Problems and Questions in Atheism

[Psychic Missile]

So explain all the healings, why the people (30,000-70,000) were not blinded by the vision, the drying of the land, the predictions of the second world war with the accompanied light, with the rise of communist Russia, and the many subsequent healings that have occurred at both Fatima and Lourdes (a separate vision given to St Bernadette).

The miracles were given to benefit a people, yes. But that is what miracles are given for, to benefit those who experience the miracles and for the rest of the world to take note and then convert to God for healing.

Well first off, that's not how claims work. I can't tell you I have Bigfoot in my garage and expect you to explain away why I find hairballs and footprints. A claim needs to be established before people can refute it. You are making a claim, and so you need to provide good evidence to support it. I'm not familiar with these miracle claims, and can't do anything about you just saying people were healed or predictions came true. I did read the web page you linked to, and from what I can tell I don't think that was a prediction as much as stating what was clearly happening.

What miracles are you talking about?

JM

For example, the splitting of the moon, the miracle of the seagulls, and the kamikaze typhoons wiping out two Mongol fleets.

[Roy]

I did read the web page you linked to, and from what I can tell I don't think that was a prediction as much as stating what was clearly happening.

It wasn't a prediction at all, since it wasn't recorded until the 1940s, by which time communist Russia was well established and WWII had begun.

[JohnMartin]

It wasn't a prediction at all, since it wasn't recorded until the 1940s, by which time communist Russia was well established and WWII had begun.

The prophecy of the second world war was given in the second secret, along with a prediction that the first world war would end soon. The prophecy was reportedly made in 1917.

Second secret[edit]It predicted an end to the First World War, but predicted a worse one if people did not cease offending God.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Well first off, that's not how claims work. I can't tell you I have Bigfoot in my garage and expect you to explain away why I find hairballs and footprints. A claim needs to be established before people can refute it. You are making a claim, and so you need to provide good evidence to support it. I'm not familiar with these miracle claims, and can't do anything about you just saying people were healed or predictions came true. I did read the web page you linked to, and from what I can tell I don't think that was a prediction as much as stating what was clearly happening.

It is claimed that the sun danced in the sky. To evidence this we can firstly note a picture of the event which shows many people looking into the sky, at what looks like the direction of the sun. See the picture in the left hand side, just under the text that says -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_F%C3%A1tima

Why would anyone want to look at the sun? And then claimed that looking at the sun was a miracle of the dancing sun?

JM

[Roy]

The prophecy of the second world war was given in the second secret, along with a prediction that the first world war would end soon. The prophecy was reportedly made in 1917.

"Reportedly". According to your source it was not written down until 1941.

[JohnMartin]

"Reportedly". According to your source it was not written down until 1941.

It was only wiki article to bring the event to your attention. The Wiki article is probably a mix of belief and skepticism. You may want to go there some time and see what has happened since the dancing sun miracle, to see how many subsequent healings have occurred since.

JM

[Roy]

"Reportedly". According to your source it was not written down until 1941.

It was only wiki article to bring the event to your attention. The Wiki article is probably a mix of belief and skepticism.

That wasn't from the wiki article, it was from the original source you cited which was definitely not skepticism.

[Psychic Missile]

It is claimed that the sun danced in the sky. To evidence this we can firstly note a picture of the event which shows many people looking into the sky, at what looks like the direction of the sun. See the picture in the left hand side, just under the text that says -

Why would anyone want to look at the sun? And then claimed that looking at the sun was a miracle of the dancing sun?

JM

Weren't they waiting for a miracle that they were told was to happen? Why wouldn't people staring at a sun see something strange? Your fixation on this event is awfully strange when compared to the logical arguments you began the thread with.

[JohnMartin]

Weren't they waiting for a miracle that they were told was to happen? Why wouldn't people staring at a sun see something strange? Your fixation on this event is awfully strange when compared to the logical arguments you began the thread with.

Lets us assume the skeptics are correct and the sun did not dance in the sky, but what really happened was a natural phenomena, which the skeptics think occurred. If so -

1) How did the three peasant children know that natural phenomena was going to occur at a specific time?

2) Why did so many people come together to see this so called natural phenomena, when nobody knew what to expect?

3) What drew the large crowd to Fatima when only the three peasant children told them something? In other words, what authority did the crowd see in the children for so many to come to Fatima?

4) If the event was a natural occurrence, how did the ground dry up without all the people being burnt alive by the intense energy required to remove all the water from the ground?

5) After the event, the press published stories that claimed a miracle had happened. The event was witnessed by a mixed crowd of believers, and unbelievers, and brought abut conversions to the Catholic faith. Why would such follow up events occur if the event was only a natural phenomena?

JM

[Psychic Missile]

Lets us assume the skeptics are correct and the sun did not dance in the sky, but what really happened was a natural phenomena, which the skeptics think occurred. If so -

1) How did the three peasant children know that natural phenomena was going to occur at a specific time?

2) Why did so many people come together to see this so called natural phenomena, when nobody knew what to expect?

3) What drew the large crowd to Fatima when only the three peasant children told them something? In other words, what authority did the crowd see in the children for so many to come to Fatima?

4) If the event was a natural occurrence, how did the ground dry up without all the people being burnt alive by the intense energy required to remove all the water from the ground?

5) After the event, the press published stories that claimed a miracle had happened. The event was witnessed by a mixed crowd of believers, and unbelievers, and brought abut conversions to the Catholic faith. Why would such follow up events occur if the event was only a natural phenomena?

JM

1) If the natural phenomena was "people's vision being messed up after staring at the sun" then the time doesn't matter.

2) From what I could tell, those children had become local darlings. They said to show up, so people did.

3) The same bogus authority that all organized religion utilizes.

4) I don't know what you're talking about.

5) The press publishes stories about UFOs. It sells. Or maybe the press was just as gullible as the rest of the attendees. Faith healers also bring on conversion both in spite of and because of their chicanery.

[Doug Shaver]

Or maybe the press was just as gullible as the rest of the attendees.

It was, and still is, except I prefer the word "credulous" to "gullible". I used to be a newspaper reporter. I learned during those years that some journalists are more skeptical than the average person, but most aren't.

[Psychic Missile]

It was, and still is, except I prefer the word "credulous" to "gullible". I used to be a newspaper reporter. I learned during those years that some journalists are more skeptical than the average person, but most aren't.

Exactly, The newspaper would have wanted to report on something spectacular, religion would have motivated people to buy a copy, asking questions would draw ire from the populace, and the reporters were probably believers themselves. Too bad we haven't had any miracles of solar locomotion since everyone started carrying video cameras in their pockets so we wouldn't have to rely on century-old accounts by people with plenty of incentive to avoid skepticism.

[JohnMartin]

1) How did the three peasant children know that natural phenomena was going to occur at a specific time?

1) If the natural phenomena was "people's vision being messed up after staring at the sun" then the time doesn't matter.

The skeptics posit a natural phenomena that caused the sun to dance. How did the children know when this natural phenomena, which is explained as the dancing of the sun, would occur? They didn't know, so they must have been told. Who told them? The woman from heaven?

2) Why did so many people come together to see this so called natural phenomena, when nobody knew what to expect?

2) From what I could tell, those children had become local darlings. They said to show up, so people did.

From what you can tell . . . You're joking. Those little children reported having seen a woman from heaven who spoke to them and told them secrets. Those children were understood by the people as mediators of messages from heaven. That's why they showed up, and the miracle backed up the children's messages.

3) What drew the large crowd to Fatima when only the three peasant children told them something? In other words, what authority did the crowd see in the children for so many to come to Fatima?

3) The same bogus authority that all organized religion utilizes.

Apparently the media/Masonic government at the time was hostile to the Church. Those children were nobodies in a nothing area of poor Portugal. Fatima was a wasteland, yet these children were able to draw such a crowd, all done without the children having an education.

4) If the event was a natural occurrence, how did the ground dry up without all the people being burnt alive by the intense energy required to remove all the water from the ground?

4) I don't know what you're talking about.

The dancing of the sun produced an effect which dried up the ground around the crowd. Such a drastic change from wet to dry ground requires a large amount of energy, which should have affected the crowd, but did not.

5) After the event, the press published stories that claimed a miracle had happened. The event was witnessed by a mixed crowd of believers, and unbelievers, and brought abut conversions to the Catholic faith. Why would such follow up events occur if the event was only a natural phenomena?

5) The press publishes stories about UFOs. It sells. Or maybe the press was just as gullible as the rest of the attendees. Faith healers also bring on conversion both in spite of and because of their chicanery.

Where are the examples within the press of a counter story. If the miracle was true and witnessed by thousands, such counter testimony would have been easily answered.

Skepticism cannot take into account all of the evidence of the events at the miracle of the dancing sun and miraculous healings since that event.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Exactly, The newspaper would have wanted to report on something spectacular, religion would have motivated people to buy a copy, asking questions would draw ire from the populace, and the reporters were probably believers themselves. Too bad we haven't had any miracles of solar locomotion since everyone started carrying video cameras in their pockets so we wouldn't have to rely on century-old accounts by people with plenty of incentive to avoid skepticism.

There is always a reason to deny the miracle. The latest is miracles don't occur when men have videos. Let me guess, if men had videos, the miracles would be accounted for a doctored videos. If miracles were shown to all men, such would be reduced to some previously unknown psychological disorder. Whatever happens a miracle must be discounted, for no event is permitted to breach the principle of naturalism.

JM

[JohnMartin]

It was, and still is, except I prefer the word "credulous" to "gullible". I used to be a newspaper reporter. I learned during those years that some journalists are more skeptical than the average person, but most aren't.

I wonder why the skeptic thinks a report of a miracle that has a large amount of eye witness testimony is gullibility on the part of the news paper, when the skeptic simply has no strong counter arguments to the eye witness reports of the dancing sun miracle and many subsequent miracles. Is it not more likely that the skeptic is being incredulous where incredulity is not warranted?

If miracles have occurred in history, what amount and what type of evidence is required for the skeptic to change from an unbeliever to a believer? Is there any objective criteria, or is there ever only subjective criteria? If so, isn't skepticism merely the irrational and non objective opinion of an unbeliever?

JM