Problems and Questions in Atheism

[Doug Shaver]

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

I told you why: I used to work for newspapers. I know what kind of evidence the average reporter needs to induce him to write, "This event was witnessed by a large number of people."

[JohnMartin]

I told you why: I used to work for newspapers. I know what kind of evidence the average reporter needs to induce him to write, "This event was witnessed by a large number of people."

Its a fallacy to say that because some reporters abuse their power that all reports of miracles are then the result of the same abuse of power. Not everything reported is a lie. Hence when a large number of witnesses see the sun dance, how can such a claim be ignored on its own terms, without the skeptic projecting his own experience into the reporting of the event? Skepticism that does such, is itself a self fulfilling, skeptic based prophecy. The skeptic sees false reports and says to himself all subsequent reports must be false, regardless of the number of witnesses. Hence the self fulfilling prophecy problem.

The problem is so real that if the skeptic applied the same principle to all witnessed events, no crimes would ever be solved, for all witnesses are false and all reports are simply following upon false reports. Of course reality does not function this way, and hence to dismiss the testimony of many witnesses to the Fatima miracle is itself to act fallaciously.

JM

[Doug Shaver]

Its a fallacy to say that because some reporters abuse their power that all reports of miracles are then the result of the same abuse of power.

Of course it's a fallacy, but that is not what I'm saying. I said nothing about abuse of power and nothing about all reports of miracles.

Not everything reported is a lie.

I'm not calling anything a lie. When I read a news story that I don't believe, I don't assume it's a lie. I assume it's a mistake.

Hence when a large number of witnesses see the sun dance

You're assuming that when some reporter says a large number of witnesses saw something, then that is exactly what happened. I don't assume that.

[Psychic Missile]

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?

It is my understanding that Lucia Santos only said that a miracle would occur and gave no specifications. Anything unusual happening amongst a crowd of thousands would have "proven" her right.

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.

Right, they said things people liked to hear. They were local darlings. That's what I said.

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.

They said they saw the Virgin Mary and people believed them. Lots of people believe liars. It's nothing unusual.

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.

Are you saying rainwater can't evaporate without the ground catching fire?

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.

I wouldn't know if they even exist or not because this event seems to be poorly documented based on my online searching. What primary sources are you basing your conclusion of a miracle on?

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

What evidence? You weren't there, no recordings of the event exist, no corroborating scientific measurements occurred. Your proof rests solely on hearsay.

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

Well, we need to ask what the point of a miracle is. If it is only to affect a single person or small group of people, then why should anyone try to prove it occurred? If it is to convert unbelievers, it seems blasphemous to say that a monotheist god is incapable of bold action. This thread is based on problems with atheism. It's no problem for a skeptic to ask for more evidence than reports by people invested in a single account of an event. It's no problem for a skeptic to ask for evidence so that they, too, can witness the supposed miracle, if possible. It's no problem for a skeptic to be very strict in their standards of evidence when it means believing in what would amount to the greatest find in scientific history.

There are plenty of scientific theories that faced an uphill battle and are still not accepted by many people. That's not a problem with the theories, that a problem with people, both lost causes and those lead astray. The evidence stands on its own, and those interested in finding the truth, AKA the scientific community, will follow that evidence. For many atheists, their rejection of a god or gods is based on their scientific proclivity, so it only makes sense for any conversion to be based on an appropriate standard of evidence. There's no reason why any religious claim should be held to a different standard than a scientific claim.

[JohnMartin]

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?

It is my understanding that Lucia Santos only said that a miracle would occur and gave no specifications. Anything unusual happening amongst a crowd of thousands would have "proven" her right.

And there was something unusual, and it occurred just when she said it would occur. How did she know that something would occur when it did, when the skeptic thinks nothing happened.

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.

Right, they said things people liked to hear. They were local darlings. That's what I said.

But then again, why would anyone want to follow them when they saw a vision of hell?

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.

They said they saw the Virgin Mary and people believed them. Lots of people believe liars. It's nothing unusual.

No. The entire crowd saw something (the sun dance) and that is what the newspapers reported.

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.

Are you saying rainwater can't evaporate without the ground catching fire?

The immense energy required to dry up the ground without any effect on the men standing on the ground is itself a miracle.

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.

I wouldn't know if they even exist or not because this event seems to be poorly documented based on my online searching. What primary sources are you basing your conclusion of a miracle on?

From the Wiki website, it is stated that Fr John de Marchi completed a lengthy investigation of the miracles at Fatima, which he claims were reported in a pro-government newspaper.

THE TRUE STORY OF FATIMA
Father John de Marchi, I.M.C,
In the journal, O Seculohttp://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/tsfatima.htm

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
What evidence? You weren't there, no recordings of the event exist, no corroborating scientific measurements occurred. Your proof rests solely on hearsay.

See some of the evidence on the website above.

JM

[Psychic Missile]

From the Wiki website, it is stated that Fr John de Marchi completed a lengthy investigation of the miracles at Fatima, which he claims were reported in a pro-government newspaper.

See some of the evidence on the website above.

JM

Let's look at the conditions for this miracle. It was localized to one area, it involved no precise imagery or prediction, it involved a crowd of thousands, the crowd was searching for a miracle for hours, it involved meteorological phenomena and people staring at the sun, and the weather was conducive to a solar mirage. Our source of information is biased and prone to histrionics, as evidenced by his writings, and who has multiple stakes in his investigation proving the miracles true. There is also precedence for a crowd of people seeing something that is extraordinary that turns out to be something ordinary, specifically with UFO sightings. With all of these issues, you still think it intellectually honest to accept this event as sole proof of a god's existence?

[JohnMartin]

Let's look at the conditions for this miracle. It was localized to one area, it involved no precise imagery or prediction, it involved a crowd of thousands, the crowd was searching for a miracle for hours, it involved meteorological phenomena and people staring at the sun, and the weather was conducive to a solar mirage. Our source of information is biased and prone to histrionics, as evidenced by his writings, and who has multiple stakes in his investigation proving the miracles true. There is also precedence for a crowd of people seeing something that is extraordinary that turns out to be something ordinary, specifically with UFO sightings. With all of these issues, you still think it intellectually honest to accept this event as sole proof of a god's existence?

No I don't. It is only some of the evidence against naturalism, which denies the existence of the supernatural. Your explanation does not do justice to what was reported to have happened.

JM

[Psychic Missile]

No I don't. It is only some of the evidence against naturalism, which denies the existence of the supernatural. Your explanation does not do justice to what was reported to have happened.

JM

How is my explanation in error?

What other evidence is there?

[JohnMartin]

How is my explanation in error?

What other evidence is there?

You think the Fatima event is the sole evidence for the existence of God, when I was not arguing for the existence of God. I was arguing for evidence that overturns the naturalist world view that excludes the super natural.

The Fatima event was well documented by Catholics, non Catholics and those hostile to the Catholic faith. You have attempted to reduce the miracle down to a group of naive individuals who wanted something to happen. The truth is that the audience was a mixed group that contained members who were hostile to the faith. The miraculous event changed them and reports have stated some converted to the Catholic faith.

Why would an entire, large body of men look at the sun? What a strange thing to do when men are naturally averse from looking at the sun. You have to posit a strong reason why so many would look directly at the sun when men naturally look away from the sun.

You also have to posit a reason to explain how the ground was dried after the event, when so many saw it happen. In effect you have to propose a reason which has better testimony than those who saw the miracle.

This video entitled The Miracle of the Sun in Fatima October 13, 1917, shows the sequence of events. The video is accompanied by a commentary concerning the sequence of events here.

Ten Greatest (And Hilarious) Scientific Explanations for Miracle at Fatima shows some of the explanations given for Fatima by unbelievers and why those explanations are false.

Apparently the miracle was predicted three months ahead of time. See Marian Miracles for further details -

At Fatima, the Mother of God appeared at noon on the 13th of the months of May through October. When asked by Lucia to "work a miracle so everybody will believe that you are appearing to us," Our Lady answered: "In October I will perform a miracle for all to see and believe."

What we have then is a promise from heaven, made at least three months in advance, to perform a miracle at a precise day, hour, and place so that all may believe. Tens of thousands came to the top of the mountain near Fatima in 1917. Secular newspapers of Lisbon, which were anti-religion, had reporters there. To their credit they reported objectively what they saw.

You also have to explain all the subsequent miraculous healings that have taken place at Fatima subsequent to the event.

There are also other Marian miracles discussed at Lourdes and Guadeloupe.

There is simply too much evidence for Marian miracles around the world to dismiss.

JM

[Psychic Missile]

You think the Fatima event is the sole evidence for the existence of God, when I was not arguing for the existence of God. I was arguing for evidence that overturns the naturalist world view that excludes the super natural.

The Fatima event was well documented by Catholics, non Catholics and those hostile to the Catholic faith. You have attempted to reduce the miracle down to a group of naive individuals who wanted something to happen. The truth is that the audience was a mixed group that contained members who were hostile to the faith. The miraculous event changed them and reports have stated some converted to the Catholic faith.

Why would an entire, large body of men look at the sun? What a strange thing to do when men are naturally averse from looking at the sun. You have to posit a strong reason why so many would look directly at the sun when men naturally look away from the sun.

You also have to posit a reason to explain how the ground was dried after the event, when so many saw it happen. In effect you have to propose a reason which has better testimony than those who saw the miracle.

This video entitled The Miracle of the Sun in Fatima October 13, 1917, shows the sequence of events. The video is accompanied by a commentary concerning the sequence of events here.

Ten Greatest (And Hilarious) Scientific Explanations for Miracle at Fatima shows some of the explanations given for Fatima by unbelievers and why those explanations are false.

Apparently the miracle was predicted three months ahead of time. See Marian Miracles for further details -

You also have to explain all the subsequent miraculous healings that have taken place at Fatima subsequent to the event.

There are also other Marian miracles discussed at Lourdes and Guadeloupe.

There is simply too much evidence for Marian miracles around the world to dismiss.

JM

[JohnMartin]

If someone told you to look at the sun, you would only do it if there was something unusual happening with the sun. Why? Because you know from experience that looking at the sun would cause harm to your eyes. By the crowd looking at the sun you can easily conclude there must have been something very unusual occurring with the sun. Then we have reports of the sun dancing and changing colour after the event. Hence the crowd looked at the sun, for about ten minutes, and during that time the sun produced effects that were out of the norm. This is strong evidence for a miracle.

You should have good evidence before you try to make an argument. One person's testimony from an event one hundred years ago is not good evidence. A web page with an uncritical eye and no credentials is not good evidence. Individuals saying they saw the Virgin Mary is not good evidence. Just as much evidence exists for UFOs and Bigfoot. At this point, it seems pretty transparent that your evidence is based on post hoc justification for a viewpoint you are uncritical of, or in other words, you are being intellectually dishonest.

Or the accounts are all true and you don't have any good reason to reject such accounts.

Unless you wish to remedy the problems with your argument, I don't see a point to continuing this discussion.

As you please. You could also do your own research.

JM

[JohnMartin]

A good discussion on the historical fact of the Fatima miracle is found at

The Miracle of the Sun at Fatima: Indisputable Historic Fact with Peter Chojnowski

Peter Chojnowski details the historical situation in Portugal, the sufferings of the children at Fatima and the miracles that occurred at Fatima.

JM

[shunyadragon]

The arguments for atheism is clearly more meaningful, rational and logical than then the above meaningless verbosity.

[JohnMartin]

The arguments for atheism is clearly more meaningful, rational and logical than then the above meaningless verbosity.

Go ahead and present a couple of those rational arguments for atheism so we can discuss them.

JM

[shunyadragon]

Go ahead and present a couple of those rational arguments for atheism so we can discuss them.

JM

We have no objective falsifiable evidence for any other worldview. It is based on Methodological Naturalism, and like all world views must make the philosophical step beyond the evidence, and assume Philosophical Naturalism.