You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

OrwellKnew ago

Catholics are evil. I know because I was (unfortunately) one

edit: Apologies. I should have said "the Catholic church". There are many great people in the church. The organization itself is evil. Especially the Jesuit order

mrjdouble ago

Check it out, some truth here. If you support filth, you are filth.

btw, are we all aware of the fact that the catholic church likely created Islam, which has lead to most of the worlds disputes since then?

Votescam ago

CIA: "Catholics in Action"

catslovejustice ago

Just certain ones.

fogdryer ago

Oh stop Not all Catholics are evil. I am not evil. There is an oblivious coverup. They get away with it cuz we don't scream loud enough Who was on that trip with him

OrwellKnew ago

My apologies. I was being hasty and careless with my remarks. Edited for clarity

ALDO_NOVA ago

the people....no - the church? YES

OrwellKnew ago

Yes, of course. I was being hasty and careless with my remarks. Edited for clarity

whorsquini ago

Yeah this is false. There is a reason the Catholic Church was chosen for infiltration around Vatican II. You need to do some more research on Catholicism deeper than the embedded pedos as of late. I am a Catholic and have challenged my faith. I came back because of the loads of observable corroborated miracles like Fatima 1917, the tilma of Guadalupe, various Eucharistic miracles, as well as the writings of the early Church (The ante-Nicean fathers - first three centuries), who wrote about the Church is a decidedly Catholic tone when dealing with the Bishop as Pope, the Eucharist as literal body and blood, liturgical practices, etc.

antiracistNew ago

corroborated miracles like Fatima 1917, the tilma of Guadalupe, various Eucharistic miracles

Faaaaaake.

@SarMegahhikkitha @bojangles @eagleshigh

whorsquini ago

Very easily said. It is more difficult to actually research. Nice touch getting your pals in an attempt to gang up. What are we Scientologists?

Guadalupe, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Guadalupe#Beliefs_and_miracles -(it survived for hundreds of years longer than the fabric can possibly survive, it survived bombing, the "ink" overlays the fabric and does not even touch it, the eyes show detail impossible for the medium) Fatima, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun -(attested to by over 70,000 including those who went to mock it, it was pre-announced, it was raining and clothes were dried, best skeptics can say is that the sun didn't move in other areas, which does not address the tens of thousands of corroboration of a miraculous pre-announced event) Latest Eucharistic miracle, http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/polands-eucharistic-miracle-placed-in-reliquary -(verified by university of Wroclaw) Here is a small example of the the first century Church believed, http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

Antiracist10 ago

I call them to a lot of my posts, not to gang up on you.

The sun didn't move in other locations.

Despite there being skeptics and newspapers, there weren't videos or photographs.

Mass hallucination is a thing.

A poor town brings in religious tourism.

The eucharist which appears to be heart muscle didn't have more rigorous tests performed, for example determining the sex and the genetic heritage.

When something is left behind closed doors, it is easy for someone to tamper with.

Naturalistic explanations are more probable than miraculous ones.

Other religions have the same sort of miracles.

Why would god perform a miracle to the faithful who already have faith, but not to the faithless? If he wanted, he could make his miracles louder and bigger and more certain to all.

@SarMegahhikkitha @bojangles @eagleshigh

whorsquini ago

Mass Hallucination is less likely than a miracle. For a miracle to be shown true all you have to do is show an outside force intervened in the laws of nature. Much like the unlikelihood of a card being guessed after being pulled from a deck of cards one merely needs just show the card for proof. If you can't get behind 70,000+ including hard core skeptics seeing the event (which destroys mass hallucination) and the clothes being dried then you are not familiar enough with epistemology. The sun not moving in other locations has nothing to do with a miracles in a particular location, which was also PRE-ANNOUNCED. The vision could have been sun-like and is easily amended/elaborated upon because it is much more likely something actually happened than the crowd was hallucinating. Here is the google image result for primary images of the event, https://www.google.com/search?q=miracle+of+the+sun+skeptic+newspaper&biw=1760&bih=864&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLsuaDnrHRAhUI6oMKHX7JCbIQ_AUICCgD#imgrc=_

Just because there is not MORE evidence in the Eucharistic miracle does not take away from the strength of the tests a professional lab conducted. If you you more information you can contact the lab. I also would point out the consistence with blood type these miracles have with the shroud of Turin.

On miracles and proof see my point above and the card analogy. They also do not violate natural laws as to always be less likely than naturalistic explanations. A miracle is God acting upon the causal natural system.

No other religion has the roots in history as the Judeo/Christian one. All others can only be shown as far as myth stories. As Tolkein said, Christianity is the only "true myth" insofar as it sounds like a myth story but actually has historical roots (I would reference Dr. Gary Habermas' minimal facts argument for the Resurrection where he uses only the data that around 95% of critical historians allow to make his inference, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay_Db4RwZ_M)). Other outside miracles therefore would be on the demonic side given the unique and solid historical foundation of the Judeo/Christian and would be consistent within its framework.

Just because you do not like the evidence we have and want more/other does not take away from its strength. It only means we have no foundation for discussion

Antiracist10 ago

then you are not familiar enough with epistemology.

Hurf durf.

"You don't even understand null hypothesis, or apparently, epistemology." ~~~ Idiot @Crensch

@SarMegahhikkitha @bojangles @eagleshigh

Mass Hallucination is less likely than a miracle.

Math plz.

Just because there is not MORE evidence in the Eucharistic miracle does not take away from the strength of the tests a professional lab conducted.

Talking to plants makes them grow.

https://www.changeyourenergy.com/videos/detail/1084/Thought-Energy-and-Onion-Power-An-Experiment-in-Love

whorsquini ago

What I expected. Hurf durf.... Idiot.... Classic.

The only think worth replying to is that I do not need to show the "math" comparing two abductive arguments (mass hallucination versus an outside agent upon nature) because the issue on your end is an a prioi assumption that naturalistic explanations are always more likely than a miracle. It is a mistake to assume that because the presumed premise of God undermining natural law is false. God acts upon natural law as an agent.

You do not like the evidence so you are attacking from behind assumptions (nature always being more viable) and lack of precise information not available (you can contact the lab that examined the host) as to not address the links. Check out Habermas when you have some time to kill. Keep up the pizzagate research.

antiracistNew ago

then you are not familiar enough with epistemology.

https://voat.co/v/MeanwhileOnReddit/comments/795109/3968779

The only think worth replying to is that I do not need to show the "math" comparing two abductive arguments ... because the issue on your end is an a prioi assumption that naturalistic explanations are always more likely than a miracle.

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

you can contact the lab that examined the host

The lab results aren't the problem. Tampering before it went to the lab is the problem.

@SarMegahhikkitha @bojangles @eagleshigh

whorsquini ago

I see from the deleted Voat link you sent me that you are truly a class act. This will be my last reply given what you have shown me.

Before we move to statistics, which is not required by an normal person in an informal online disagreement comparing two sets of data (mass hallucination versus outside agent acting on nature, where one merely needs to metaphorically show the guessed card as in my earlier analogy), we have the a prioi assumption of nature always overriding a miracle, which is a bad assumption. Moving on from there, hypothetically we can never establish a reference or baseline because you would never accept a miracle given the a prori assumption about naturalism. It would also be really difficult to show an established mass hallucination case where there are hard core skeptics present, so we end up coming back to an informal argument about two sets of data where you prefer to hurl insults.

If you have a problem or suspicion about the lab then take it up with the lab. Your random suspicion is not my problem.

antiracistNew ago

I didn't insult you, buddy.