Cephus]

The bit I bolded. Why was it not recorded by those most qualified to do so?

For the same reason that when the sun was recorded to have stopped in the Bible, sun-worshipping cultures around the world never took notice. Because it never happened, of course.

 

[serp777]

Except they were not all that different. What is impressive is the great similarities, not their differences. Everyone sees things in their own way and remembers that part which impressed them most. How could they be that similar if it was all hallucinated?

So easy to discredit the testimony of a secular scientist? Or the account from a Marxist journalist there to mock it, yet humbly, report the facts in the Lisbon paper ‘O Seculo’ of what he witnessed? Have you any idea how many eye witness testimonies were recorded in print and on film? Not to mention the testimonies of those who were 10 and 20 miles away from the event?

Excerpt from Wikipedia article quoting the Marxist journalist:
"Before the astonished eyes of the crowd, whose aspect was biblical as they stood bare-headed, eagerly searching the sky, the sun trembled, made sudden incredible movements outside all cosmic laws — the sun 'danced' according to the typical expression of the people." ― Avelino de Almeida,writing for O Século. O Século was Portugal's most widely circulated and influential newspaper. It was pro-government and anti-clerical at the time. Almeida's previous articles had been to satirize the previously reported events at Fátima.

As for other eye witness accounts, begin with Dr. José Maria de Almeida Garrett, professor at the Faculty of Sciences of Coimbra, Portugal. The following is just a small quote. You can read his lengthier testimony at >>> Essentials The Facts The Miracle of the Sun

Dr. Almeida Garrett, PhD (Coimbra University):
“… The sun's disc did not remain immobile. This was not the sparkling of a, heavenly body, for it spun round on itself in a mad whirl. Then, suddenly, one heard a clamor, a cry of anguish breaking from all the people. The sun, whirling wildly, seemed to loosen itself from the firmament and advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge and fiery weight. The sensation during those moments was terrible.
“… All the phenomena which I have described were observed by me in a calm and serene state of mind, and without any emotional disturbance. It is for others to interpret and explain them.”

Here is an excerpt from >>> Fr. Pio Sciatizzi, professor of algebra and trigonometry at the Gregorian University, Rome, author of Fátima in the Light of Faith and Science in the 1940s wrote this:

“Of the historic reality of this event there can be no doubt whatsoever. That it was outside and against known laws can be proved by certain simple scientific considerations… Given the indubitable reference to God and the general context of the event, it seems that we must attribute to Him alone the most obvious and colossal miracle of history.”

If you go to this website >>> HEAVEN S PROGRAM FOR SALVATION Testimonies to Fatima s Miracle of the Sun you will read excerpts from testimonies including that of a written deposition by Portuguese aristocrat Baron of Alvaiazere, to Church investigators:

“. . . An indescribable impression overtook me. I only know that I cried out: I believe! I believe! And tears ran from my eyes. I was amazed, in ecstasy before the demonstration of Divine power . . . converted in that moment.”
Here is another professional testimony of a Dr. Formigao, Professor at Santarem seminary:
“As if like a bolt from the blue, the clouds were wrenched apart, and the sun at its zenith appeared in all its splendour. It began to revolve vertiginously on its axis, like the most magnificent fire-wheel that could be imagined, taking on all the colours of the rainbow and sending forth multi-coloured flashes of light, producing the most astounding effect. This sublime and incomparable spectacle, which was repeated three distinct times, lasted for about ten minutes.

“The immense multitude, overcome by the evidence of such a tremendous prodigy, threw themselves on their knees. The Creed, the Hail Mary, acts of contrition, burst from all lips, and tears, tears of thanksgiving and repentance sprang from all eyes.”


Then we have that of a lawyer, Carlos Mendes, who declared:
“I saw the sun as if it were a ball of fire, begin to move in the clouds. It had been raining all morning and the sky was full of clouds, but the rain had stopped. It lasted for several seconds, crushingly pressing down on us. Wan faces, standing here, from every side great ejaculations, acts of contrition, of the love of God. An indescribable moment! We feel it. We remain dominated by it. But it is not possible to describe it.”

More written testimonies:

Report of John Carreira, a boy at the time of the miracle, who eventually became a sacristan at the Fátima shrine, serving for 50 years. On 13 October 1917, onlookers in the crowd pressed him against the three visionary children, so that “my knees jammed between Lucia's and Francisco's feet,” he later wrote.

“…I saw the sun spinning round and it seemed about to come down on us. It revolved like a bicycle wheel. Afterwards, it returned to its place . . . I wasn't afraid, but I heard people cry out: 'Oh, we are going to die! We are going to die!'”

Antonio de Oliveiro, farmer, said:
“I looked at the sun and saw it spinning like a disc, rolling on itself. I saw people changing colour. They were stained with the colours of the rainbow. The sun seemed to fall down from the sky… The people said that the world was going to end . . . They were afraid and screaming.”

Maria dos Prazeres, widow:
“I saw the sun turn upon itself; it seemed to fall from the sky The people around me were crying that the world was going to end.”

Dominic Reis (in TV interview in the U.S. in l960)
“The sun started to roll from one place to another and changed to blue, yellow -- all colours. Then we see the sun coming towards the children. Everyone was crying out. Some started to confess their sins because there was no priest around there . . . My mother grabbed me to her and started to cry, saying: 'It is the end of the world!' And then we see the sun come right into the trees.”

Maria Candida da Silva
“Suddenly the rain stopped and a great splendour appeared and the children cried: 'Look at the sun!' I saw the sun coming down, feeling that it was falling to the ground. At that moment, I collapsed.”

Rev. Joao Menitra
“I looked and saw that the people were in various colours -- yellow, white, blue. At the same time, I beheld the sun spinning at great speed and very near me. I at once thought: I am going to die.”.


Now we have testimonies from a number of eye witnesses who were not at the Fatima site, but several miles away: They are taken from the website above and also from the website >> Fatima Testimonies in 1917

There may have been many former atheists in Fátima that day, but there were plenty in Portugal, nonetheless, to charge hallucination. For those the Lady provided witnesses who were not at the scene and could not have been subject to collective suggestion.

Joaquim Lourenco, a schoolboy, was in the village of Alburitel, a few miles from Fátima.. He later became canon lawyer of the diocese of Leiria.
“… I looked fixedly at the sun, which seemed pale and did not hurt my eyes.
“Looking like a ball of snow, revolving on itself, it suddenly seemed to come down in a zigzag, menacing the earth.
“Terrified, I ran and hid myself among the people, who were weeping and expecting the end of the world at any moment. It was a crowd which had gathered outside our local village school, and we had all left classes and run into the streets because of the cries and surprised shouts of men and women who were in the street in front of the school when the miracle began.

“There was an unbeliever there who had spent the morning mocking the 'simpletons' who had gone off to Fátima just to see an ordinary girl. He now seemed paralyzed, his eyes fixed on the sun. He began to tremble from head to foot, and lifting up his arms, fell on his knees in the mud, crying out to God.

“But meanwhile the people continued to cry out and to weep, asking God to pardon their sins. We all ran to the two chapels in the village, which were soon filled to overflowing. During those long moments of the solar prodigy, objects around us turned all colours of the rainbow.


Abano Barros (a building contractor, who later became a U.S. citizen) witnessed the apparition from the village of Minde, eight miles away…
“I was watching sheep, as was my daily task, and suddenly, there in the direction of Fátima, I saw the sun fall from the sky. I thought it was the end of the world.”

Poet Alfonso Lopes Viera saw the miracle from a distance of 30 miles at the ocean-side town of San Pedro der Muel.
Alfonso Lopes Vieira (observed the display from a distance of nearly 25 miles):
“On that day of October 13, 1917, without remembering the predictions of the children, I was enchanted by a remarkable spectacle in the sky of a kind I had never seen before. I saw it from this veranda...”

Fr. Ignacio Lorenco (Alburitel, 11 miles away):
“… I feel incapable of describing what I saw and felt. I looked fixedly at the sun, which seemed pale and did not hurt the eyes. Looking like a ball of snow revolving on itself, it suddenly seemed to come down in a zigzag, menacing the earth. Terrified, I ran and hid myself among the people, who were weeping and expecting the end of the world at any moment.
“Near us was an unbeliever who had spent the morning mocking at the simpletons who had gone off to Fátima just to see an ordinary girl. He now seemed to be paralyzed, his eyes fixed on the sun. Afterwards he trembled from head to foot and lifting up his arms fell on his knees in the mud, crying out to our Lady.

“Meanwhile the people continued to cry out and to weep, asking God to pardon their sins. We all ran to the two chapels in the village, which were soon filled to overflowing. During those long moments of the solar prodigy, objects around us turned all the colors of the rainbow. We saw ourselves blue, yellow, red, etc. All these strange phenomena increased the fears of the people. After about ten minutes the sun, now dull and pallid, returned to its place. When the people realized that the danger was over, there was an explosion of joy, and everyone joined in thanksgiving and praise to our Lady.”


Note: The miracle was also seen in Pombal, 32 miles north of Fátima.
The total land-area of visibility, based on witness interviews, was approximately 32 by 20 miles.
No records of the solar phenomena were recorded by any of the world's observatories
The above reports and others were published in 1961 in Meet the Witnesses, by John Haffert, International Lay Delegate of the Blue Army of Our Lady of Fátima. (A.M.I. Press, Washington, N.J., U.S.A.).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

You combine the words of eye witnesses both present and several miles away along with the prediction of little children on what day it would occur 90 days in advance, and all of the other phenomena associated with the Fatima events and miraculous claims and you have a sign from God. No other explanation can stand up to it.

So most of these accounts talk about a bunch of colors and some stellar phenomena. How did they know it was an act of God? How could they possibly know that colors and strange light meant that God did it as opposed to allah or thor or an evil alien overlord? As i mentioned earlier there are so many ways God could make a more convincing miracle that would convince everyone.

Seems a lot like a high intensity solar flare really. In fact, in 1917 there was a solar flare intense enough to know out telegraph lines. A high intensity solar flare could very easily cause strange colors and an apparently moving sun. as well as a high intensity aurora.

" August 1917 - Aurora borealis monkies with telegraph lines [Chicago Daily Tribune, August 9, 1917, p. 1]. Earth currents knock out wires [The Washington Post, August 9, 1917, p. 2]"
Archive of the most severe solar storms

There we go, theory debunked. Solar flare is infinitely more likely than miracle from God meant to amaze one city by giving a cosmic light show.

 

[serp777]

So, some things need existence to appear, and some don't. Freaking miracle. Consciousness needs things to come into existence, but universe came out of nowhere, and it's OK. Now that's a huge belief, you know. Not mentioning fundamental things like quantum fluctuations, appearing from nowhere.
Nevertheless, that was not my point, when I was talking about existence. Existence is a result of perception, not a fundamental feature of reality. Take something and break it apart. It existed as a whole, and it existed as its parts. Break those apart, and you will go further into a pyramid of existence, having more and more existent components. But hey, you can combined those parts in something new, creating something new, a new existence. You and up with infinite amount of existence. Where is it stored? Nowhere. It is just the way our minds work. There is no free floating, infinite existence out there, somewhere. Its how we perceive.
Moreover, I am not saying that "somewhere out there", there is nothing. That would be as false as saying that there is something out there, independent of perception. I am just saying that existence happens here, in our minds only. Nobody can ever refute that.

Religion too...

No, because it isn't. You pick what you need, thats far from being consistent.

And how do you know if those are true? Those are only methods for checking consistency of given assumption.
Everything that is green is a frog. Your eyes are green, thus your eyes are frogs.
This is logically correct statement. It is truth?

What amount do you need, to be able to classify something as truth? Purple color has all the empirical evidence it can get, we can clearly see it exists, but still it's just an illusion.


Predictability. Illusion can be also predicted, and confirmed. How do those two differ?

So, some things need existence to appear, and some don't. Freaking miracle. Consciousness needs things to come into existence, but universe came out of nowhere, and it's OK. Now that's a huge belief, you know. Not mentioning fundamental things like quantum fluctuations, appearing from nowhere.

Well not only did I not state that I have that belief, but since I am agnostic I take the most reasonable position of "I don't know". Its possible that quantum fluctuations are eternal in an endless multiverse, which means that they didn't appear out of nowhere because they always existed. Regardless, my porposition doesn't depend on this

Nevertheless, that was not my point, when I was talking about existence. Existence is a result of perception, not a fundamental feature of reality.

Since you don't have a definition of reality and you reject mine, this doesn't mean anything to me. What are fundamental features of reality, and if it has no definition, then how can you distinguish it from perception?

Break those apart, and you will go further into a pyramid of existence, having more and more existent components. But hey, you can combined those parts in something new, creating something new, a new existence. You and up with infinite amount of existence. Where is it stored?

In my definition of reality, I called this a potential reality. It has the potential to have effects and the potential to be influenced/manipulated but it is not yet constructed. Its also not necesserily infinite if there are indivisible parts--then its a very large but finite number of combination of things that can exist. This is something that physics is trying to address but it looks finite from a quantum physics perspective;

There is no free floating, infinite existence out there, somewhere.

It could be that space is infinite.

I am just saying that existence happens here, in our minds only. Nobody can ever refute that.

And i don't refute that. But my point is that there is reality that exists regardless of us humans. Reality and the universe had to exist before the first human brain because otherwise evolution would never have lead to the human brain in the first place.

Religion too...

Well religion doesn't make observations or predictions or lead to any concrete applications, unlike science. So no, not religion too.

No, because it isn't. You pick what you need, thats far from being consistent.

This is just a bald faced assertion. I've been consistent with the definition i've provided and i've rebutted every attempt you've made to defeat it. When you make such a claim, you need to back it up or else it is worthless. Show me one statement where i've been inconsistent.

And how do you know if those are true? Those are only methods for checking consistency of given assumption.
Everything that is green is a frog. Your eyes are green, thus your eyes are frogs.
This is logically correct statement. It is truth?

Yes there are assumptions made in mathematics, but the fact that mathematics and logic works to build bridges and computer and cars and a huge chunk of what we rely on everyday from modern society. And from your axioms that sentence would be true and logical. So you can make an infinite amount of truth depending on your axioms; it doesn't make it false just because you can change axioms. However, the reality of the universe confirms that our axioms are good and effective.From your position I glean that you think there is no such thing as truth at all. That kind of statement leads into contradiction then since it becomes true that there are no truths, which obviously doesn't work. It also requires evidence to prove that there is no such thing as a completely true statement.

What amount do you need, to be able to classify something as truth? Purple color has all the empirical evidence it can get, we can clearly see it exists, but still it's just an illusion.

What do you need to classify something as an illusion? Maybe its just the illusion of an illusion? Generally science has come to the conclusion that 5 sigma is a good value for determining acceptable truth. 5 sigma means 1 in 5 million chance of being wrong. What you're asking for is impossible though. Drawing the line some where has to be arbitrary past a certain point because there are an infinite number of numbers. Its like asking how many digits of pi are required to be accurate enough? Well after 20 digits you can accurately model a disk the size of a universe down to an atom. That's pretty good accuracy, but someone like you says that isn't truth because you would need an infinite number of digits to be entirely correct. The fallacy there is that at a certain point you don't need more accuracy to be true. There is no point in getting that much accuracy, and it doesn't hurt my position at all about reality. All it means is that i have a 1 in 5 million chance of being wrong. Not good odds for your argument.

 

[Banjankri]

And i don't refute that. But my point is that there is reality that exists regardless of us humans. Reality and the universe had to exist before the first human brain because otherwise evolution would never have lead to the human brain in the first place.

Theoretically, from our perspective, and with the use of mental objects that we have created. Where do things start, and where do they end? We decide. Before conscious observation, no "thing" exists, everything is one... and even that is too much said.

Well religion doesn't make observations or predictions or lead to any concrete applications, unlike science. So no, not religion too.

Religion does not make observations, predictions, or applications? You are joking right?

This is just a bald faced assertion. I've been consistent with the definition i've provided and i've rebutted every attempt you've made to defeat it. When you make such a claim, you need to back it up or else it is worthless. Show me one statement where i've been inconsistent.

Look above.

From your position I glean that you think there is no such thing as truth at all.

It depends what you mean by "truth".

Generally science has come to the conclusion that 5 sigma is a good value for determining acceptable truth. 5 sigma means 1 in 5 million chance of being wrong.

Predictability, once more.

Drawing the line some where has to be arbitrary past a certain point because there are an infinite number of numbers.

Finally, you are starting to admit it.

The fallacy there is that at a certain point you don't need more accuracy to be true.

You do need it.

There is no point in getting that much accuracy, and it doesn't hurt my position at all about reality. All it means is that i have a 1 in 5 million chance of being wrong.

It is amazing how easily you have calculated precision of your position. Can you show me some exact numbers, calculations, solid foundations of this bold statement, because it sounds like a religious statement to me.

Ps. 5 sigma is 1 in 3.5 mln. Your mistake was bigger than 5 sigma.... How's that possible?

 

[thau]

The bit I bolded. Why was it not recorded by those most qualified to do so?

Because if God can suspend cosmic laws and make the sun bounce and twirl and charge the earth (as many professional unbiased witnesses saw and reported) then I imagine this same God can do it at Fatima and not for the rest of the world. He did it, did He not? He also had one Marxist journalist there to mock it fall to his knees in humility and the one he came with saw nothing. So the vast majority saw the miracle, No Doubt!, but God denied it for others. So what of it? Focus on the miracle, not those denied.

 

[thau]

So most of these accounts talk about a bunch of colors and some stellar phenomena. How did they know it was an act of God? How could they possibly know that colors and strange light meant that God did it as opposed to allah or thor or an evil alien overlord? As i mentioned earlier there are so many ways God could make a more convincing miracle that would convince everyone.

Seems a lot like a high intensity solar flare really. In fact, in 1917 there was a solar flare intense enough to know out telegraph lines. A high intensity solar flare could very easily cause strange colors and an apparently moving sun. as well as a high intensity aurora.

" August 1917 - Aurora borealis monkies with telegraph lines [Chicago Daily Tribune, August 9, 1917, p. 1]. Earth currents knock out wires [The Washington Post, August 9, 1917, p. 2]"
Archive of the most severe solar storms

There we go, theory debunked. Solar flare is infinitely more likely than miracle from God meant to amaze one city by giving a cosmic light show.

Well now isn't that interesting? One unbeliever (Nietzsche) is doubting the miracle of the sun took place because it was not observed anywhere outside of Portugal. You doubt it was a miracle because you claim it was merely another magnificent solar flare like the one recorded by various world observatories on August 9, 1917. I can see the deniers want it both ways which are directly opposed to each other, yet hoping some of their mud will stick.

Like Chesterton says ---- When man stops believing in God he then does not believe in nothing, he will believe in anything.

 

[Nietzsche]

Because if God can suspend cosmic laws and make the sun bounce and twirl and charge the earth (as many professional unbiased witnesses saw and reported) then I imagine this same God can do it at Fatima and not for the rest of the world.

But that doesn't make any sense.

He did it, did He not? He also had one Marxist journalist there to mock it fall to his knees in humility and the one he came with saw nothing. So the vast majority saw the miracle, No Doubt!, but God denied it for others. So what of it? Focus on the miracle, not those denied.

It was obviously convincing to those who did see it. My problem is why it only happened there, and not for other people to observe, and most specifically why it didn't happen for people whos' entire field of knowledge is celestial/cosmic observation.

Had they been able to view it you could then argue from a position of authority that what happened was a miracle and not some other strange but still mundane phenomena.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Given that so many different religions exist, many of which are mutually exclusive, and most claim they contain the truth of reality, the odds aren't in your favor that you picked the right religion. This is based on pure statistical analysis, and that's assuming that one religion we have is actually correct.

Most religious beliefs corresponds with geography--a religion based on truth shouldn't depend on where you're born. Islam will obviously correspond with the middle east and Christianity can be frequently found in the States.

There have also been countless religious frauds that try to take advantage of people and make money/ manipulate people with religion. Even if a religion happened to be correct at some point, its very possible that respective religion has been polluted so much over time, like telephone, that the religion doesn't even resemble anything like what it started out as. For example the original teachings of Jesus Christ vs the modern catholic faith which includes the pope and hundreds of rituals, and the various Xian sects.

Its one thing to argue that a deism God exists as a kind of philosophical entity, but its another to show that there is an intervening God who cares about what we do with our genitals and what we do with our Sundays, and wants to have an individual relationship with people. Most of the arguments given by people of faiths are all identical to each other which I find to be an amusing reflection that there aren't many good arguments beyond those for deism.

As fo religions like Buddhism and Hinduism, even though I consider Buddhism to resemble more of a philosophy, I haven't seen any convincing evidence of reincarnation or multiple Gods.

The reason there are differences among religions is because it is subjective. With subjectivity at least 2 conclusions are logically valid. Like saying the painting is ugly or beautiful, both are logically valid conclusions. Nor is there any contradiction if the one says Rembrand's painting is the most beautiful, and another says Gainsborough has the most beautiful painting.

Religion is generally about what makes decisions turn out the way they do. For that question at least 2 answers are logically valid, it is the basis of all subjectivity.

 

[thau]

But that doesn't make any sense.

It was obviously convincing to those who did see it. My problem is why it only happened there, and not for other people to observe, and most specifically why it didn't happen for people whos' entire field of knowledge is celestial/cosmic observation.

Had they been able to view it you could then argue from a position of authority that what happened was a miracle and not some other strange but still mundane phenomena.

Well imo that is not your only problem. Your problem is that you will not allow God to be God. You define God on your terms and if they do not add up for you then there is no evidence for God.

And yet, many sound, rational minds know what they observed. Scientists and atheists alike were present. Some little children predicted a miracle to happen on that exact day --- that in itself is astounding --- and the vast majority of 70,000 saw it on that very day. Do not dwell on the fact it was not seen outside of Portugal (even though it was seen 20 miles from Fatima, another important point) ---- focus on explaining the testimonies of those present, and the unbelievable stories of those three children.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Its one thing to argue that a deism God exists as a kind of philosophical entity, but its another to show that there is an intervening God who cares about what we do with our genitals and what we do with our Sundays, and wants to have an individual relationship with people. Most of the arguments given by people of faiths are all identical to each other which I find to be an amusing reflection that there aren't many good arguments beyond those for deism.

As fo religions like Buddhism and Hinduism, even though I consider Buddhism to resemble more of a philosophy, I haven't seen any convincing evidence of reincarnation or multiple Gods.

Deism is the only "religion" that doesn't rely on some form of revelation, even including Buddhism. The problem is that deists have to be agnostic about the existence of God, given the complete lack of non-hearsay evidence for or against It, but people demand emotionally satisfying answers. Doubt is a deep hole people don't like being suspended over, and prefer to close their eyes to make it magically disappear.

 

[Nietzsche]

Well imo that is not your only problem. Your problem is that you will not allow God to be God. You define God on your terms and if they do not add up for you then there is no evidence for God.

I am sorry that I expect extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims.

And yet, many sound, rational minds know what they observed. Scientists and atheists alike were present. Some little children predicted a miracle to happen on that exact day --- that in itself is astounding --- and the vast majority of 70,000 saw it on that very day.

But no astronomers. 'Scientist' and 'atheist' do not mean they are at all qualified to say that what happened was without doubt a miracle. Instead you have people who are not qualified seeing what they saw and accepting it as divine works because they don't actually know whether what they're seeing can be attributed to a wholly natural if rare event.

Also, it should be said; eyewitness testimony is the absolute worst kind of evidence you can have, regardless of the size of the group. Ask any lawyer, judge, officer or scientist and they will tell you that if all they have is an eyewitness then they don't have a case or proof for their theory. The human memory is faulty, it is over-excitable and we tend to see what we hope to see. You bring 70,000 people the majority of whom are devout and expecting to see a miracle and you'll see a miracle. There was already a bias by the vast majority of them. Add in the fact they're staring into the sky or directly at the sun and when the first person starts to see something, they start to gasp and everyone redoubles their efforts to see what they're seeing.

Eventually you will.

Do not dwell on the fact it was not seen outside of Portugal (even though it was seen 20 miles from Fatima, another important point) ---- focus on explaining the testimonies of those present, and the unbelievable stories of those three children.

I will not ignore problems with an event just because it sounds nicer for it to be divine intervention.

I know about the Fatima Three. I know that, for instance, two of their supposed prophecies were only mentioned after the events occurred and that the first one is just a description of hell.

 

[Robert Landbeck]

Your religious beliefs are probably wrong . . . "This is based on pure statistical analysis, and that's assuming that one religion we have is actually correct."

There is a much better argument to be made that "Your religious beliefs are probably wrong" but assumes that not even one tradition is correct, but I'm not questioning anyones sincerity. Yet there are many unresolved questions that tradition avoids. One big question is this: Is theology, the quest to comprehend the mind of God, a valid human intellectual endeavor? Speaking primarily of the whole of Christian tradition, it has been cracking up almost from the original institutional form was founded on all too human theological foundations. Until now there are several thousand different denominations making competing claims. Given so little agreement one can easily draw the conclusion that theology has no license to make any claims at all even while tradition continues to do so.

Another problem is the scriptural record itself. Most people realize that the Bible is a collection of material chosen and assembled by the early church so to impose doctrinal uniformity. Yet the scriptural collection is much greater than the Bible. And as more of that record is discovered, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and Gnostic Gospels, one must ask if the record is even complete as we know it today? And if it was incomplete when the early church was formed, then assumptions of interpretive competence must arise.

Another serious problem for tradition is that within the entire scriptural record, both canonical and non, there several hundred references and warnings of false teaching, false interpretation, antichrists and of course the 'arch deceiver' presumably unexposed and still at large? But as all tradition is 'theological' either everyone is right or everyone is wrong as there is no record of a specific revelation being conveyed to the early church.

The final question is thus. With so many warnings of false and deceptive and self deceptive teaching, how is it that the way and means to know for certain which is true and which is false does not exist. Certainly God must want us to know so a right choice could be made. But that choice has yet to exist, yet to be revealed! Speaking only for myself, I am convinced that what history and tradition offer is no more than a theological counterfeit.

 

[Cephus]

Because if God can suspend cosmic laws and make the sun bounce and twirl and charge the earth (as many professional unbiased witnesses saw and reported) then I imagine this same God can do it at Fatima and not for the rest of the world. He did it, did He not? He also had one Marxist journalist there to mock it fall to his knees in humility and the one he came with saw nothing. So the vast majority saw the miracle, No Doubt!, but God denied it for others. So what of it? Focus on the miracle, not those denied.

What is more rational? That God somehow suspended cosmic laws for an irrelevant light show, or that some "unbiased" witnesses (and there were none, everyone who was there was expecting to see something, hence not unbiased) saw something in the sky they couldn't explain?

Try logic. It works.

 

[serp777]

Well imo that is not your only problem. Your problem is that you will not allow God to be God. You define God on your terms and if they do not add up for you then there is no evidence for God.

And yet, many sound, rational minds know what they observed. Scientists and atheists alike were present. Some little children predicted a miracle to happen on that exact day --- that in itself is astounding --- and the vast majority of 70,000 saw it on that very day. Do not dwell on the fact it was not seen outside of Portugal (even though it was seen 20 miles from Fatima, another important point) ---- focus on explaining the testimonies of those present, and the unbelievable stories of those three children.

How interesting is it that you assume a solar flare must be a miracle? Is every solar flare a miracle of the sun? How about the aurora borealis? WHat about the solar eclipse, is that the work of God?

The stories of three children praying is HARDLY compelling evidence when we have of a solar flare that occurred during the same time period. i mean should I believe the alien abduction people or the scientologists who claimed visions just because they said so?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well imo that is not your only problem. Your problem is that you will not allow God to be God. You define God on your terms and if they do not add up for you then there is no evidence for God.

And yet, many sound, rational minds know what they observed. Scientists and atheists alike were present. Some little children predicted a miracle to happen on that exact day --- that in itself is astounding --- and the vast majority of 70,000 saw it on that very day. Do not dwell on the fact it was not seen outside of Portugal (even though it was seen 20 miles from Fatima, another important point) ---- focus on explaining the testimonies of those present, and the unbelievable stories of those three children.

Are there 70,000 reports of the incident? Were they all astronomers?

 

[serp777]

ause all the

The reason there are differences among religions is because it is subjective. With subjectivity at least 2 conclusions are logically valid. Like saying the painting is ugly or beautiful, both are logically valid conclusions. Nor is there any contradiction if the one says Rembrand's painting is the most beautiful, and another says Gainsborough has the most beautiful painting.

Religion is generally about what makes decisions turn out the way they do. For that question at least 2 answers are logically valid, it is the basis of all subjectivity.

False analogy. You're assuming that the correctness of a religion is up to opinion, which is false because religion tries to answer factual questions about where the universe came from and why we are here and that we have a purpose and that God cares about us. These kinds of factual questions are less like a painting and more like whether an unknown, arbitrary painting, which we don't know exists,and that we don't know what it looks, exists and is beautiful.

 

[serp777]

Theoretically, from our perspective, and with the use of mental objects that we have created. Where do things start, and where do they end? We decide. Before conscious observation, no "thing" exists, everything is one... and even that is too much said.


Religion does not make observations, predictions, or applications? You are joking right?


Look above.

It depends what you mean by "truth".

Predictability, once more.

Finally, you are starting to admit it.

You do need it.

It is amazing how easily you have calculated precision of your position. Can you show me some exact numbers, calculations, solid foundations of this bold statement, because it sounds like a religious statement to me.

Ps. 5 sigma is 1 in 3.5 mln. Your mistake was bigger than 5 sigma.... How's that possible?

The calculated precision of my position was more of a quip, and the point was that i accept things as truth that have a substantial amount of evidence. i don't require 100% certainty, and neither do you. You don't need 100% certainty to know the truth that jumping off a tall cliff can possibly kill or injure me. You want to keep everything in the land of the unknown for some reason. i fail to see how this is useful whatsoever or how it says anything about the original position that your religious beliefs are probably wrong.

Also name religious observations, predictions, and applications that could not have been done without religion. Science makes accurate predictions which confirm the theory and produces concrete things like computers that have value. When has theology or religion ever lead to a computer, or a new car or anything for that matter? When has theology predicted an event accurately? It has made a slew of random guesses, most of which are wrong (like that God created men and animals), and made a couple of lucky guesses (that the universe had a beginning). Selection bias then gives any lucky guess a lot of credibility for some reason. When has theology made an observation that could not have been made by any non religious person?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I haven't seen any convincing evidence of reincarnation or multiple Gods.

One can conveniently be an atheist Hindu like me. Let those who believe in Gods/Goddesses, do what they like.

 

[serp777]

One can conveniently be an atheist Hindu like me. Let those who believe in Gods/Goddesses, do what they like.

Religion without the supernatural is just philosophy. I had always thought the Hinduism relied on supernatural beliefs though.